Three Years of Hell to Become the Devil: 'Babes Against Bush' are back

« Happy New Year! | Main | Run the Un-named Nazgul as Democratic Candidate! »

'Babes Against Bush' are back

Some of you may remember a post of mine in which I flippantly disregarded the importance of the Babes Against Bush (not work safe) website. Well, it seems that the head honcho of this particular site has been moved to comment. The best self-important howler:

The core mission of BAB was to make people aware that opposition to Bush _exists_, period.

Ah yes. In a world filled with Naom Chomsky, Michael Moore, Al Franken, the editorial page of the New York Times, one hundred celebrity pundit Crossfire-esque chat shows, and Saturday Night Live, it takes someone courageous enough to bare women's breasts to make people aware that opposition to Bush exists.

This morning, I took a deep breath, sat back in an easy chair, and tried to imagine what a grim view of humanity one has to have to think that such means are necessary to make people recognize politics. Try it, it's enlightening. Especially if you're still lightly drunk and need sobering up quickly.

Posted by Anthony on January 2, 2004 12:33 PM | Permalink

TrackBack

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference 'Babes Against Bush' are back:

» Style, Substance, the Superbowl from Crescat Sententia
I can�t help somebody who thinks, or thinks he thinks, that editing a newspaper is censorship or that throwing bricks is a demonstration while building tower blocks is social violence. . . Now, obviously broadcast stations can and do make... [Read More]

Comments

Hmmm... Wouldn't it be more to the point if they just call themselves "Straight Babes" or something to that effect? We all know that some women don't like bush, and for us guys, that's OK. ;-)

Posted by: Bronson | January 2, 2004 12:59 PM

Much as I think BAB is a rubbishy idea I think you're too quick to dismiss the motivation for such measures. Just as the right has a hard time winning over young voters, so there are numerous categories of voters who are similarly blind to left-wing ideas. There's no point you responding coolly that you can think political thoughts without needing to look at naked breasts first. The question is, how can one get people who are not interested in politics to actually think about some of the issues (whether left or right) ? Political debates are full of ideas and ideologies, but the political battlefield generally isn't, it's full of PR and misrepresentation. That's bad for both sides.

Posted by: Bateleur | January 2, 2004 1:47 PM

Well, more important might be pointing out that opposition to Bush runs between 40 and 50% of the population. Which is odd, since his supporters consistently characterise it as a small, misinformed and unrepresentative minority who have somehow enthralled such leftwing organisations as CNN, FOX and NBC. M

Posted by: martin | January 3, 2004 11:25 AM

Martin, with due respect, Babes Against Bush characterizes themselves as a small, misinformed, and unrepresentative minority. Secondly, which supporters are you talking about? Samuelson and Will (as well as even National Review) talk constantly of the '50% nation.' And no one vaguely credible claims that the vast left-wing conspiracy has taken over FOX news...

Posted by: A. Rickey | January 3, 2004 12:10 PM

Bateleur, I'm not saying that getting more people into politics might not be a bad idea, and heck, I'm not even saying that using politics to get more breasts on public display isn't a good idea. But are you honestly telling me that you think BAB has reached one person, one single solitary human who went to the website unaware that political opposition to Bush exists? I suppose if they're so blinkered that they were unaware of Bush's existence at all, this is possible, but otherwise the claim is ludicrous.

Posted by: A. Rickey | January 4, 2004 6:12 PM

"'Babes Against Bush' are back". You mean "Babes Against Bush" ever went away? *sitting on my hands desperately and not quite successfully trying to make the obvious joke about pubic shaving, in case Bronson's comment went over anyone's head*

Posted by: Len Cleavelin | January 5, 2004 2:17 PM

For that comment to go over anyone's head, they'd have to be stooping very low.

Posted by: A. Rickey | January 5, 2004 2:21 PM

"Ah yes. In a world filled with Naom Chomsky, Michael Moore, Al Franken, the editorial page of the New York Times, one hundred celebrity pundit Crossfire-esque chat shows, and Saturday Night Live, it takes someone courageous enough to bare women's breasts to make people aware that opposition to Bush exists." Think about it differently -- it's making *people who do nothing but look for nude pictures of women* aware that opposition to Bush exists. At the risk of stereotyping, I submit that perhaps these people are not likely to have looked at *any* of the sources you mentioned. :-)

Posted by: anon | January 10, 2004 12:01 PM

Hold on, anon. You're telling me that the fantastic achievement of Babes Against Bush is to get people who do nothing but look at pictures of nude women to be aware that opposition to Bush exists? I'm willing to guess that many people who do nothing but stare at porn are not aware that politics exists. But even imagining that we wake them out of their breast-befuddled dreams to grant them some social awareness, how many of these people do you think there are? I mean, true, there are people who stare at a lot of porn, but don't you think that anyone so obsessed that they don't know who the president is or whether he has any opposition, or if there's even an election going on, might be better served? Perhaps by directing them to a site on addiction?

Posted by: A. Rickey | January 10, 2004 12:08 PM

Monday night�s 15-minute speech by President Bush, setting a 48-hour deadline for war against Iraq, went beyond the usual distortions, half-truths, and appeals to fear and backwardness to include a remarkable number of barefaced, easily refuted lies.

Posted by: People who against George Bush | February 27, 2004 3:53 PM

breast

Posted by: And | April 23, 2005 4:23 PM

Giving The Devil His Due

And like that... he is gone (8)
Bateleur wrote: I tip my hat to you - not only for ... [more]

Law Firm Technology (5)
Len Cleavelin wrote: I find it extremely difficult to be... [more]

Post Exam Rant (9)
Tony the Pony wrote: Humbug. Allowing computers already... [more]

Symbols, Shame, and A Number of Reasons that Billy Idol is Wrong (11)
Adam wrote: Well, here's a spin on the theory o... [more]

I've Always Wanted to Say This: What Do You Want? (14)
gcr wrote: a nice cozy victorian in west phill... [more]