Who is Althouse? * View only LAW posts * Contribute * Use my Amazon Portal
Talk about not-so-subliminal advertising! Do you think they do that quite consciously and deliberately?
amba: Yes, they do.
Obama looks the least stupid, so they want him to be President? I thought the NYT wanted HRC.The article explains why no Orthodox Jew will ever be President: “There are few things more personal than eating,” he said, “and if you reject someone’s food, you kind of reject them.”And Maxine, the subliminal advertising in Ann's statement is"Deedle deedle dumpling,My son John.Went to bed withhis stockings onOne shoe off,One shoe on,Deedle deedle dumpling,My son John."
For non-American readers, voila, le gastronomique marvel--corndogOr as they are known in Japan...Furankufuruto ni Amerikan doggu!
Look if Hillary really knew how to wrap her lips around a hot dog, we would have been spared a lot of foolishness the last twenty years.Sheeeeesh!
Trooper, I think that crosses the line of taste and decency.
Ann Althouse said: How I know who the NYT wants to be President. I looked at these 3 photos.Crazy talk.
Thank you. Mission Accomplished.
The contrast between the 3 photos is truly striking. Think of the time spent finding the unflattering picture of Rudy and Hilary and the flattering one of Obama. It just shows you can't look Presidential while stuffing food in your mouth.And the problem with the Clinton's is that certain images are always going to bring to mind certain misdeeds. Hence, Troopers post.
The NYT wants HRC but wants to pretend otherwise.
This is absolutely correct. Of course if she eats a fish taco that would certainly open a whole new area of inquiry. She should stick to salad. Chopped not tossed.
This set of photos means the NYT wants Obama?PLEASEThe inevitable Times editorial endorsing Hillary in the NY primary has already been written.The real test of how to read the Times intentions is to look at the front page stories the Times has done on each of the candidates - and how FAVORABLE the headlines and first paragraph are - this is the method Columbia University and MIT use when gaging positive/negative coverage on candidates after the races are over.Every candidate story on the Front Page of the Times - including the web edition - has been negatively worded in the headline or first paragraph for every candidate several times - with one exception:HILLARY.Not one - ONE - negatively worded headline or first paragraph in the Times since she announced for Pres.Obama - they wish, but they're realists, too. It's a Hillary campaign paper, all the way.
Trooper, as much as anything, it's the blaming the victim - even in jest - that I object to. I obviously make my fair share of Hillary innuendo, much of it sincere, but I think there's an obvious limit to what and to what end's acceptable.
Simon,I'm in total agreement. I am in now way a Clinton supporter, but I always flinch when the cigar, et al jokes start. I figure Trooper's wit is far better than that.
er, that's "in NO way a Clinton supporter".I didn't have revelation or "saw the light" about the rightness of either Clinton.
I appreciate what you are saying Simon, but you know comedy is ugly. If you don't believe me I can email you a picture of a naked Rosie O'Donnell eating a clam. I think we have to agree to disagree
Trooper,Get back to the stolen material.Your original stuff is infantile.
Speaking of Presidents and the lies their minions tell:20,000 vets' brain injuries not listed in Pentagon tallyAt least 20,000 U.S. troops who were not classified as wounded during combat in Iraq and Afghanistan have been found with signs of brain injuries, according to military and veterans records compiled by USA TODAY.The data, provided by the Army, Navy and Department of Veterans Affairs, show that about five times as many troops sustained brain trauma as the 4,471 officially listed by the Pentagon through Sept. 30. These cases also are not reflected in the Pentagon's official tally of wounded, which stands at 30,327.*And we're discussing pictures of candidates and what they eat.
GOP senator ‘underwhelmed’ by Bush on Iraq “I was in the White House a number of times to talk about the issue, and I may rankle some in the room saying this, but I was very underwhelmed with what discussions took place at the White House,” Bob Corker, Senator from Tennessee, said. A few minutes later during a question and answer session a man in the audience asked him to clarify his statement. “I was concerned about your statement that you were underwhelmed with what was going on in the White House. Did you mean with him or with his staff?” In response, Corker said, “Let me say this. George Bush is a very compassionate person. He’s a very good person. And a lot of people don’t see that in him, and there’s many people in this room who might disagree with that…. I just felt a little bit underwhelmed by our discussions, the complexity of them, the depth of them.”*Hey, but don't we want to know what Bush was EATING during the discussions?
Trooper, on my list of "one hundred things to avoid ever seeing before I die," Rosie O'Donnell naked is somewhere in the top twenty. Hillary doesn't make that list, of course.
Luckyoldson said... "And we're discussing pictures of candidates and what they eat."Which, since it was in the NYT, was evidently all the news that was fit to print.
"And we're discussing pictures of candidates and what they eat."No, we're discussing journalism and the way image is used to manipulate the minds of the electorate.
Ann Althouse said... "No, we're discussing journalism and the way image is used to manipulate the minds of the electorate."Much as with the polar bears.
The Times article was pretty good about the subject of food and candidates. They are all on diets, willingly or unwillingly. The prevailing wisdom, said by loser of 110 pounds Huckabee is that obesity in a candidate suggests lack of discipline. (Richardson says he exercises and his doctors have pronounced him "amazingly fit".) All also have to abide by the rules of eating local stuff on the trail presented to them and pronouncing it good....and showing that they are not John Kerry ...."I'd like swiss on that sandwich, and perhaps an Evian or Perrier.." talking to the guy making a Philly cheesesteak for him. And the Times remembers a miscue of Ford trying to eat the corn husk wrapper on a tamale. Obama, Huckabee, Romney, and Edwards are regular runners. Romney is supposedly "remarkably fit" in a different way than Richards - and has the blandest diet that would bore Althouse to tears if she had to photograph what he eats more than two days. Whatever Romney spends his money on, it's sure not food and wine.Huckabee has the more inspirational life story unless Edwards comes out and says he dedicates his running to the children and to a breast cancer cure - so applaud him for his courage and committment as he jogs.Outside the Times article, no culinary miscues so far other than Romney flipping a burger off the grill at an event and evoking the 5-second rule and slapping the burger back on before horrified handlers could stop him.
Also - I hate to say it, but poor Hillary has to stay away from gnawing on big black phallic symbol food and any kind of taco...just because.And maybe Rudy shouldn't show so much Paisan Joy about a slice of pizza he looks ready to fellate after teasing it a bit with his little pink tongue...(I wonder if the Pizza Parties Rudy had with his 2 gay roomates as he was getting a divorce had the 3 of them showing the sensuous art of pizza foreplay to one another.)The NY Times of course wants Hillary! and Rudy! as does most of the NYC-centered MSM - in part to help reconfirm their place in the Center of the Universe where Everything Happens! And if voters are disgusted, their idea of variety is a 3rd New Yorker - Bloomberg.The tilt of the pictures towards Obama was only a moment of food insanity. Perhaps the Times even had a strategy: "But-It-Humanizes-Her!" Not like her being spotted drinking a can of Pennzoil 10-40W.If the Times was after her, they could run a picture of her huge butt - which is hard to miss and requires photogs at the Times and elsewhere to edit "unflattering shots". That is, any photo with her butt in it.Nor is the Times exactly keen to excavate the truth about Hillary's claim to have vast executive leadership experience compared to Obama.
Ann Althouse said..."No, we're discussing the way image is used to manipulate the minds of the electorate."Oh, please.Are you actually implying Americans are so unsophisticated (or downright dumb) that they'll vote for the candidate that adheres to a diet of which they approve or they themselves indulge...based on a snapshot they see in the paper?That's a crock and you know it.And by the way, the article makes it sound like they have a tough time finding the time to actually eat a regular (healthy) meal because of their scheduling anyway..and what candidate isn't going to at least make it look like they also eat whatever the targeted voter is eating?They kiss babies for the same reason.
Cedarford said.."Also - I hate to say it, but poor Hillary has to stay away from gnawing on big black phallic symbol food and any kind of taco...just because."Why?Because ignorant of fools like you or Trooper...will see an opportunity to post inane comments?She's not looking for yours or Trooper's vote...she's looking for people who are more concerned with the state of the nation.
Simon,You don't like polar bears?Would rather not see the effects of global warming?Got kids?
"Are you actually implying Americans are so unsophisticated (or downright dumb) that they'll vote for the candidate that adheres to a diet of which they approve or they themselves indulge...based on a snapshot they see in the paper?"No, Ann is not saying that, but the Times apparently thinks it's true.And it is not a stretch to say that the Times is pushing the farthest left (viable) candidate.
Joe,Read the article.
Lucky - Trooper York was making a coarse, but witty observation that Hillary has baggage.In your humorless Lefty self-righteousness, all you manage to communicate is that you are tedious..So woe to Hillary if she ever is offered a taco and her handlers do not get rid of it before she is photo'd homing in on it with her tongue hanging out.Or Romney handing a beer to an aide.It's not fair, but it is what it is. Hissy-fitting Lefty self-righteous temper tantrums nonwithstanding..
I should have been more precise. What I meant was, the most flattering photo was that of Obama and the Times is well aware of the power of images.
Luckyoldson said..."Simon, You don't like polar bears?"Of course. They go very well with rice and a cabernet."Got kids?"Yes, which is why I don't want to scuttle their future by shipwrecking the economy chasing phantom carbon footprints.Cedarford, I promise to vote for any candidate who'll sip from a glass of Sam Adams rather than water throughout the debates. Honestly, spiking the drinks would improve some of these events.
Insight?! Haha. Jon apparently does not understand that something called photo editors pick the photos. So when he says, incoherently, that "the NYT" wants a certain candidate, does he mean the photo editor?! Come on. Althouse claptrap certainly has been passed along to the Althouse offspring,
Cedarford said..."Lucky - Trooper York was making a coarse, but witty observation that Hillary has baggage."Which part did you find "witty"...and what "baggage?"
Simon,You don't believe in evolution either, do you?
Lucy, what would make you think that I don't?
Journalism 101 said..."Althouse claptrap certainly has been passed along to the Althouse offspring,"No...this thread discussion is very, very deep.*Anybody see the picture of the turkey taking a nip out of Bus's pecker last Thanksgiving? Maybe that's why he got the overwhelming turkey vote...?
Your inane comment regarding global warming.Science appears to be beyond your scope of understanding.Hopefully your kids aren't being home schooled.
I fail to see the comparison. Evolution is a theory that comports with all available evidence; Christians, for example, can rationally question it because their belief system accounts for the evidence, while I as an agnostic without a countervailing theory of my own am basically stuck with the orthodoxy. But climate change is a theory whose rationales are brokered by committee, and whose proponents are unable or unwilling to answer a question that carves the heart out of their theory. I'm not a climate change skeptic, but I do believe in the scientific method, and too much of climate change rests on a departure from that.
Simon said..."I fail to see the comparison."Well, evolution is based on "science"...and global warming is based on "science."At least according to about 95% of the people who study such things.Why not just tell it like it is: You don't want to believe in global warming because you're a wing nut and it's not permitted.
LOS: "Are you actually implying Americans are so unsophisticated (or downright dumb) that they'll vote for the candidate that ...."Question for you: Why did the Hillary campaign put out that Joe Mack ad?
Lucy, I don't consider myself a climate change skeptic, and I didn't become even slightly skeptical until it became clear that proponents have no answer to an incredibly basic question of cause and effect that demands an answer. And in any event, while I may or may not be a wingnut, I think you'd be forced to be even more dishonest than normal to argue that I don't frequently take positions that do not toe the VWRC line. Indeed, I can cite a post-level example from this week. Can you cite a comment of yours that deviates from liberal orthodoxy?
Simon says: "...climate change is a theory whose rationales are brokered by committee..."Right."Committees" made up of scientists.How about this: I'll give you $10 for every scientist you can come up with that "doesn't" believe in global warming...and you give me $10 for every one I can provide that "does."Sound reasonable?I'll lead off with the HUNDREDS of scientists who took part in the International Panel on Climate Change.Okay...now you:
Ann,I'm familiar with this:Monday, November 19, 2007Clinton Airs "Joe Ward" AdToday, Hillary Clinton became the fourth presidential candidate to announce that they are airing a new television ad.Clinton's new ad, titled "Joe Ward," "features the story of a father who called on Senator Clinton for help when insurance companies refused to pay for life-saving medical treatment for his son."
Simon says...(with a straight face?)..."...while I may or may not be a wingnut..."For God's sake...you post a picture of Scalia as your hero, and you comments run far to the right...What else would one be lead to believe??
Simon,This is your example of not being a wing nut?"I can't get too worked up about this because I'm skeptical about the Constitutional validity of modern recess appointment practice."After what we've seen in the past 7 years...this is the dramatic stand you take?Laughable at best.Give it up.
Lucy, science is not brokered in committee. Period. Horse-trading on the language of the IPCC report eviscerates its credibility. And as to the idea that Scalia symbolizes "the far right," go familiarize yourself with his dissents in Hamdi or Morrison v. Olson, or his opinions for the court in Kyllo or Blakely. If you think these were opinions that mainline Republicans agreed with, you're living in another world.You make far too many assumptions about people who disagree with you.
I didn't cite it as being outstanding, but as being simply the most recent example. I you want more, you're perfectly capable of trawling the archives here and at SF for yourself. And I'd repeat: if you're going to accuse me of orthodoxy (not much of an accusation, it must be said), turnabout is fair play. Cite a substantive example where you deviated from exactly what we'd expect from leftosphere orthodoxy.
How's the weather there in Carlsbad, by the way?
Simon,If you want to bury your head in the sand, please do so, but someday you'll have to explain it to your to your kids.Weather nice, but the rainfall is the lowest since they began keeping records.Strange, huh?
LOS: You didn't answer my question, which was why did she put that ad out.You can watch the ad in my other post.Your answer will have to concede that she thinks people are manipulable by superficial appearances.
Beware Simon, you know not the danger you are in. You are in the grip of the Balrog, a figure of depravity and filth legendary since the days of Middle-earth. His squat and bulbous body, unspeakably ugly countenance and horrific odor does not do justice to the depth of the evil in his soul. He will hold you in his grip covering you in foul smelling spittle as he shouts obscenities such as “Blow Me” or “Suck My Dick.” You can not reason with it. Kindness is to no avail. Mercy earns a spit in the face. No reasonable argument can be made. Despite the marshaling of facts and proofs, no productive engagement can be made with such a primitive mind. The Balrog is of such limited intellectual capacity that it can not comprehend the simplest passage. His wit is dull as the first tool made by those who have gone before. His foul persona is enough to gag an orc.But all of this is not the true danger. It was what you can become when locked in his foul embrace. You struggle and fight as he tries to rip your flesh and overpower you with his fetid breath as you fall deeper and deeper into your own personal slough of despond. You will find yourself matching his foul tactics with unspeakable acts of your own as your rage is ignited and you loose sight of the limits of respectable behavior. Over and over you will tumble, endlessly fighting and gouging, biting and spiting, to a denouncement that no one can predict. Even the greatest of heroes are no match for this mighty troll. He will just drag you down into the muck and the mire. It profits naught to engage it in any way, shape or form. It is best to seal the gates of the mines of Moria and let the monster sleep. You awaken it at your own peril.(A reprise, because it’s Thanksgiving weekend and we want to relax)
Ann Althouse said..."Your answer will have to concede that she thinks people are manipulable by superficial appearances."Are you kidding?Of course people are manipulated...how else would you explain George W. Bush's "no nation building" or "compassionate conservative"...or "mission accomplished" bullshit??I just think the entire "you are what you eat" or "you vote for what your candidate eats" story or discussion is silly.
Trooper,Get back to the stolen material.Whoever told you have some kind of creative writing talent is just pulling your leg.And why the massive posting? Way too wordy and not very creative or interesting.Spend another 50 hours a week ferreting out T.V. and music quotes to steal.
LOS: "Are you kidding?"No, I'm not kidding. I'm calling you on your contradiction, re "Are you actually implying Americans are so unsophisticated (or downright dumb) that they'll vote for the candidate that ...."
It's well known that people are swayed by superficial imagery. The candidates use it, and the newspapers use it. Observing the phenomenon is not a trivial pursuit.
Trooper, that seems like a very elaborate restatement of the "don't wrestle a pig" doctrine. ;)
At least it wasn't in Elvish. Aa' menealle nauva calen ar' malta.
Ann,When I say "American voters," I don't mean ALL of them.There's always a small minority that will vote for who-knows-who, but overall, I think a vast, vast majority of Americana vote their pocketbooks or specific issues.I find it rather strange that an attorney of your stature thinks Americans are so easily swayed.
Simon said..."Trooper, that seems like a very elaborate restatement of the "don't wrestle a pig" doctrine. ;)"The man loves to read his own garbage...and for whatever reason actually thinks it's good.It's not.
B sez:Every candidate story on the Front Page of the Times - including the web edition - has been negatively worded in the headline or first paragraph for every candidate several times - with one exception: HILARYInteresting if true, but I'm very skeptical. Got a source? A quick search on nytimes.com yielded numerous examples of negative stories about HRC. Just a couple days ago they ran this brutal, somewhat Althousian, editorial:She’s No MorgenthauBy MAUREEN DOWDGetting ahead through connections is common in life. But Hillary Clinton cloaks her nepotism in feminism.So, where did you get that factoid, B?
("OP-ED Column", not "Editorial")
It was Thanksgiving at Lucy’s house. No, that’s a lie. There was nothing to be thankful for at Lucy’s house. Lucy hunched over her keyboard, typed “Blow me” and clicked on the publish button.From Chapter Twenty of “Hate Me, Hate You, A Tale of Despair and Loathing in The 21stCentury.)
Richardson isn't obese. He's pudgy.
Are you actually implying Americans are so unsophisticated (or downright dumb) that they'll vote for the candidate that adheres to a diet of which they approve or they themselves indulge...based on a snapshot they see in the paper?Lucky, that's dumb. (Dumb luck?) Not the point at all. The point is that Obama isn't made to look gross and ridiculous. The food is far from his mouth and he's laughing and looking handsome.
What, a taco is the female equivalent of a hot dog? News to me. Where've I been.
amba said..."Richardson isn't obese. He's pudgy."No, no: he's doughy.
The taco is the latest slang amba. Actually it isn't all that new. But the fish taco is a new development and quite tasty at that. Let this be a lesson to you. No man should date a vegetarian. No woman should date a vagetarian. The fish taco should always be on the menu. All the best.
I don't think anyof these pictures are that big of a deal, and it's quite possible that not all that much thought was put into them--either the taking or the selecting of them.For what that insight's worth.
I do think Althouse's 7:29 comment is correct, and manifestly so, however.I'm just not convinced this is a particularly good example, especially with regard to conscious intent.
How about this: I'll give you $10 for every scientist you can come up with that "doesn't" believe in global warming...and you give me $10 for every one I can provide that "does."LOS example of a scientific "proof." And he doesn't think that people can be manipulated by images.
What, a taco is the female equivalent of a hot dog?Yes. A bit of latrinalia I read over thirty years ago: "If God didn't want you to eat p*ssy, why did he make it look like a taco?"
What, Althouse, as opposed to your boy George W. Bush's ads, which treat Americans like intelligent, reasoning adults?
I'll lead off with the HUNDREDS of scientists who took part in the International Panel on Climate Change.Heh. Not so fast Lucy. Internal memo's have recently been released that reveal your HUNDREDS of IPCC "scientists" [many are just buerocrats] are in disagreement with each other. So much for your "consensus".
Post a Comment