And Greyhound:
These are my photos. To see The Puparazzo's photos, go to The Puparazzo.
September 22, 2014
The Puparazzo at work...
With Beagle:
And Greyhound:
These are my photos. To see The Puparazzo's photos, go to The Puparazzo.
And Greyhound:
These are my photos. To see The Puparazzo's photos, go to The Puparazzo.
"It’s worth recalling that the very idea of 'fat' is a fairly recent creation."
"For most of human history, as Amy Farrell, a professor of women’s and gender studies at Dickinson College, notes in 'Fat Shame,' only the wealthy could have extra fat on their bodies. Most people worked too hard, had too little food, and were often too sick. Then came the Industrial Revolution: mass food production and more sedentary jobs meant that the new middle class, and not just the wealthy, became heavier. Once 'average' fat people came on the scene, Farrell writes, 'fat denigration' became more common: fat jokes proliferated in nineteenth-century magazines."
From Lizzie Widdicombe's "The Plus Side/Full-figured fashion gets a new look" in The New Yorker, which notes, among many other things, the "reclaim[ing of] the word 'fat.'"
I've always used the word "fat" as my tag on this blog, "fat" and "thinness." They're parallel words, and there's no reason why one straightforward, factual descriptive embodies more shame or disapproval than the other. Euphemisms imply the need for one.
From Lizzie Widdicombe's "The Plus Side/Full-figured fashion gets a new look" in The New Yorker, which notes, among many other things, the "reclaim[ing of] the word 'fat.'"
I've always used the word "fat" as my tag on this blog, "fat" and "thinness." They're parallel words, and there's no reason why one straightforward, factual descriptive embodies more shame or disapproval than the other. Euphemisms imply the need for one.
"On the one hand, to 'do' the Uffizi or the Louvre or Teotihuacan or Machu Picchu or the Great Wall is to impose artificial closure."
"To see a thing as a tourist is, somehow, to dispense with it. On the other hand, is visceral distrust of such tourists truly the proper response? After all, who among travellers has not stood before a work of art, or an inscrutable series of druidical stone structures, and wondered in silence: How long must I stare at this thing before I have seen it?"
From "What Is the Right Way to Travel?" (in the NYT).
From "What Is the Right Way to Travel?" (in the NYT).
"A 21-year-old woman has paid $20,000 to surgically add a third breast in a desperate bid to become a reality TV star."
"Jasmine Tridevil was rejected by 50 doctors before she found a willing surgeon who would perform the procedure which violates ethical codes, she claims."
Photos at the link show the woman in a specially constructed bikini top. The linked article also has a redacted photo of the character in "Total Recall" with 3 breasts.
And, here, we see the woman quoted saying: "I got the surgery because I wanted to turn off guys. I know it sounds crazy but I don’t want to date again ever. I still like to feel pretty."
In the future, everyone will be famous for 22.5 minutes.
UPDATE: As many predicted, this is almost surely faked — a 3-breast prosthesis.
Photos at the link show the woman in a specially constructed bikini top. The linked article also has a redacted photo of the character in "Total Recall" with 3 breasts.
And, here, we see the woman quoted saying: "I got the surgery because I wanted to turn off guys. I know it sounds crazy but I don’t want to date again ever. I still like to feel pretty."
In the future, everyone will be famous for 22.5 minutes.
UPDATE: As many predicted, this is almost surely faked — a 3-breast prosthesis.
"I have a picture of what I estimate to be a six-year-old girl in a gingham party dress, white tights, a little red band around her wrist, Mary Janes."
"And she's lying on the ground and her head is gone. This could be an American child; it could be a European child. It could be a child anywhere. And this is the mentality of the group that we are so concerned with. They have killed thousands. They are marching on. They have an army. They're well-organized. Many of us believe they're aimed at Baghdad, perhaps our embassy there. And who knows what else?"
Diane Feinstein, on "Face the Nation" yesterday.
Diane Feinstein, on "Face the Nation" yesterday.
"Lois Lerner is toxic — and she knows it. But she refuses to recede into anonymity..."
"... or beg for forgiveness for her role in the IRS tea party-targeting scandal."
“I didn’t do anything wrong,” Lerner said in her first press interview since the scandal broke 16 months ago. “I’m proud of my career and the job I did for this country.
Kirsten Gillibrand says the late Daniel Inouye was the Senator who told her she'd "lost too much weight" and "I like my girls chubby."
Under pressure to name names, Senator Gillibrand names a dead man.
Here's my post from last week speculating about why Gillibrand wouldn't name names. I thought of 5 reasons why not and polled readers, and by far the most popular guess was: "Maybe it didn't happen." That answer seems more apt now that the response to the pressure was to name a dead man.
IN THE COMMENTS: EMD said: "You think she'd have enough smarts to name a dead Republican," and, really, that's the strongest evidence that she's not lying. If you're going to use death to insulate your lies, why not pick an opponent? One answer is: The Republican Party would fight back, call me a liar, etc. My party has its interest in me.
And Todd makes 2 important points. First, the linked article doesn't specify that Gillibrand divulged the name, only that "people with knowledge" did. I am assuming that the "people" are either Gillibrand herself or her agents, speaking for her. It's possible, though, that they acquired their knowledge through Gillibrand, but not as a consequence of the pressure she's felt to name names and that their decision to speak to the press was an independent choice, unconnected to any decision by Gillibrand to name names. I think that's unlikely, but the text of the NYT piece preserves that possibility. The NYT could clarify that. But I believe the NYT would tend to protect and help Gillibrand, so I don't think they'd publish this fact unless it was what Gillibrand wants.
Speaking of how the NYT phrases things to help Democrats, Todd's other observation is a discrepancy between the text I cut and pasted — "It turns out the senator was the late Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, the decorated veteran and civil rights hero, according to people with knowledge of the incident" — and the text that appears at the link now — "It turns out the senator was the late Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, the decorated veteran and civil rights hero, according to people with knowledge of the incident."
The original text did something that's frequently seen, the omission of "Democrat" in a mainstream media report of something negative about a Democrat. I'm guessing that somebody criticized the omission — somebody usually does — and the NYT stuck the "Democrat" in there. I looked for a reference to a correction but found none.
I did, however, find that the page I was reading is a new NYT feature, beginning today, called "First Draft," which is "a continuously updated news feed." Does "continuously updated" mean that corrections don't need to be noted? If so, "First Draft" is a misnomer. I don't know what draft I'm reading.
It turns out the senator was the late Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, the decorated veteran and civil rights hero, according to people with knowledge of the incident.Oh, those supporters of women's rights are the worst sort of sexists underneath it all, I bet.
With his deep baritone and courtly manner, Mr. Inouye was revered by his colleagues and was a powerhouse in both Hawaii and the Senate, where he was a reliable supporter of women’s rights.
Here's my post from last week speculating about why Gillibrand wouldn't name names. I thought of 5 reasons why not and polled readers, and by far the most popular guess was: "Maybe it didn't happen." That answer seems more apt now that the response to the pressure was to name a dead man.
IN THE COMMENTS: EMD said: "You think she'd have enough smarts to name a dead Republican," and, really, that's the strongest evidence that she's not lying. If you're going to use death to insulate your lies, why not pick an opponent? One answer is: The Republican Party would fight back, call me a liar, etc. My party has its interest in me.
And Todd makes 2 important points. First, the linked article doesn't specify that Gillibrand divulged the name, only that "people with knowledge" did. I am assuming that the "people" are either Gillibrand herself or her agents, speaking for her. It's possible, though, that they acquired their knowledge through Gillibrand, but not as a consequence of the pressure she's felt to name names and that their decision to speak to the press was an independent choice, unconnected to any decision by Gillibrand to name names. I think that's unlikely, but the text of the NYT piece preserves that possibility. The NYT could clarify that. But I believe the NYT would tend to protect and help Gillibrand, so I don't think they'd publish this fact unless it was what Gillibrand wants.
Speaking of how the NYT phrases things to help Democrats, Todd's other observation is a discrepancy between the text I cut and pasted — "It turns out the senator was the late Daniel K. Inouye of Hawaii, the decorated veteran and civil rights hero, according to people with knowledge of the incident" — and the text that appears at the link now — "It turns out the senator was the late Daniel K. Inouye, Democrat of Hawaii, the decorated veteran and civil rights hero, according to people with knowledge of the incident."
The original text did something that's frequently seen, the omission of "Democrat" in a mainstream media report of something negative about a Democrat. I'm guessing that somebody criticized the omission — somebody usually does — and the NYT stuck the "Democrat" in there. I looked for a reference to a correction but found none.
I did, however, find that the page I was reading is a new NYT feature, beginning today, called "First Draft," which is "a continuously updated news feed." Does "continuously updated" mean that corrections don't need to be noted? If so, "First Draft" is a misnomer. I don't know what draft I'm reading.
"For the 2nd time in 4 days, Democrat Mary Burke's campaign has been hit by charges that it lifted passages from other sources and used them in its campaign literature."
Milwaukee Journal Sentinel's Dan Bice passes along material "turned up by Republican Gov. Scott Walker's campaign and made available to No Quarter and BuzzFeed." I don't trust the Sentinel to dig into anything that might help Scott Walker, but Walker's campaign was smart enough to say that it was sending the same material to Buzzfeed, which ran a big story last Thursday — based on its own investigation — "Wisconsin Democratic Gubernatorial Candidate Fires Campaign Consultant For Large Portions Of Copied Jobs Plan." There's web traffic to consider, along with whatever is left these days of a journalistic conscience.
After the Buzzfeed revelations, apparently the Walker campaign went looking for more of the same, which is clever. Everyone should be running that plagiarism software on all the other side's literature... and on their own, because you'd better be careful about using this kind of attack if you have any vulnerability. Here's how Bice describes what Walker's campaign found:
Bice contacted Burke, who hadn't seen the new material:
I wonder if Schnurer will ever fight back. His professional reputation is getting ravaged, but defending himself would require attacking the candidate, and attacking his own candidate would also hurt his reputation. Maybe he'll keep silent until after the election and decide what to do when he sees whether Burke wins or loses. Has Bice or Buzzfeed tried to talk to Schnurer? If he's refusing to speak, is that a completely independent decision? I'd like to know.
After the Buzzfeed revelations, apparently the Walker campaign went looking for more of the same, which is clever. Everyone should be running that plagiarism software on all the other side's literature... and on their own, because you'd better be careful about using this kind of attack if you have any vulnerability. Here's how Bice describes what Walker's campaign found:
The material includes two Burke plans — one on rural communities and the other veterans issues — that include passages from several websites as well as Milwaukee Mayor Tom Barrett's "Plan to Create Wisconsin Jobs," which he used during his 2010 campaign for governor. There are seven instances of disputed material. Most of the material is less than a paragraph long, and in some cases, fragments of sentences. In four cases, the Burke documents cited the other online material but did not place the borrowed passages in quotes. All in all, the seven passages are not as substantial or egregious as the unattributed use of language by Burke's jobs plan. But a top Walker aide was still ready to pounce....The copying was not that bad. Not as bad as that other stuff anyway. And Walker is mean: He's pouncing. Bice is, as usual, eager to help the Democratic Party candidate. The Walker aide made the obvious argument, that there's a pattern — "a disturbing pattern of intellectual dishonesty."
Bice contacted Burke, who hadn't seen the new material:
But she did note that Eric Schnurer — the consultant who has taken the hit for the purloined passages in her jobs plan — also worked on her 25-page rural plan, "Invest in Our Rural Communities." Her campaign cut ties with Schnurer late last week.It must be Schnurer again, Mary muses, then, thinking out loud and a little carelessly, adding that anything lifted should have been reworded. (That seems to say: You get caught when you use verbatim passages.)
"I don't think it should be any surprise that we are drawing on best practices and ideas that have worked elsewhere," Burke said. "But in no circumstances should there be the same wording around those."
I wonder if Schnurer will ever fight back. His professional reputation is getting ravaged, but defending himself would require attacking the candidate, and attacking his own candidate would also hurt his reputation. Maybe he'll keep silent until after the election and decide what to do when he sees whether Burke wins or loses. Has Bice or Buzzfeed tried to talk to Schnurer? If he's refusing to speak, is that a completely independent decision? I'd like to know.
September 21, 2014
"It's completely mischaracterized to call it plagiarism, because the source of it is the source from the other plans as well... It is the original work of Eric Schnurer."
"One of the things I learned when I was at Trek bicycle was, the way you're always going to be better is to go out and understand what other people are doing, what other companies are doing.... Why reinvent the wheel if things are working elsewhere, if people have proposed good ideas, why would I not want to use those? Certainly there's nothing in here that I don't think works and is right for Wisconsin... And so this is much ado about nothing here, because that's actually how good plans should be put together."
Said Mary Burke, addressing the lifted blocks of text that appear in what USA Today calls her "glossy, 38-page color booklet, which she pulled from her bag during the interview."
"This is my jobs plan," she said, apparently proud of the document or needing to pretend to be proud of it. Is it too late now to generate a new document? Is the document that important? If it's important, we need to believe that it is her document and that it represents her capacity and competence as an executive.
To pull a glossy booklet out of your bag and declare "This is my jobs plan" and "It is the original work of Eric Schnurer" seems comical. Obviously, we all know that candidates have people ghostwriting for them, but you use them to write words that you can present as your own, and it doesn't work to have to say I didn't steal the words of those 3 other gubernatorial candidates because the truth is that all 4 of us are only repeating the words of Eric Schnurer.
Burke is forced to argue that the glossy booklet still counts as her jobs plan, and the argument is that the ideas are good. They were, she seems to assert, filtered through her executive judgment and deemed worthy. She has gone out and understood what other people are doing, she has listened to other people's ideas and determined which are good ideas and she has selected what is right for Wisconsin. But how do we know that? The text looks like a slapdash patchwork, with cut-and-pasted text used in 4 different states without any variation or attention to honing even the form of expression.
That makes it quite hard to believe that there has been a careful sifting and winnowing — as we say in Wisconsin. Of course, that is something that could happen, but why would we think that it did... rather than suspecting that we're getting conned by someone who's stuck with bad facts and making the best of it?
Said Mary Burke, addressing the lifted blocks of text that appear in what USA Today calls her "glossy, 38-page color booklet, which she pulled from her bag during the interview."
"This is my jobs plan," she said, apparently proud of the document or needing to pretend to be proud of it. Is it too late now to generate a new document? Is the document that important? If it's important, we need to believe that it is her document and that it represents her capacity and competence as an executive.
To pull a glossy booklet out of your bag and declare "This is my jobs plan" and "It is the original work of Eric Schnurer" seems comical. Obviously, we all know that candidates have people ghostwriting for them, but you use them to write words that you can present as your own, and it doesn't work to have to say I didn't steal the words of those 3 other gubernatorial candidates because the truth is that all 4 of us are only repeating the words of Eric Schnurer.
Burke is forced to argue that the glossy booklet still counts as her jobs plan, and the argument is that the ideas are good. They were, she seems to assert, filtered through her executive judgment and deemed worthy. She has gone out and understood what other people are doing, she has listened to other people's ideas and determined which are good ideas and she has selected what is right for Wisconsin. But how do we know that? The text looks like a slapdash patchwork, with cut-and-pasted text used in 4 different states without any variation or attention to honing even the form of expression.
That makes it quite hard to believe that there has been a careful sifting and winnowing — as we say in Wisconsin. Of course, that is something that could happen, but why would we think that it did... rather than suspecting that we're getting conned by someone who's stuck with bad facts and making the best of it?
The National Review says that "Feminists" say that "Slow Motion Is 'Sexist.'"
Well, that headline got me to click and then to click again to see what was getting paraphrased like that. The underlying article is a Canadian news article that quotes some critics of an ad for a Vancouver soccer team. First of all, the critics don't call themselves "feminists," and second of all, even if they did purport to represent the amorphous category "feminists," they'd be Canadian feminists. The news article describes the critics like this:
After that, some professors commented on the incident, perhaps because the reporter called them up and asked them what they thought. Lisa Loutzenheiser, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia's Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, found it surprising that the team would run an ad like this because it had gotten criticized a few years ago for an ad that showed a woman's body painted with team colors.
Rakhi Ruparelia, a law professor from the University of Ottawa, apparently confronted with the above-quoted tweet, said "I could see why this would alienate a lot of women." That's not much of a feminist critique, and in fact, you have to be or play dumb not to see that this kind of ad does alienate some females.
Finally, Janni Aragon of the University of Victoria's Political Science department, said: "It's almost like I'm watching the Baywatch opening." Blechh! I had to go watch a "Baywatch" opening on YouTube to process that quote. Actually, the ad is much more of a focus on female bodies than that "Baywatch" opening. The "Baywatch" opening had just as much male torso as female, and the torso clips were intercut with shots the ocean, the beach, and various emergency vehicles. The ad is only females, and the female torso on the left is especially riveting in the chestal area.
Now, back to The National Review with the headline "Feminists: Slow Motion Is 'Sexist.'" It linked to an article in which nobody said "feminist," nobody said "sexist," and nobody said "slow motion"! (The word "sexism" does appear in a second Canadian news article linked by The National Review, "Woman in Whitecaps video baffled by sexism controversy.")
The subheading at the National Review is: "Fans say a promo video for a soccer team reminds them of patriarchal, misogynistic Baywatch." The reference to "Baywatch" comes not from a fan but from a professor, and she's not quoted as calling "Baywatch" "patriarchal, misogynistic." We're invited to imagine raging, exaggerated females hurling tiresome buzzwords, but those words don't appear in the article. Ironically, it's The National Review that sounds tiresome and hysterical.
And it's just silly denial to pretend that ad didn't invite viewers to ogle the female body. If you want to say that's fine, go ahead. But if you want to drag in all that feminism talk, quote specific feminists and let me see your work. Don't supply the jargon yourself.
Did anyone talk about the slow motion? Watching that video, I steeled myself for some major bouncing of the large breasts on the left. But they were well-restrained. They showed tremendous restraint.
Social media reaction ranged from "Uhhhhhhhhh yes," and "I really don't see a problem here," on Facebook, to Twitter user "The headline isn't just @WhitecapsFC objectifies specific female fans, but also alienates females generally."So... some Twitter user exemplified the negative reaction that caused the team to take the video down.
After that, some professors commented on the incident, perhaps because the reporter called them up and asked them what they thought. Lisa Loutzenheiser, an associate professor at the University of British Columbia's Department of Curriculum and Pedagogy, found it surprising that the team would run an ad like this because it had gotten criticized a few years ago for an ad that showed a woman's body painted with team colors.
Rakhi Ruparelia, a law professor from the University of Ottawa, apparently confronted with the above-quoted tweet, said "I could see why this would alienate a lot of women." That's not much of a feminist critique, and in fact, you have to be or play dumb not to see that this kind of ad does alienate some females.
Finally, Janni Aragon of the University of Victoria's Political Science department, said: "It's almost like I'm watching the Baywatch opening." Blechh! I had to go watch a "Baywatch" opening on YouTube to process that quote. Actually, the ad is much more of a focus on female bodies than that "Baywatch" opening. The "Baywatch" opening had just as much male torso as female, and the torso clips were intercut with shots the ocean, the beach, and various emergency vehicles. The ad is only females, and the female torso on the left is especially riveting in the chestal area.
Now, back to The National Review with the headline "Feminists: Slow Motion Is 'Sexist.'" It linked to an article in which nobody said "feminist," nobody said "sexist," and nobody said "slow motion"! (The word "sexism" does appear in a second Canadian news article linked by The National Review, "Woman in Whitecaps video baffled by sexism controversy.")
The subheading at the National Review is: "Fans say a promo video for a soccer team reminds them of patriarchal, misogynistic Baywatch." The reference to "Baywatch" comes not from a fan but from a professor, and she's not quoted as calling "Baywatch" "patriarchal, misogynistic." We're invited to imagine raging, exaggerated females hurling tiresome buzzwords, but those words don't appear in the article. Ironically, it's The National Review that sounds tiresome and hysterical.
And it's just silly denial to pretend that ad didn't invite viewers to ogle the female body. If you want to say that's fine, go ahead. But if you want to drag in all that feminism talk, quote specific feminists and let me see your work. Don't supply the jargon yourself.
Did anyone talk about the slow motion? Watching that video, I steeled myself for some major bouncing of the large breasts on the left. But they were well-restrained. They showed tremendous restraint.
Why are they bragging about their "restraint" when they let him get into the White House?
"Although last night the officers showed tremendous restraint and discipline in dealing with this subject, the location of Gonzalez’s arrest is not acceptable," said the Secret Service after a man, Omar J. Gonzalez, jumped the White House fence and made it all the way into the building.
Why is "tremendous restraint" appropriate when someone has jumped the fence and is running across the lawn toward the door? Or are they just trying to act like it is, after failing to stop him sooner?
ADDED: The linked NYT article compares this to an incident a year ago when the United States Capitol Police "shot and killed a woman who had driven her car into a barrier at the White House and then led police officers on a chase toward the Capitol." We're told the Capitol Police "came under sharp criticism." Are we supposed to think that "restraint" is admirable because they are afraid to take criticism and that they therefore risk allowing a violent person near the President?
Of course, it usually turns out that the person who jumps the barrier suffers from some mental illness that will stir some of us to sympathy if he or she gets shot or ripped up by the dogs.
Why is "tremendous restraint" appropriate when someone has jumped the fence and is running across the lawn toward the door? Or are they just trying to act like it is, after failing to stop him sooner?
No shots were fired, and the White House guard dogs were not let loose to stop him, the officials said. After the events of Friday night, the Secret Service shut down pedestrian access to the part of Pennsylvania Avenue in front of the White House. Officials said the “enhancement of officer patrols and surveillance capabilities” in the area would continue throughout the review....Obviously, there was a security failure. This isn't the first time during the Obama administration that we've been able to see that the Secret Service has fallen short. A man jumps over the fence and runs through the door and they just look at him and decide he has no weapon or explosives? In fact, he had a 3 1/2" folding knife, which sounds more like a pocket knife and not a serious weapon, but that is not the point. No one should get the benefit of "tremendous restraint" in this situation.
The officers did not fire at him, having apparently concluded that he was not armed and did not appear to be carrying anything that might contain explosives. Agents on the roof also held their fire, apparently for the same reasons.
That restraint apparently allowed Mr. Gonzalez to sprint all the way to the entrance of the White House, where foreign dignitaries are greeted by the president. Agents stationed inside tackled him as soon as he was in the grand entryway....
ADDED: The linked NYT article compares this to an incident a year ago when the United States Capitol Police "shot and killed a woman who had driven her car into a barrier at the White House and then led police officers on a chase toward the Capitol." We're told the Capitol Police "came under sharp criticism." Are we supposed to think that "restraint" is admirable because they are afraid to take criticism and that they therefore risk allowing a violent person near the President?
Of course, it usually turns out that the person who jumps the barrier suffers from some mental illness that will stir some of us to sympathy if he or she gets shot or ripped up by the dogs.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
