Saturday, January 26, 2008
Culture Wars
by Ken Houghton
Presumably, since NYPD Blue became famous for showing Dennis Franz's naked buttocks (and was not fined for same), the FCC has decided that a woman's buttocks, but not a man's, is a sex organ.
The ramifications of this decision are left as an exercise to the (adult, consenting) reader.
Via Dr. Black, family values at work at the FCC:
The [FCC] said [NYPD Blue] was indecent because "it depicts sexual organs and excretory organs, specifically an adult woman's buttocks."
The agency rejected the network's argument that "the buttocks are not a sexual organ."
Presumably, since NYPD Blue became famous for showing Dennis Franz's naked buttocks (and was not fined for same), the FCC has decided that a woman's buttocks, but not a man's, is a sex organ.
The ramifications of this decision are left as an exercise to the (adult, consenting) reader.
Labels: Current Events, mass media
Tuesday, September 11, 2007
Six Years On
by Tom Bozzo
Photo (cc) by Flickr user Gladius. Model by Todd Webb.
Go read "Beauty, unfathomable loss, and the beginning of the forever war" at Letter From Here.
Then join your local peace racket.
Photo (cc) by Flickr user Gladius. Model by Todd Webb.
Go read "Beauty, unfathomable loss, and the beginning of the forever war" at Letter From Here.
Then join your local peace racket.
Labels: Current Events
Monday, July 23, 2007
Shorter Stanley Fish
by Tom Bozzo
At the very bottom of the column, the Nutty Perfesser — in contrast to his previous vagueness with respect to atheists and evolution — assures everyone that his affection for Thomas's opinion is not Swiftian satire or a pomo mind game. Thanks for clearing that up, Stanley, but did we really need to see directly into that corner of your mind?
But as a lack-of-self-awareness bonus, Fish offers this among potshots taken at various commenters (*) to the original column:
(*) Some of whom make elementary mistakes like assuming there may be no limits to free speech rights.
My columns would go over better with the Washington Times readership.(Times Select link, a column responding to readers who gave Fish what-for after a column praising Clarence Thomas's opinion that students have no free speech rights.)
At the very bottom of the column, the Nutty Perfesser — in contrast to his previous vagueness with respect to atheists and evolution — assures everyone that his affection for Thomas's opinion is not Swiftian satire or a pomo mind game. Thanks for clearing that up, Stanley, but did we really need to see directly into that corner of your mind?
But as a lack-of-self-awareness bonus, Fish offers this among potshots taken at various commenters (*) to the original column:
Krista Kerber believes that my columns are themselves “a perfect illustration of 1st amendment rights.” No, they are an example of rights granted, not possessed. The New York Times can always decline to print what I write, although if you are reading this, it hasn’t done so yet.Hope springs eternal (though we appreciate the source of blogging material, Times Select editors). But is our Perfesser reading? She said,
[F]or Fish to hold this opinion and express it is a perfect illustration of 1st amendment rights.Ms. Kerber doesn't claim that Fish or anyone has a right to expression at nytimes.com. The only fair reading of the comment's plain language is that what Fish has is a right to express himself whether in major media, at stanleyfish.blogspot.com, or handing out flyers on the Florida International University campus. Kerber 1, Fish 0.
(*) Some of whom make elementary mistakes like assuming there may be no limits to free speech rights.
Labels: Current Events, SCOTUS, Tortured Logic
Monday, July 02, 2007
If This Is Supposed To Be Hopeful News, We Must Really Be Screwed
by Tom Bozzo
You might think that extrapolating a trend from one observation which, by whatever measurement standards have survived the administration's attempts to make the accurate recording of civilian deaths difficult (lest the last few the dead-enders supporting the war who might be affected by such things get too down), is part of a not publicly released series that is nevertheless characterized as not so great (see "slight decrease") represents some sort of grasping at straws for good news. I say, it's a sure sign that the administration now is totally off its P.R. game. [*]
If they had a public relations statistician on call worth his or her hourly consulting rate, they'd have been told that even a slight increase in the civilian death toll potentially could represent the start of a "downward trend" — only with a lower probability of representing an actual turning point than the seemingly peskier "facts." If they won't deploy every tool of statistical reasoning, how can they be expected to win. [**]
[*] To a considerable extent, the Bushies' reputation for good message control was little more than an artifact of the fecklessness of Democratic "strategists" and/or the supineness of the bulk of the Beltway cocktail-circuit press. What, after all, could have been in I. Lewis Libby's body cavities that the commutation of his prison sentence couldn't have waited for the Friday news graveyard. (For reaction to the Libby story, see Madison Guy, Digby, a roundup including major Democrats' statements from John Aravosis, TBogg, Hilzoy, Mark Thoma, and The Editors.)
[**] The Onion, National Treasure, Priceless: "Bush: Maybe U.S. Military 'Just Not Very Good.'"
A wire service news-in-brief item in the Wisconsin State Journal tells me that U.S. and Iraqi officials are claiming a decline in Iraqi civilian casualties for June. U.S. military spokesperson Lt. Col. Christopher Garver says "a slight decrease in the month of June" represents the start of "a potential downward trend."
You might think that extrapolating a trend from one observation which, by whatever measurement standards have survived the administration's attempts to make the accurate recording of civilian deaths difficult (lest the last few the dead-enders supporting the war who might be affected by such things get too down), is part of a not publicly released series that is nevertheless characterized as not so great (see "slight decrease") represents some sort of grasping at straws for good news. I say, it's a sure sign that the administration now is totally off its P.R. game. [*]
If they had a public relations statistician on call worth his or her hourly consulting rate, they'd have been told that even a slight increase in the civilian death toll potentially could represent the start of a "downward trend" — only with a lower probability of representing an actual turning point than the seemingly peskier "facts." If they won't deploy every tool of statistical reasoning, how can they be expected to win. [**]
[*] To a considerable extent, the Bushies' reputation for good message control was little more than an artifact of the fecklessness of Democratic "strategists" and/or the supineness of the bulk of the Beltway cocktail-circuit press. What, after all, could have been in I. Lewis Libby's body cavities that the commutation of his prison sentence couldn't have waited for the Friday news graveyard. (For reaction to the Libby story, see Madison Guy, Digby, a roundup including major Democrats' statements from John Aravosis, TBogg, Hilzoy, Mark Thoma, and The Editors.)
[**] The Onion, National Treasure, Priceless: "Bush: Maybe U.S. Military 'Just Not Very Good.'"
Labels: Current Events, Iraq
