In light of the recent comics censorship discussion, I was wondering if you noticed that Judge Parker has not run as intended in the Post twice in the past week (don't ask why I read Judge Parker--can't even justify it to myself). I think the initial non-run decision was based on bathing suit cleavage, but the second also involved justification of NSA surveillance (bathing suit babe is secret agent who supports total govt intrusion in fight against terrorism), so wonder if that was a factor also . . .. .) Cheers,
Yes, I asked about this, and it's interesting. The two pulled strips are here and here, and both were pulled because the editors overseeing the comics at The Post felt they were, basically, prurient. That they existed only to feature a shapely woman in a bikini. (Interestingly, in between these two strips -- unedited by the Post -- is this one, which to me MIGHT be considered more problematic, because of its unusually blunt political message. Usually when The Post exercises its judgment over comics, it's because of something sexual that they consider inappropriate.
According to my person at The Post, the second day that was pulled seemed doubly problematic, because of a vague figure in the background in one of the panels who looked like she might be a woman in a burqa. (I see the figure, but don't think it's suggesting that.)
The biggest problem faced by everyone here is that neither strip could really be effectively re-drawn, since the woman's bikini is part and parcel of both strips. So the paper just shrugged and interrupted a storyline with two replacement days from ANOTHER storyline. Bizarre and inelegant.
Do I think the Post was oversensitive here? Newspapers have always had underwear ads more revealing than a drawing of a pretty lady in a bikini. I do think that in this case the editors were trying to deliver a message to the cartoonists: We don't want pin-up, cheesecake art in the comics pages.
I had no idea what it was until a few weeks ago, when this happened (NSFW).
It looks safe for work to me.
It's kind of funny: aggressive public twerking, like from Jackass 1. My son, Dan, just walked by and said, "hm, that's a good workout. Someone's going to market a twerkout exercise video -- the ten-minute twerkout." Good idea, but Google's on it already.
It is pretty darn easy -and I am no whiz at things computer-related . I am really surprised they have not fixed it. Not sure if the Post is the same way, since I am a sunday subscriber. BTW - I use it occasionally to read more than my free share of articles on that other east coast newspaper. I feel no guilt.
Okay, revisiting this interesting issue from the chat, where a reader claims to have found a clear, easy way around the pay wall, and asked if that was unethical, and I said it was, mildly. After the chat, Tom the Butcher told me what he thought the guy's solution was, and if he's right, I change my opinion. I change it because The Post has acknowledged it exists, and is not asking people NOT to do it. It's a factor of the newspaper's hunger for horizontal eyeballs from web searches / social media.
But you know what? I think a case can be made that the moral citizen -- knowing this is a problem for a news source that supplies them its work product for free, is in financial trouble, and is a valuable resource -- pays anyway.
The Elvis version of "Hound Dog" never made sense to me either. And not just because he sounds like he's saying "crockin' all the time." And I always assumed that the protagonist in "House of the Rising Sun" had come to ruin through alcohol, gambling and prostitutes.
He's saying "crying" all the time. And that makes no sense either. The entire song, as sung by Elvis, makes no sense.
Gene, So what's your view of Bob Dylan's version, who signs it from a woman's POV?
Gene, may I enlist your service in the fight against sexual assault by asking you to nix the term "date rape?" It was once helpful to raise awareness to the fact that most rapes are committed by accquaintances, but at this point in our evolution, it comes off as more of a qualifier. Rape is rape, no additional words needed. Thanks Mr. Awesomestache!
Hm. Good point! It does subtly suggests some sort of lesser violation, doesn't it?
Okay, done. No more "date rape."