|Rush Limbaugh, fist-pumping groom, and, oh yeah, the bride|
|Sleek onservatism is A-OK|
|A military color guard for a |
|Rush ignites controversy|
At the New York Observer, John Gorenfeld adds a bit of interesting info to the ongoing controversy about Time magazine's cover image of the 18-year-old Afghan girl whose nose and ears were cut off by her husband as punishment for fleeing his home. The image was an important and powerful editorial choice--all of a sudden a newsweekly cover mattered again, the way they used to every week--because it offered an instant rationale for the US to stay in Afghanistan: What will happen to women like Aisha if we pull out? The image caused a lot of worried talk, presumably because it was shocking, but probably because it raised difficult questions for opponents of the war. The photo itself was visually acceptable to most viewers, I think, in part because it immediately calls to mind one of the icons of magazine photojournalism: Steve McCurry's shot of a young Afghan girl at a refugee camp in Pakistan during the Soviet occupation of Afghanistan. (It's interesting to compare and contrast the effects of the two photographs and the issues they illustrate.) Gorenfeld points out that Time failed to disclose that the writer of its cover story, Aryn Baker, is married to an Afghan man tied to businesses that might profit from a US military presence in Afghanistan.
Finally, the Huffington Post asks its readers to vote on whether they think this new print ad from Proenza Schouler has been retouched to eliminate the model's waist. (My vote: maybe a little, but not necessarily at all. The optical illusion of tiny waists is something that good photographers can create with light, pose, and clothes.) Anyway, as the piece points out, top models do come with tiny waists.