Naked Lady of the Week: Natasha Marley

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

nm-cover

British blonde Natasha Marley got her start posing for pin-up material, then moved into the dicier world of hardcore films. She has a naturally naughty-looking mouth, and she’s an expert at opening it slightly while fixing the camera with an intense “fuck me” stare. According to a bio at Pornhub, she’s a former army brat who was kicked out of private school. What are the chances either detail is true?

Here’s an interview with Natasha in which she talks about her experiences filming a porn sendup of “Bonnie and Clyde.”

Nudity below. Stay cool this weekend.

Continue reading

Posted in Photography, Sex, The Good Life | Tagged , , , | Leave a comment

Juxtaposin’: Judy

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

Posted in Music | Tagged , | Leave a comment

Juxtaposin’: “So White”

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

Many people are showering contempt on Paul Ryan’s recent Instagram photo of Capitol Hill interns for being “so white.” This Esquire writer thinks it’s “deeply, disturbingly wrong.”

paulryaninterns

We’re at a bizarre moment in American history where some people think that noting that a group of people is “so white” is a trenchant political comment. This is akin to observing that the sun is “so bright” is an important piece of scientific data.

Via Paleo Retiree, a reminder of what Obama’s 2012 campaign staff looked like.

obama2012staff

Posted in Politics and Economics | Tagged , , , | 2 Comments

The Advertising Art of Paramount Records

Blowhard, Esq. writes:

paramountenvelope

Posted in Art, Commercial art, Music | Tagged , , , , , , | 2 Comments

The Merest Stray Phenomenon

Fabrizio del Wrongo writes:

2014GY5228

Tess was the merest stray phenomenon to Angel Clare as yet — a rosy, warming apparition which had only just acquired the attribute of persistence in his consciousness. So he allowed his mind to be occupied with her, deeming his preoccupation to be no more than a philosopher’s regard of an exceedingly novel, fresh, and interesting specimen of womankind.

They met continually; they could not help it. They met daily in that strange and solemn interval, the twilight of the morning, in the violet or pink dawn; for it was necessary to rise early, so very early, here. Milking was done betimes; and before the milking came the skimming, which began at a little past three. It usually fell to the lot of some one or other of them to wake the rest, the first being aroused by an alarm-clock; and, as Tess was the latest arrival, and they soon discovered that she could be depended upon not to sleep though the alarm as others did, this task was thrust most frequently upon her. No sooner had the hour of three struck and whizzed, than she left her room and ran to the dairyman’s door; then up the ladder to Angel’s, calling him in a loud whisper; then woke her fellow-milkmaids. By the time that Tess was dressed Clare was downstairs and out in the humid air. The remaining maids and the dairyman usually gave themselves another turn on the pillow, and did not appear till a quarter of an hour later.

The gray half-tones of daybreak are not the gray half-tones of the day’s close, though the degree of their shade may be the same. In the twilight of the morning, light seems active, darkness passive; in the twilight of evening it is the darkness which is active and crescent, and the light which is the drowsy reverse.

Being so often — possibly not always by chance — the first two persons to get up at the dairy-house, they seemed to themselves the first persons up of all the world. In these early days of her residence here Tess did not skim, but went out of doors at once after rising, where he was generally awaiting her. The spectral, half-compounded, aqueous light which pervaded the open mead impressed them with a feeling of isolation, as if they were Adam and Eve. At this dim inceptive stage of the day Tess seemed to Clare to exhibit a dignified largeness both of disposition and physique, an almost regnant power, possibly because he knew that at that preternatural time hardly any woman so well endowed in person as she was likely to be walking in the open air within the boundaries of his horizon; very few in all England. Fair women are usually asleep at mid-summer dawns. She was close at hand, and the rest were nowhere.

The mixed, singular, luminous gloom in which they walked along together to the spot where the cows lay often made him think of the Resurrection hour. He little thought that the Magdalen might be at his side. Whilst all the landscape was in neutral shade his companion’s face, which was the focus of his eyes, rising above the mist stratum, seemed to have a sort of phosphorescence upon it. She looked ghostly, as if she were merely a soul at large. In reality her face, without appearing to do so, had caught the cold gleam of day from the north-east; his own face, though he did not think of it, wore the same aspect to her.

It was then, as has been said, that she impressed him most deeply. She was no longer the milkmaid, but a visionary essence of woman — a whole sex condensed into one typical form. He called her Artemis, Demeter, and other fanciful names half teasingly, which she did not like because she did not understand them.

“Call me Tess,” she would say askance; and he did.

Then it would grow lighter, and her features would become simply feminine; they had changed from those of a divinity who could confer bliss to those of a being who craved it.

At these non-human hours they could get quite close to the waterfowl. Herons came, with a great bold noise as of opening doors and shutters, out of the boughs of a plantation which they frequented at the side of the mead; or, if already on the spot, hardily maintained their standing in the water as the pair walked by, watching them by moving their heads round in a slow, horizontal, passionless wheel, like the turn of puppets by clockwork.

They could then see the faint summer fogs in layers, woolly, level, and apparently no thicker than counterpanes, spread about the meadows in detached remnants of small extent. On the gray moisture of the grass were marks where the cows had lain through the night — dark-green islands of dry herbage the size of their carcasses, in the general sea of dew. From each island proceeded a serpentine trail, by which the cow had rambled away to feed after getting up, at the end of which trail they found her; the snoring puff from her nostrils, when she recognized them, making an intenser little fog of her own amid the prevailing one. Then they drove the animals back to the barton, or sat down to milk them on the spot, as the case might require.

Or perhaps the summer fog was more general, and the meadows lay like a white sea, out of which the scattered trees rose like dangerous rocks. Birds would soar through it into the upper radiance, and hang on the wing sunning themselves, or alight on the wet rails subdividing the mead, which now shone like glass rods. Minute diamonds of moisture from the mist hung, too, upon Tess’s eyelashes, and drops upon her hair, like seed pearls. When the day grew quite strong and commonplace these dried off her; moreover, Tess then lost her strange and ethereal beauty; her teeth, lips, and eyes scintillated in the sunbeams and she was again the dazzlingly fair dairymaid only, who had to hold her own against the other women of the world.

— Thomas Hardy

Posted in Books Publishing and Writing, Sex | Tagged , | 5 Comments

The Oddness of the Current Press Moment 2

Fenster writes:

What the hell, another comment on the oddness of the current press moment.

Here are Shields and Brooks, interviewed as they are regularly by Judy Woodruff on PBS. Though staking out left field and right field respectively, the two are gentlemanly to a fault, agree with each other a lot in a charming Alphonse and Gaston sort of way, and are particularly united in their distaste of Trump and Trumpism. Mostly that has involved joint harrumphing and eye rolling, all jovial enough since they have seemed to assume, in the manner of Remainers, that our own version of Leave cannot win. But recent circumstances have resulted in the possibility of a reversal of fortune. How will the mainstream press deal with the need to cover a possible new reality in the polls, and in Trump’s prospects?

S&B provide one answer in the video. They start out cheery enough but by around minute six the clouds darken. They are compelled to provide commentary on vexing issues like Comey’s non-indictment indictment of Clinton, the impact of the Nice attack, the practical selection of Pence as VP, and recent movements in the polls. They are more or less forced to acknowledge that Trump is the beneficiary of events, and is doing  . . . . well, well.

Woodruff, hoping to help out with a return to the accepted narrative, chimes in at one point to remind Shields that while the Nice truck driver was Tunisian there has been no evidence presented of a suspect Islamic motivation. But to this Shields remarks ruefully (and accurately) that, look, Trump’s message is one of nationalism and it does not make much difference if the guy was pissed off on account of a bad divorce or whether he was bound for glory. Good for Shields that he is many cuts above the usual TV spinners, and that he, like Pat Buchanan from time to time, is willing to make observations that can be inconvenient from a purely partisan perspective.

Still and all, it can’t be easy.  Much simpler to be bought and paid for.  And so you can see the effects of the events of the week wearing on the two as they attempt a recap that is not corrupt.  The tone of the second half of the interview is . . . what is the word? . . . . elegiac? You get the feeling that all three of them, Woodruff included, sense something is slipping away.

Posted in Politics and Economics | Tagged , , , | 7 Comments

The Oddness of the Current Press Moment 1

Fenster writes:

The small dust-up over whether the French government suppressed evidence of torture and mutilation at Bataclan is a good case study of the oddness of the current press moment. Heat Street ran a piece saying yes: Snopes has for the moment debunked it fairly effectively IMHO. The story continues to run on right-leaning sites without any mention of the debunking.  Some of these are press outlets that are in the business of recycling right-thinking news (see here and here for example).  Others, like Fox and the New York Post, are essentially mainstream outlets that tilt right, and profess to actually cover, and not just recycle, the news.  And for the record, Drudge has a link up, though where you put Drudge on the news spectrum is up to you.

Meanwhile, the entire kerfuffle is not mentioned at all in the MSM.  Arguably that’s because they are persuaded by the Snopes skeptical view.  But one way or another, it is fair to consider this story at this point in time to be “news”, though it is news of a particularly interesting variety that suits our moment: a story poised somewhere between being and nothingness, content to inhabit that ambiguous space.

I was a bit put off that The American Thinker blog ran with an uncritical story endorsing the suppression angle.  The author is one Rick Moran.

Rick-Moranis

no, not Moranis, Moran.  With an “a”.

moran

Kidding aside, I like The American Thinker.  It doesn’t always live up to the highfalutin’ promise of its title, but it usually presents interesting and thoughtful commentary, if sometimes inflammatory and more than occasionally doctrinaire.

Moran’s story was just posted a few minutes ago, well after the Snopes debunking’s ready availability on the web.  But there is no mention of any critical evaluation of the suppression story.  It looks true.

One Fenster Moop wrote in to The American Thinker in response.

Careful there, American Thinker! I take your point about the general problem but you ought to closely evaluate the argument that the original Heat Street story—the source of all the stuff out there from the Daily Caller to Fox News–does not hold up. Snopes–which I do not always trust when it veers too far into political territory–does a pretty good debunking here.

http://www.snopes.com/france-c…

I first found the Heat Street article credible but then went out on my own to take a look at the inquiry report that forms its basis. Granted, I had to patch things together from badly translated material already posted, Google Translate and my own high school French. But I do not see that the inquiry material supports the charge of suppression, or even that of atrocities having been committed.

What do we have? One police officer, Monsieur TP, who arrives at the scene and finds and investigator coming down from the second floor who says he saw scenes of torture and dismemberment, and who promptly goes outside to vomit. Nothing first hand from M TP.

Then we have a father who sees his son at a morgue and who recounts how the people there would not let him see his son, given how disfigured he was. He appears to have had an eye taken out. But this is pretty shaky stuff in the confusion of the moment. A recollection by a father of what a mortician said in a crisis situation. Any report? Any official record that the missing eye was definitely due to torture and not shrapnel, say? No.

The report has a bit more of this kind of indirect stuff, but not even much more of that. And no direct witnesses, accounts, or forensic evidence.

The prefect of police states flatly there is no forensic evidence and no evidence of blades left behind, instruments that would be needed for the guttings and beheadings allegedly committed at the scene. He concludes the atrocity rumors were just that.

Now if you are conspiracy minded you will draw from the prefect’s testimony that bien sûr there was a cover up. But all that depends on the reliability of stories about atrocities, and we have no decent direct accounts of that as far as I can see. And even if there were atrocities, while the prefect’s account might be questioned there is no direct evidence of suppression. I say this because several of the news accounts out there have morphed the story into one in which the suppression angle is front and center, as if it has itself been established. As far as I can see, it has not.

So for the moment I am persuaded by Snopes argument. Maybe I would not brand the suppression story as “False”, as Snopes did. But I do not see the Heat Street charges well-supported in the record, and that includes for me a brief detour into the French press looking elsewhere for first person accounts of things like beheadings, and the filming of them. I don’t see them.

I could be wrong of course. The truth may be out there. But I respect The American Thinker, read it quite regularly and would hope it would exercise care in its editorial judgments. And I don’t think you should have run this story, at least without taking on the quite reasonable counterarguments. Perhaps Monsieur Moran will do a follow up in which he evaluates Snopes’s arguments. This would be a good idea, no?  Journalisme?

In the end I find this a great example of the pajama style journalism age we now live in. Shoe leather? Fahgeddabaddit.

Ha. You want to establish atrocities and a cover up? Go find the story!

Used to be counted as a bad thing that freedom of the press exists only for those lucky enough to own one. Now every man is a Hearst, and that has its own downsides. To paraphrase Burke, the effect of press freedom for all is that individuals may do what they please; we ought to see what it will please them to do, before we risk congratulations which may be soon turned into complaints.

Now, if people got out of their pajamas and chased the story down, what might they find?  Who knows, they may find evidence of atrocities and news suppression.  I just now came across this account, which looks pretty credible but again suffers from being second-hand.  And why do I have to spend a half-day looking up sources to support a story that on its face is not well sourced, with many in the press not bothering to worry about sourcing?  Good reportage is still possible here both on the atrocities themselves and the possibility of willful suppression of the events.

I am still in my pajamas.  And for now, I side with Snopes.  But I welcome Monsieur Moran’s follow-up story, too.

Note:

Fenster commented at The American Thinker around 10AM.  It is now noon.  The comment was definitely posted because it received a snarky response from an American Thinker who thoughtfully pointed out that Snopes is a left wing shill and not to be trusted.  I wrote back that thinking, even American Thinking, involves grappling with the actual issues presented.  Meanwhile, I note that at some point in the last hour The American Thinker pulled my comment and it is listed as awaiting “moderation.”  Sounds like fun!  I look forward to my moderation.  Might it involve a summer camp, maybe, with marching and lectures about Hayek and Marx?

But that’s maybe too cynical.  Maybe they are having second thoughts about the original post.  Stay tuned.

Note 2: Going back over the translations I do now see one reference to a specific mutilation.  It is the one I referenced above, where the father was shown his son in the morgue but was not allowed to see the actual wounds on the body.  This comes from one of the inquiry’s investigators, who says he has a letter from the father concerning his experience after the event.  The best translation I can make of the relevant part of the father’s letter reads as follows:

 . . . in the Forensic Institute of Paris, I was told, and this with reservations in the light of the impact that this represented for me at this time, that we (?) had cut off her testes, that they had placed in the mouth, and that he had been gutted.

OK, that’s getting close to a first hand account but it is still not totally convincing.  The testimony is not delivered in person by someone who can be identified but is included in a letter sent to one of the investigators, and simply read at the proceedings.  It does not appear to be testimony.  We don’t know who sent it.  We don’t know who the person was who told the father about the mutilation.  And the father did not view the body.  Still, it is a disturbing tale, and one that might be chased down fairly quickly by an enterprising reporter.  If you are still a believer in the suppression angle here’s your chance.  Everyone else is parroting the one weak account available.  Go get your story.

Bonus! Fenster wrote earlier about the lack of shoe leather in what passes for journalism in the current era.  Kids today!

Posted in Politics and Economics | Tagged , , , , , | 1 Comment