Can someone sick McKinnon on them?
And, from the idiot fringe of the World Wide Whacko, I give you: Babes Against Bush. (Warning: not work safe.) Yes, you too can now buy the cheesecake calendar working to defeat the President.
Seems they're upset by a few complaints from some conservatives. In the best tradition of 'argue against what you wish your critics were saying':
Is it because a group consisting primarily of women is having the audacity to express views that aren't in lockstep synch with your hordes of button-down establishment pundits? Is it because common people - those ordinarily without access to the power of the broadcast media - have managed to make their voices heard above the din of the propagandistic garbage your media empires peddle as news? Is it because the inevitable dissent arising from abuses of governmental, corporate, and media power is somehow painful to you?
No, honey. It's that when adults play politics, we do it with our clothes on.








Comments
"No, honey. It's that when adults play politics, we do it with our clothes on."
Well, except Clinton's pants. ;-)
cypruqa kyyoiguePosted by: Bateleur | December 18, 2003 05:10 AM
Your last comment is remarkably dismissive of a creative forum for free speech. Maybe you should critique their message rather than their method because, obviously, it got your attention enough to make you look.
qahdPosted by: Adam Wolfson | December 18, 2003 04:26 PM
Adam, just because I recognize their right to free speech doesn't mean I have to respect it. Some things are simply inappropriate--were I to hand in my Civ Pro takehome with attached pictures from Playboy, I would have upheld my right to free speech while similarly being a fool.
Yes, it got me to take a look, but in such a way that even were they to be making a decent argument (and frankly, the level of discourse at Babes Against Bush isn't high enough to be worthy of debate), I'd dismiss them anyway. In this case, the medium is the message.
Now, back to my Civ Pro paper...
mgphoePosted by: A. Rickey | December 18, 2003 05:15 PM
Perhaps. But I'm not sure that it's *so* inappropriate. Of course it can be construed as such, but it's accomplishing their goal of getting guys who wouldn't otherwise think politics to at least think about the issue for a second (albeit while ogling a pair of breasts).
Anyway, I think this comes down to a difference of opinion. :) Good luck on Civ Pro. That class is no fun.
Posted by: Adam Wolfson | December 18, 2003 09:10 PM
Adam, gimme a break. :)
The idea is self-evidently ridiculous. Do you really think that a guy who has just tuned in to look at (not very good) porn is all of a sudden going to think: "Oh, wait! A political monologue. Well, hell, they've got my vote!"
You also miss the slightly finer point that yes, I'm being dismissive--in reponse to a quote which is every bit, if not more, dismissive of its opposition. Babes Against Bush doesn't present an argument but invective, and I responded in kind.
Just with a bit more wit, if I do say so myself. ;)
xhjyrwPosted by: A. Rickey | December 22, 2003 03:13 AM
Well, in much the same way as pictures of attractive women are used to sell cars (a picture of a girl! With long legs! I'll buy a Clio) or soft drinks (Britney Spears, Dancing! with few clothes! I'll have a Pepsi!) this will actually succeed in getting a few people to read the political diatribe.
On the other hand, I haven't looked but I suspect it may actually be an attempt to sell pornography to the politically active rather than vice versa. (Well honey, I was just looking at these political sites and suddenly there was porn! [at which point I abandoned politics and looked at the porn instead] Its not like the porn industry doesn't do a lot of this kind of thing)
Anyway, Merry Christmas Mr Rickey and congratulations on completing your exams.
engwswf lacfPosted by: martin | December 22, 2003 06:44 AM
Adam...respect your opinion 'n' all, but you're wrong, pal.
Happened across your comments during a random google search of BAB mentions, and you came up. Clearly you don't understand some of what's going on with our site (or are too biased to read any of the articles we've posted, or follow any of the links we've thrown up to misc. and sundry progressive political sites). The core mission of BAB was to make people aware that opposition to Bush _exists_, period. Not that WE are in a position to unseat him; rather, that those curious enough to look - and there have been plenty, over a million so far - might be moved to follow some of the links, read some of the info, and at least consider some of the arguments against Bush.
Don't believe that it works? All I can tell you is that the owner of one site we've linked to has told me that he's had a tenfold increase in traffic. Sure, we used the sex "bait" to draw people in, but the content has drawn at least some in further - which is what we set out to do.
Meanwhile, what have you accomplished lately?
David/BabesAgainstBush
pyhgvvPosted by: David/BAB | January 2, 2004 07:34 AM
Kept my soul and done my political thinking without having to bare young women's breasts.
David, it's not that I don't understand. (Nor, indeed, that I'm too biased to look at your articles.) But if you think you have to put up a porn site to make people aware that opposition to Bush exists, you live in your own little conspiracy-theory world in which the media is a one-sided monster. Last I noticed, there's at least eight candidates who are opposing Bush in a manner befitting a Democratic society.
You got a lot of click-throughs by putting up a porn site? You've raised 'awareness'? Wow. I've had coffee and doughnuts for breakfast, and short of causing a few erections, it's probably more than BAB has accomplished...
zgrvrmPosted by: A. Rickey | January 2, 2004 12:08 PM