cimorene: news of the day

Cimorene (

cimorene) wrote,
@ 2009-02-13 11:41 am UTC

Entry tags:

news of the day

Rolling Stone Interview with Joss Whedon: Revolt of a TV Genius (or: Why I Don't Have High Hopes for Dollhouse) (Download the pdf scans at the link), via @paperandglue.

Beth Ditto makes a great voluptuous non-conformist cover model for the debut of Love magazine, and looks better naked IMO than your typical Barbie, but... WHY ARE THE NIPPLES GONE? Seriously, this is the real nipplegate: people being presented in photography without them. What?!

Yesterday's Daily Show was SO RIGHT about the economic crisis and the congressional hearings. (For a mainstream news take, have yesterday's Wall St CEOs berated by lawmakers @Reuters.)

Via

hollsh, the Literal LOLs category at Cake Wrecks, the Bad-Cake Mocking Blog. (Example: the "2008 I want sprinkles" cake.)

Michelle Obama's Vogue cover & shoot. This might be the first time in my lifetime that Vogue has been relevant to society outside the fashion/media industries - certainly the first time in my memory.

	no subject cimness.livejournal.com 2009-02-13 05:21 pm UTC (link)
	Yeah, and it's not like it makes it less obscene! She's still clearly naked and humping a wad of cloth and her nipples are not an actual, y'know, sex organ, per se! It's not like "oh, she's masturbating, but at least she can't breastfeed!" (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent) (Thread) (Hide 1 comment) (Show 1 comment)

	$ext_30643: (Porn! \o/)$ no subject scrimschaw.livejournal.com 2009-02-13 05:26 pm UTC (link)
	Maybe they're trying to make us think that she doesn't have breasts? Like, "Those are not boobs you see. Those are strategically-placed blobs of flesh that LOOK like breasts, but they cannot be, because they don't have nipples." Or something. (Reply to this) (Thread from start) (Parent)