Billmon:
Commencing wing nut blogosphere eruption in T minus 3,2,1 . . .
Back to Main
April 5, 2006
WB: The Camera Never Lies
Comments
I think what you got there is a “troll” and not a “kewpie”, not that they look that different or are’nt often confused in this way, although I dont think I’ve ever heard of a kewpie being called a troll. Anyway, was’nt it Time that did a similar thing to O.J.? Bad omen, however you look at it. Haha.
Posted by: anna missed | Apr 5 2006 6:22 utc | 1
Be vewwy, vewwy quiet . . .
I’m hunting Iwanians!
HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE-HE!!
Posted by: Antifa | Apr 5 2006 7:37 utc | 2
No matter how you look at her, she ugly.
U-G-L-Y, she ain’t got no alibi. She ugly. [inside-out and outside-in]
Posted by: beq | Apr 5 2006 13:44 utc | 3
LOL!! this is terrible. She reminds me of those puppets on brit tv that make fun of politicians…I can’t remember the name of the show.
I love this post juxtaposed with The Reverend Ayatollah Swami Kos pix.
but as far as journalism, the pix of Condi are terribly unfair. The one with the strange eyes is too scary. I have to go turn on the lights now. Oh wait, it’s daytime.
Posted by: fauxreal | Apr 5 2006 14:27 utc | 4
a woman’s power is easy to disarm by acknowledging “how she looks.” this seems even easier when the same woman can still be thought of by the wider culture as a sex object. condi has no kids and appears to be afflicted by occassional estrus. so, unlike podetmenopausal women of power (meir, thatcher) who are utterly nonsexual masculanized icons, the ugly woman is an easy mark for universal defamation.
I mean, “how bush looks” is a source of ridicule but seldom exploits popular insecurities about his virility.
let’s just say it would be a drag to be the fading beauty power bitch. just ask sharon stone. (not a cite suitable for the average term paper, I’ll admit).
Posted by: slothrop | Apr 5 2006 16:50 utc | 5
Is Billmon saying that they doctored the photo? If not, is he implying she is unattractive — but using a PC excuse that he is reporting that somebody else is implying it? Even got an “ugly” direct attack here at MoA. That was predictable.
I wish Billmon would stick to criticizing her policies. Gratuitous slaps at the appearance and sexuality of a powerful woman are not attractive. Ad hominem [feminam] invectives make poor debating substitutes.
The same goes for the MoveOn.org email I just recieved asking me to send money so they could send rubber chickens to Tom Delay in celebration of his withdrawing from his reelection campaign. Enough already. I’m not going to wast my money on any organization that thinks this is a good use of grassroots time and energy.
Come back up to higher standards, Billmon and MoA.
Posted by: gylangirl | Apr 6 2006 0:22 utc | 6
I’m with gylangirl: misogyny of this undergraduate variety is not an approved weapon in my personal arsenal against the Bad Guys — including the Bad Girls.
I mean, why not just join with the Right in their derisive sneers about Gore being “faggy”? we can just say it about one of Their Guys and that will make it funny, right?
the photo sure looks doctored to me.
anyway imho Condi Rice is a damned handsome woman, but that doesn’t mean she’s not also a creep, power-mad, scary, a willing tool of UeberWhiteBoys Cheney/Rummie/Bush and all the rest. when, if ever, are we gonna get the idea that “you’re ugly and your Mama dresses you funny” is not a substantive political criticism?
Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 6 2006 0:47 utc | 7
btw, if Billmon’s point is that this photo may mean the TIME empire has switched horses or jumped ship or [pick your favourite overused metaphor] then this is somewhat interesting — kinda like a tipping point where US media start printing realistic rather than carefully airbrushed and lit pics of The Governator, or we stop seeing “candid” shots of Bush with some kind of background halo effect around his head. but it might just mean insurrection (and imminent pink slip) in the layout department.
in light of sloth’s comment, the infamous Sharon Stone recently said that HRC should wait until she is postmenopausal to run for President, perhaps for somewhat similar reasons: the only woman men really respect is Grandma?
Posted by: DeAnander | Apr 6 2006 0:53 utc | 8
Be vewwy, vewwy quiet . . .
I’m hunting Iwanians!
Now that was funny!
However, I agree with DeA, GGrrl, and Sloth(it pains me to say this, on any occasion), but making fun of peoples looks is really pretty pathetic.
And I remember THEY did it with Hillary and Chelsea, among others.
Posted by: Groucho | Apr 6 2006 1:25 utc | 9
a character of condi is no different than what cartoonists do all the time. but it does show intenton. i wouldn’t have been surprised had it been hilary but w/time, condi is a surprise.
those artists on the beach, they always accentuate your most distinguishing features, i read the post as a commentary on what time chose to do w/her image. but interestingly enough when you follow the link you have access to vote on the most influential builder. when i voted this morning i found georgie was ahead. get over there and vote!
now, the last time they had that flub(glaring eyes) they claimed it was a simple mistake, but it also could be a window into the minds of the people working behind the scenes . the little people find a way of expressing their opinions, any way they can.
Posted by: annie | Apr 6 2006 1:56 utc | 10
Definitely not a kewpie. (How weird is it to go to a high school football game and chant “Rough tough Kewpies, let’s go!)
I think the picture of Condi looks more like a Halfling–there’s something of the wild wood in the exotic angles of her face.
Posted by: catlady | Apr 6 2006 6:33 utc | 11
Condi Rice is a damned handsome woman
Must. Resist. Vomiting.
What is the distaff of misogyny, I wonder.
Posted by: gmac | Apr 6 2006 10:45 utc | 12
“What is the distaff of misogyny, I wonder.”
I’ve often wondered myself. Well, I remember reading a long cover piece on her in the Sunday Washington Post many many years ago and thought she was interesting (not handsome) but handsome is as handsome does and I can’t bear the sight or sound of her any more than dubya. Her ugliness is basically inside [inside out] and if you knew me you wouldn’t confuse my comment with mysogyny. Sorry if I offended. I try very hard not to. I’ll take a timeout.
Posted by: beq | Apr 6 2006 11:49 utc | 13
I’ll take a timeout.
Come back soon. It is just one of those internet-communication-lack-of-context-misunderstandings-again.
Posted by: a swedish kind of death | Apr 6 2006 14:44 utc | 14
@Beq:
Time out’s over.
“handsome”–DeA must be harvesting magic mushrooms out on the back 40.
Posted by: Groucho | Apr 6 2006 15:17 utc | 15
Condi conferring with The Shrubbery
Are you pondering what I’m pondering?
What’s that Condi?
World Domination
Posted by: gmac | Apr 6 2006 20:44 utc | 16
If this creature’s policies were more realistic and humane, I would not take pot shots at it. I’d be here to praise it, not bury it for warcrimes. Things like this are entirely deserving of our derision, scorn and ridicule. The funnier the better. It brings them down a peg and may oftentimes reveal a truth. Laughter relieves stress and releases endorphins.
Saying that it is so ugly that if I had a dog that looked like it, I would shave the dog’s ass and tell the dog to walk backwards. Or that gap in its teeth lets the lies flow more easily, is not an attack on women, just whatever this thing is – because of what it does with the public trust. Nothing more. At least in my case.
They all should swing for so callously and casually tossing aside the achievements of Jackson at Nuremburg.
Posted by: gmac | Apr 6 2006 21:16 utc | 17
This is not a mistake, nor a cartoon. It’s like Billmon says; someone at Time doesn’t like Condi Rice, so they’ve manipulated a photo surreptitiously.
That’s a breach of trust between publisher and reader. It’s irresponsible and should be condemned.
Posted by: Max Power | Apr 7 2006 1:51 utc | 18
well max power there are 2 different images in question, one is a cartoon. the other is a digitally enhanced photo. also, we must take into account that in trying to adjust the brightness or contrast in the photo image it very well could have been , originally a mistake, that whoever is supposed to check these things, either missed or let stand. considering that since she’s black, to lighten her image, the whites of her eyes became too bright.
as for the cartoon, she’s fair game, thats what cartoonists do, i don’t see it in the same light as the image of the prophet of islam, although that is probably my bias shining thru.
but in this country , political figures are fair game. that includes women and blacks. if it were a cartoon of clinton, or bush, of course there were many, would there be an ‘aghast’,
or this defense? surely we’ve not come to that.
how do you know the publisher wasn’t in on it?
btw, what i have noticed in more than a few of her images is the eyes, i forget what its called, something like sempaku, but i know thats not right because i tried googling it, where one came see the white of the eyes below the pupil, not a ggod sign, suppossed to mean an imbalance in eastern cultures. an imbalance of the spirit. she’s not quite there, but teetering.
Posted by: annie | Apr 7 2006 4:15 utc | 19
Yeah I see the cartoon…as presented, I thought this was a manipulated photo.
Posted by: Max Power | Apr 7 2006 11:08 utc | 22
Come to think of it, it’s likely also racist to make fun of negroid features by comparing a person’s face to a [subhuman] troll’s face. Too offensive to be funny.
Posted by: gylangirl | Apr 7 2006 22:33 utc | 24