A blog about News and Politics.
|
Parra goes out in style Royalty in Bakersfield? Who wudda thunk? No on Prop. 98, Yes on 99 Re-elect Mayor Harvey Hall Errea, Mitchell, Brehmer for bench HOW DO WE JUDGE A JUDGE? MATHEW "MATT" BRADY - Westra Seat CHARLES ROBERT "CHIP" BREHMER - Westra Seat FRANK BUTKIEWICZ - Westra Seat MICHAEL RALPH GARDINA - Westra Seat June 06 July 06 August 06 September 06 October 06 November 06 December 06 January 07 February 07 March 07 April 07 May 07 June 07 July 07 August 07 September 07 October 07 November 07 December 07 January 08 February 08 March 08 April 08 May 08 June 08 July 08 August 08 September 08 October 08 November 08 December 08 January 09 February 09 March 09 April 09 May 09 June 09 July 09 August 09 September 09 October 09 November 09 June 06 May 06 April 06 March 06 February 06 December 05 November 05 October 05 September 05 August 05 July 05 June 05 May 05 April 05 March 05 February 05 Blog RollAsk The Californian Editorials Entertainment Eye of Bakersfield Faith Forum Fired Up! Inside Sports Neighbors Right Thinking Sound Off Talk of the Town 
RSS 2.0    Share!
|
|
|
Pornography in eye of beholder
Dianne Hardisty, editorial page editor -- OK, all you folks in bloggerland. What do you think? When I woke up this morning and checked my e-mail from home I discovered a Voicemail message from an angry Bakersfield woman who accused me of publishing pornography.
She said she was referring to the drawing of two guys that “I find both very offensive, very suggestive and very explicit. If you are going to do pornography, you should try another business.” I nearly had a heart attack. I feared a bizarre switch had been made and some obscene vision now jumped out at readers. I pushed my husband out the front door to retrieve the newspaper. No switch had been made. It was the colorful cartoon by syndicated artist Paul Combs of a tax filer and his accountant. The cartoon accompanies this posting. I wrote Combs and asked him about his intent. Did he have a vile hidden meaning or agenda, I asked. His response, “What? It's amazing what people can read into a cartoon. Trust me, there is absolutely nothing suggestive or obscene intended in the cartoon. I can't even see what in Heaven's name your reader is talking about. Wow! “Take care and please insure your readers that I'm not subliminally trying to corrupt their minds:)” What do you think of Combs’ cartoon? 24 comments from 18 users
1
posted by
Tolerance
on Apr 17, 2007 at 04:02 PM
Wow! I tried real hard to "read into" the cartoon. I can't imagine how this could be misconstrued. posted by
randomfactor
on Apr 17, 2007 at 04:04 PM
Well, "pornography" literally means "writing about prostitutes." Maybe she felt the reference to Congressmen qualified. . I'm reminded of the guy taking the Rorschach test who told the shrink that every one looked like "sex" to him. "It seems you're hung up on sex," the shrink tells him. "ME? YOU're the one with all the dirty pictures!" posted by
randomfactor
on Apr 17, 2007 at 04:06 PM
Oh. . "Observe, my friends, his nose." posted by
samheath
on Apr 17, 2007 at 04:09 PM
The nose and hair would be my guess.
posted by
tkozy
on Apr 17, 2007 at 04:24 PM
Rotate the photograph counter clockwise, at 41 RPM. OH, How vile and disgusting. Dianne. Will you ever be able to show yourself in public again. By the way. I am not sure that one blog post, will qualify for attendance at the afternoon coffee this weekend. I’ll have my people, talk to your people. Will get back to you as soon as we can.. Good luck. I know you are excited about meeting all of us. posted by
adampayne
on Apr 17, 2007 at 04:33 PM
The lady who complained is obviously off her medication. Please have her see her doctor immediately.
posted by
Roselady
on Apr 17, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Oh, MY....
posted by
woofwoof
on Apr 17, 2007 at 04:39 PM
Do you think it's a gay reference? Trying to take someone of the same sex as a dependent? That's the only thing I could think of. Then again, you know what they say about men with big noses, right? Big boogers. LOL No, really, I dated this Croatian guy back in the 70's, he had a big nose and a big one to match. posted by
sagefever
on Apr 17, 2007 at 06:11 PM
woof that's the only connection I could see..but I did have to squint and stand on my head...no,porn..now that's a stretch
posted by
TomW
on Apr 17, 2007 at 06:56 PM
Sometimes a nose is just a nose.Now, you might call this graphic or lewd maybe, but "pornography"? Sorry, it does nothing for me. posted by
anonymous
on Apr 17, 2007 at 10:54 PM
I am a beholder!
posted by
bakonative
on Apr 17, 2007 at 11:05 PM
Not pornography.... but the noses do look like.... well, ya all know already! I would not have figured it out though without the suggestion! posted by
possummomma
on Apr 18, 2007 at 12:17 AM
I can't see anything that might even REMOTELY be considered "pornographic".
posted by
steveeswenson
on Apr 18, 2007 at 06:43 AM
How can a woman even think of something sexual with a man wearing blue plaid pants?
posted by
anonymous
on Apr 18, 2007 at 08:09 AM
Yes but they probably wear size 18 shoes.
posted by
randomfactor
on Apr 18, 2007 at 08:47 AM
Maybe, but they're size 18 *GOLF* shoes. It's not the *SIZE* of the putter that matters...
posted by
woofwoof
on Apr 18, 2007 at 08:55 AM
I thought is was the size of the ship! So, do you think the guy with glasses, is....Jewish? posted by
randomfactor
on Apr 18, 2007 at 09:06 AM
Afraid that was my first though, Woof. :) Hence my (partial) quote above; "He sticks no fork in ham or pork; observe, my friends, his nose." posted by
mattloch
on Apr 18, 2007 at 09:34 AM
pornography-A generic term that can refer to materials that are either "legal" or "illegal" to disseminate under the circumstances. "Pornography" encompasses all sexually oriented material intended primarily to arouse the reader, viewer, or listener. See Webster's Dictionary; Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15, 18 n. 2 (1973); Final Report, Attorney General's Commission on Pornography (1986), Chapter One, "Defining our Central Terms." Serious works of art, literature, politics, or science; "mere nudity," medical works, even though they deal with sex or include sexual references or depictions, would not be considered "pornography" in the context of their legitimate uses. On the other hand, since obscenity can include both actual and simulated conduct, all "Hard-Core Pornography" that depicts penetration clearly visible ("PCV") is "implicitly" within the application of the constitutional criteria of the Supreme Court's obscenity test. See Mishkin v New York, 383 U.S. 506, 508 (1966), Miller v California, 413 U.S. 15, 29 (1973).;
I dunno. Was the picture intended primarily to arouse the viewer? Or did the complainant really know what "pornography" means? "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means." posted by
tkozy
on Apr 18, 2007 at 10:02 AM
Matt says: intended primarily to arouse the reader TK says: It was the morning edition. Maybe she was a farmer. (See highlight below)
a·rouse . –verb (used with object) to stir to action or strong response; excite: to arouse a crowd; to arouse suspicion. to stimulate sexually. to awaken; wake up: The footsteps aroused the dog. –verb (used without object) to awake or become aroused: At dawn the farmers began to arouse. posted by
pamg
on Apr 18, 2007 at 11:05 AM
Definitely the noses! (and some lady who has misplaced her glasses!)
posted by
AudreyB
on Apr 18, 2007 at 12:16 PM
You guys honestly don't see it? Well I'm not going to point it out because it's as obvious as the nose on the CPA's face.
posted by
GrpThink
on Apr 18, 2007 at 01:12 PM
It appears some people spend entirely too much time analyzing the mundane. For the record, Combs has been making noses the same way for years and I can't find any cite where someone has complained. Only in Bakersfield. No wonder the rest of the country looks down their noses on us. posted by
antiextremism
on Apr 18, 2007 at 04:09 PM
I think it's because anytime you mention taxes, it conjours up images of getting screwed.
1
 Loading Stories
Advertisement |
