news of the day

[cimorene]

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.

Comments

[scrimschaw.livejournal.com]

Dude. Duuuuuude. That nipples thing is freaky, y/y? Not like I'm not happy to see a large, (pale!) woman on the front cover of a mag, but no nipples = plastic? or something to me.

[cimness.livejournal.com]

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!"

[scrimschaw.livejournal.com]

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.