Just one more reason why we in Tennessee say, “Thank Og for Mississippi!”
:wally
Y’know I certainly could have done without that particular picture. Quite the shock as a I was flipping through it.
I practically swore off sex after seeing that picture. Maybe the Bible Belt libraries should display it more prominently.
We gave a copy of the Jon Stewart book to one member of our family as a stocking stuffer on Christmas morning. Everyone spent part of the day reading it – often aloud to someone else. Republicans, Democrats and assorted extremists all found it hysterical.
Now if it had had a depiction of a nude Phil Bredesen, it could have put us off our feed a little, but the SCOTUS could use a little levity. How about O’Connor with a tattoo?
My wife has a biography (I don’t want to wake her looking for it or its title) of some socialite who was friends with Justice Potter Stewart when he was a young man. Among the photos is one of Stewart posing nude. I was sure that I knew pornography when I saw it but in a decision based on community standards the ladies in the house agreed that it wasn’t pornography because he looked too good.
“He’ll have to become a sleazy stripper instead of Chief Justice of the Supreme Court.”
“What can’t he do both, like the late Earl Warren?”
“Earl Warren wasn’t a stripper!”
“Now who’s being naive?”
[/simpsons]
Well…
It’s not the sort of photo you want to see during breakfast.
Trust me.
This is really the most objectionable book that librarian has ever seen? Apparently, this is a librarian who hasn’t actually been in contact with a lot of books.
Let’s show this guy a ‘Preacher’ graphic novel and watch him melt away into pure liquid outrage.
As Jon Stewart said on The Daily Show last night, that wasn’t even the most offensive image in the book.
It is to those who have been trained to believe that naked privates are the most unholy, loathsome, repellent things in the universe.
Stewart’s first reaction was, “Mississippi has libraries?”
Later in the show John Grisham said banning always increases book sales. He congratulated Jon on his banning. He said it would give Stewart an edge when he negotiates his next book contract. Grisham’s A Time To Kill was banned in a few places, because it begins with a graphic, violent rape scene.
If you had only that picture to judge from, you’d think so, too.
Well, I do know that the image of our SCOTUS’s naked bodies are burned horribly into my brain.
But I can’t imagine anyone getting the book so they can ogle the nude SCOTUS justices.
Yeah. Doesn’t prurience connote some sort of base, wicked desire to partake, even though it’s so, so very wrong?
That photo was indeed very wrong, but not in a good way. Horny teen boys are not going to spank it in the men’s room to “America”, like they do to the Man Ray photography books. Unless MI’s got some uncommon strange teen boys running around, “America”, they should have recognized that the photo is about the opposite of titillating.
The book as a whole is much better than I was expecting from a “TV show book,” even such a good TV show. But the Nekkid Supremes photo? High-school humor, and mean-spirited at that (“People get really ugly when they’re old! Old people are ugly!”). From a buncha humorists in their 20s and 30s.
And they had to know that image was going to get them banned in a lot of stores and libraries. I think they did it simply as provocation, not because it made any leigitimate point or was funny.
And, again, I say this as a huge fan of both the show and Jon Stewart’s.
One big hypothetical question occurred to me:
If this, for some reason, had become a court case (first amendment) and gone all the way to the Supreme Court; would that had meant that all the Supremes had to excuse themselves? Who then hears the case?
Ruth Bader Ginsburg is smokin’ hot.
Maybe they did it for the tons of free publicity they’ve apparently scored off of it. Very crafty, or just sophomoric? You decide.