Ace of Spades HQ

« The Flirt Thread | Main | Flaming Shots: A Bad Idea Whose Time Should Never Have Come »

April 17, 2005

'Bout Time

Time to feature Ann Coulter on its cover.

I hate to be a one-note Charlie, but this is, yes, proof of media bias. The woman should have had a big cover story on Time -- and all the rest of the glossies -- years ago.

Not simply because, love her or hate her or love her while wishing she'd eschew her more gratuitously-provocative remarks, but because she will sell magazines. This will be one of the highest-selling issues of Time in years, and they know that. And they've known such an issue would sell very well for a long, long time.

So why did they avoid doing this previously? Why did they avoid giving Coulter her richly deserved props while simultaneously selling a boatload of magazines -- which is, in case they've forgotten, sort of the business they're in?

Because, of course, they'd rather make less money doing cover stories on, say, "Barney Frank's Secret Pain" or whatever than lower themselves to giving a conservative exposure.

Coulter herself has complained about this mentality of the liberal-dominated print media. Which is, I think, more prone to use its power to advance liberal causes than even Hollywood-- on this point, liberal as it is, Hollywood is more mercenary and money-driven and will occasionally, despite its antipathy for conservatism, make conservative-themed movies just to make a buck.

Coulter's various books have been passed on by many (if not most or all) of the big New York publishing firms, before getting published by the smallish-but-growing conservative imprint Regnery. It was perfectly predictable that this lady would move books -- big time, as the man says -- and various editors who passed on her books knew that, the same as they know the sun will rise again tomorrow. But they deliberately chose to put their politics, or at least their sense of what doing "good work" means, over making a profit for their companies and their shareholders.

Economists have debated why, for example, one of the big three networks haven't decided to emulate Fox and attempt a conservative-centrist broadcast, rather than the liberal-centrist broadcasts all three currently offer. From a pure dollars and cents standpoint, it's a no-brainer-- why continue chasing a smaller audience, with two other competitors vying for that smaller audience, when one can simply decide to chase a slightly bigger audience without any major broadcast competetitors whatsoever?

According to pure economic wealth-maximizing analysis, this should have come to pass a decade ago. And yet it didn't.

So some economists adjusted their theory. Media companies are not, in fact, driven only by the profit motive, or the motive to capture as large an audience as possible, as their first analyses assumed. Those who work for the media have goods they desire as much as, or maybe more, than money. And one of those goods is the ability to shape the public discourse in the way they believe is "best" for society. They are willing to make less money in order to help the liberal cause because the liberal cause is personally important to them, and, in economic terms, represents an intangible value to them.

This isn't necessarily a horrible thing. It is nice to hear that anyone puts a value on principle and is willing to make less money in order to vindicate that principle.

But it is pretty strong evidence against their constant claims of being "neutral" and "objective" and "just going where the stories are, and where the stories may take" them.

Ann Coulter has been a story -- a big story, a compelling story, and important political story, and, yes, a sexy story that's pretty damn easy on the eyes -- for years. But it's only after years of studiously ignoring her that someone in the media finally realizes, "Hey, maybe I don't like this woman's politics, but millions of Americans do; perhaps it's time to actually, you know, acknowledge she in fact exists."

The way they... surround a story, as the NYT ad puts it. As always, the worse form of media bias isn't skewed and biased articles. It's their power -- and their inclination -- to simply not report on compelling news, to embargo it almost completely, if it does not advance their preferred political agenda.

Swift Boat Veterans for Truth, anyone? Remember them? Our fair and balanced media is still trying to forget.

Caveat: This screed is based on the assumption that it was the media refusing to prominently expose Ms. Coulter, rather than Ms. Coulter refusing to grant any of the big glossies an interview or a cover-worthy picture.

I can't prove this assumption, but I will just say -- not to be insulting -- that Coulter hasn't exactly eschewed the spotlight or attempted to maintain a low profile. She's given loads of interviews, including to liberal-ish rags like the New York Observer and full-on leftist rags like the Guardian UK. And those papers are pretty small. Well, the Guardian UK may be huge in England for all I know, but it's not exactly a major rag here in the States.

So I really can't imagine that she has been, all these years, spurning Time's diligent pursuit of her.

If I'm wrong, I'm wrong. But I kinda doubt I am.

Adolf Hitler, the Ayatollah Kholmeini, Osama bin Ladin, and Ann Coulter Update: Time famously made Hitler and Kholmeini it's "Men of the Year" when those men were engaged in warfare (conventional or unconventional) with the United States. And they debated making OBL the Man of the Year, before getting chickenshit about it.

As they define "Man of the Year" (please, enough with the "Person of the Year" crap), those were defensible decisions (or, in OBL's case, a defensible notion that was scrapped). The Man of the Year, they say, isn't necessarily a good man, but the man who has made the most impact on the world that year, whether for good or for ill. And they knew that their decisions would be highly controversial -- but controversy, of course, isn't necessarily a bad thing when you're in the media.

Now of course I'm not suggesting that Ann Coulter should be "Woman of the Year" for any year. She's an important polemicist, but she's not actually shaping world events as other Men of the Year have done.

But I do think it's a bit telling that Time went with Hitler and Kholmeini and dallied with the idea of OBL as Men of the Year and yet they've resisted, until now, giving Ann Coulter a simple cover story.

Sort of puts into perspective the mindset of the editors of Time -- and Coulter's precise position, as they estimate it, in the Heirarchy of Devils.

posted by Ace at 11:22 AM

Comments

Wow..what a love note to Ms. Coulter!

Let's be honest, you meant to put this in the flirt thread. Right?

Posted by: Jack M. on April 17, 2005 11:24 AM

I hope that Laura Ingraham is next. IMO, she is better looking than Ann.

Posted by: Jeremy on April 17, 2005 11:35 AM

Not to over think this, but that really isn't a good picture of her. They could have made her look MUCH better. You gotta wonder.

Posted by: Rightwingsparkle on April 17, 2005 11:42 AM

I don't know how the picture thing works... I'd imagine (but I don't know) that Coulter would have approval for the picture, no?

Or maybe they can't give her that privilege due to one of the dumber subclauses of "journalistic ethics." Maybe they're not allowed to ever give a subject approval as regards any quote, interview, or picture.

But they frequently allow ground-rules as pertains to interviews. so why wouldn't they let Ann pick the pick she likes the most?

Either way-- I think it's a good picture. They've done some sort of photographic trickery (fish-eye lens? No idea) to exaggerate the length of her legs, somewhat cartoonishly, but that's defensible. After all, that's part of what she's known for; it's a little funny that they've exaggerated that aspect of her, just in case anyone didn't notice her legs go All the Way Up.

Posted by: ace on April 17, 2005 12:01 PM

No, I believe the subject is hosed regarding the picture. Remember when they were showing Kerry/Edwards on the cover with deep tans and shiny teeth, and the picture of the Bushes on the cover was grainy black and white from a bad angle.

That isn't a good picture of her and they chose a bad picture of her because she's isn't blessed to be one of their favourites.

Posted by: DelphiGuy on April 17, 2005 12:09 PM

But I think the rules may be different as regards photographs you specifically pose for.

Posted by: ace on April 17, 2005 12:13 PM

Jeremy--

Let's not get into the whole Laura vs. Ann vs. Michelle Malkin thing.

There's been enough hard words and bad blood on the right side of the aisle lately.

Posted by: ace on April 17, 2005 12:16 PM

Sorry Ace, but this is too important to ignore and has brought me from my lurking slumber. It's the lovely Laura, hands down. Michelle and Ann are fighting for second; a distant second.

Posted by: Pat H on April 17, 2005 12:52 PM

what's an example of a recent conservative themed movie?
The only thing I can think of are war movies that portray US troops as heroes. That's not overtly political example, however.

Posted by: Golden Boy on April 17, 2005 01:26 PM

Heather Nauert has them all beat by a mile.

Posted by: on April 17, 2005 01:28 PM

Ace, this issue will be a huge seller. Even a wild-eyed liberal who can't agree with Ann on any issue has to appreciate her caustic humor. P.S. you're right, she is hot.

Posted by: Ol' BC on April 17, 2005 01:55 PM

On the subject of cover pictures:

If memory serves me, magazine covers are considered "art" and not "journalism." This gives the magazines a lot of latitude in how they portray subjects on the cover -- latitude they would not necessarily have in a story actually printed inside the magazine.

My memory is hazy on the details, but I recall a story a couple of years ago where two of the major newsweeklies -- perhaps Time and Newsweek -- featured the same family on the cover for some story or another. In one picture, the mother's teeth were Photoshopped to make them straight and white, in the second they were left crooked.

Does any of this apply to the Coulter cover? I don't know. But it does show that magazines don't have a firm commitment to portraying things "as they really are" if faking it up would make a more marketable cover.

Posted by: Daniel on April 17, 2005 01:58 PM

But I think the rules may be different as regards photographs you specifically pose for.

Did you see the photos that accompanied that piece on the "Constitution in Exile" in today's NYT Magazine?

I don't think posing gives you veto power.

Posted by: Allah on April 17, 2005 02:05 PM

Allah: OMFG, I thought the same thing as I read that article. Did you see Epstein's? Complete perp mugshot. Can't believe he knowingly let them take that shot with that expression on his face. Must have been grimacing between what he thought were the real shots.

Posted by: Ray Midge on April 17, 2005 02:09 PM

Golden Boy:
The Incredibles
Bruce Almighty
Team America: World Police
The Passion
All of the "Lord of the Rings" movies
Also: Any comedy that is really funny. This does not include that "Sideways" piece of crap. If a conservative had made that movie, it would have been hilarious.

Posted by: Pat H on April 17, 2005 02:16 PM

Just wanna say Coulter's cover shot ain't a winner either. Look at the length of her leg below the knee in relation to her upper body. They're purposefully accentuating her most offputting physical feature, her gangliness. That said, never thought she was all that hot to begin with. She's certainly not ugly, but the mere fact she's got long blonde hair does not automatically make her a sex symbol. That's the same sort of male mindset that tried to sell me Jerry Hall as a supermodel. Didn't buy that then, ain't buying it now.

Posted by: Ray Midge on April 17, 2005 02:16 PM

My bad. I see Ace was already harpin on the legs thing above. I'm pretty much repeating his thoughts. Still think it's not a good picture of her though. I wonder how pleased she is with it.

Posted by: Ray Midge on April 17, 2005 02:26 PM

Ray -- Sullivan wrote today that Epstein's photo made him look like "a mob boss in a horror movie." I think it made him look like a corpse (as did Greve's). You have to wonder what was going through their minds when they posed. Didn't they know that a piece on libertarian jurisprudence in the Times was bound to be unsympathetic? Didn't it give them pause when the photographer told them to hold perfectly still and not smile?

Re: Coulter, she's never done it for me either physically or intellectually. Go figure.

Posted by: Allah on April 17, 2005 02:33 PM

I don't think it's a very good picture of her. No matter how Time trys to make her look bad, either intellectually or physically, she's still awesome. The issue will sell well.

On a side note, are there like not that many attractive conservative women that anytime one comes around you guys are like all over it? Just wondering?

Posted by: Terri on April 17, 2005 02:45 PM

I don't want you to take this the wrong way, Terri, but you're giving me a special feeling in my hip pocket, baby. In a big way.

Posted by: Allah on April 17, 2005 02:49 PM

Hey Allah, Thanks babe but hip pocket? Is that special? If you really want to tell me your special feelings you need to go to the Flirt Thread! But just make sure you pay attention to Betsy. You don't want to get her jealous!

Posted by: Terri on April 17, 2005 03:07 PM

I think we guys don't use the same standards, looks wise, all the time. It's a comparitive, regional sub population, relativistic game. Chicks get bonus points if they're in 'guyish' fields too, cause that makes them 'cool.'

Witness Anna Kournakova. If I saw her at the mall, I'd knudge my friend to check out that cute chick over there. Forget about her by the time we left though. But because she's in athletics, she gets so much bonus points and is up against such weak competetion she gets made out at the hottest thing ever, tops FHM polls and the like. (also benefits from that long blonde hair subset boost)

The conservative chick pool is very small and huge bonus points get awarded for walking through the door. Coulter isn't hot. She's offputting to me sometimes, pleasant looking at other times. (she always seems to be having great fun though and i do find that attractive) Malkin, however, is very good looking, even by chicks on TV standards. Ingraham's pretty good too. My take.

Posted by: Ray Midge on April 17, 2005 03:11 PM

I've been in this position with another mag (the old PC Week) some years ago - they take a bunch of shots and pick whatever they want. I was given no veto power or control over the article text at all.

In my case they chose a decent PIC though.

Posted by: on April 17, 2005 03:13 PM

So what you're saying Midge is if the girl isn't attractive but is conservative, you're all over it?

Posted by: Terri on April 17, 2005 03:44 PM

I think you all are missing something as regards the photo. It think it is a play on perspective ... we are below her. She is above us in the position of a judge overlooking those who are judged ...

As a woman, that was my first reaction to the cover Ace posted here. I haven't received next week's copy of Time yet, but I'm gonna bet the article also brings up the "sitting in judgement" theme ... Ya think??

My second reaction was to think of Lily Tomlin and that lovely raspberry sound she made when she did that creepy child character in the large chair that always gave me the heebie jeebies ..

Posted by: psflanagan on April 17, 2005 03:45 PM

So what you're saying Midge is if the girl isn't attractive but is conservative, you're all over it?

Yes, no and sometimes. Here's my beef, Terri. Men are every simple-minded wolf caricature women say we are and then some. If you had any idea what was going on in our heads you'd slap us on the face and run. But we're more than that. We've got 'modes.'

In 'hit it' mode, I want sex and female beauty is the sole criteria. Forget personality, it's really a simple matter of cheekbones, and body dimensions. Mathematics really. That's the stuff.

In 'relationship' mode, chicks get judged on a lot more. Coulter's conservativeness means I'm gonna be sympatico with her. Her zesty, take no prisoners schtick has some brains to it and is really appealing to me. I wonder, what's she like in private? What would she be like sitting next to me on the couch watching Sopranos, eating pizza, on a lazy 'stay inside' Saturday night. In 'hit it,' they way I think she looks wouldn't really get me to buy her a drink in some bar. Okay, maybe, I would. She's sort of on the line for me. Depends how close to closing time it is.

Posted by: Ray Midge on April 17, 2005 04:02 PM

Ray Midge said: The conservative chick pool is very small

Um, don't take this the wrong way or anything, but...

SWEET JESUS, ARE YOU OUT OF YOUR MIND?!

The absolute hottest fucking girls in the whole damn world come from the Midwest and the South of the United States, in that order. Go to Iowa and tell me how many UN-loving, tree-hugging, French-speaking hippies you find.

Ann Coulter herself, backed up by PJ O'Rourke, notes that the GOP has a vast supermajority of the most beautiful girls in the world - that's how you can tell which party has history on its side.

How on earth can you even begin to doubt that when the original perfect 10, Bo Derek, is on our side?

Link

Posted by: Megan on April 17, 2005 04:05 PM

My guess is Time was looking for a cover photo that was visually striking, but not simpatico. If you check the proportions in that picture, Ann's feet are about the same size as her entire upper body. No one could describe that as flattering.

And Megan's quite right about the conservative dating pool. The O'Rourke Principle of Political Victory applies--follow the babes. Outside of Hollywood, exactly who are the attractive, confident females who speak for the left?

Posted by: utron on April 17, 2005 04:21 PM

Megan: Never has a thesis of mine been reduced to tatters so efficiently. One link! In defense of the shreds, I was thinking more of a chick who is known for her political positions primarily. Ah, I was probably conflating that with the Hollywood starlet, reflexive Dem set too.

Nonetheless, you have proven me completely, wonderfully and thankfully wrong.

Posted by: Ray Midge on April 17, 2005 04:29 PM

Coulter is good. Her best offering is her weekly column, where she succeeds like Rush does daily in being a smart caustic, zinger-flinging go for the juglar conservative who is ALSO funny and entertaining.

That's what she shares with Rush and Newt. And accounts for her high popularity in pushing product.

Even people that dislike those 3 regularly read them.

Coulter is not as good as Laura Ingram on TV. Despite her having great conservative attributes, not the least being a skinny blonde with a nice rack & legs.....she comes across as quick, wired, jumpy, and slightly neurotic.

In short, she appears to need a good screwing.

Laura should give her someone she knows who is not current but managed to make Laura appear so "contented" on TV.

Also, I think it is true that Coulter's biological clock is ticking it's last strokes. It wouldn't necessarily turn her into a Laura Bush style conservative Stepford Wife to settle down and have kids. Doing so hasn't hurt Michelle Malkin's career.

Yes, we are chauvanistic about conservative female commentator's looks, in a way Democrats aren't with the likes of Susan Estrich, Andrea Dworkin. Shame on us!! Though I do like Katherine VandenHeuvals lips.....if only she wouldn't ruin it by passing her thoughts through them.

And Estrich is great, in that she exists on TV to bedevil Democrats who are too PC to admit they can't stand Estrich's looks, voice, and the self-serving liberal pabulum she spews - and who want her exiled to some remote corner of Afghanistan and shoved into a Burqua so her appearance can never offend anyone but a husband who Democrats hope would beat her daily.....But darn, with PC, they just can't say it! Indeed, they are obligated to say through gritted teeth how much they love Estrich on TV and can't get enough of her....and yes, she should have a column everywhere as a Female Voice the nation desperately needs as she claimed to Kingsleybefore she got a tad nasty.

Posted by: Cedarford on April 17, 2005 04:30 PM

Cedarford,
You're so fucking classy!

Posted by: harrison on April 17, 2005 05:13 PM

I haven't read all the comments in the thread yet, so I apologize if someone's already said this.

Coulter is a sexy, attractive, glamorous looking woman, but the photo makes her look like an ugly witch.

Bias? I'll say.

Posted by: Snowy on April 17, 2005 06:04 PM

I just read the cover: She's a conservative flamethrower.... That's the best part about her!

Posted by: on April 17, 2005 06:06 PM

>Either way-- I think it's a good picture. They've done some sort of photographic trickery (fish-eye lens? No idea) to exaggerate the length of her legs, somewhat cartoonishly, but that's defensible. After all, that's part of what she's known for; it's a little funny that they've exaggerated that aspect of her, just in case anyone didn't notice her legs go All the Way Up.

The white stockings make her look like she's an invalid with a disease. If the stockings were fishnet, or natural tan, okay. That would be a great.

Posted by: Snowy on April 17, 2005 06:10 PM

The photo definately makes her look like a gangly adolescent. If this was drawn it would be a caricature. They make her feet look like an NBA player's. And Snowy's right the white stockings not only make her look weak, they make her arms and face look washed out.
It doesn't enhance her beauty at all.
Still even in this picture she still looks better than most of the ex-nun, man hating feminazis the press usually calls upon to ponitifacte on matters political/sexual.

Posted by: Iblis on April 17, 2005 06:56 PM

The photo's fine. They probably made her legs longer to symbolize her stature among the right. And she is, after all, a long-legged blonde, and is sort of famous for being so. Not surprising that they'd want to play with that image a bit.

The one thing I can't figure out is what the deal is with the chair. It looks like something from an airport terminal waiting area.

Posted by: Allah on April 17, 2005 07:33 PM

Yes, that chair is awful. It exaggerates her legs and makes her look even skinner than she is. No arms on the thing. The metal legs are cheap looking. Just completely unflattering.

Posted by: Terri on April 17, 2005 08:38 PM

Tomorrow morning, before I go to work, I'll catch the beginning of the Today Show. And I'll see Katie Couric. I really wanna see her mudwrestle with Ann Coulter. And have PJ O'Rourke do the live broadcast.

Posted by: Brooks on April 17, 2005 09:06 PM

The composition is effective in the photo. The legs carry your eyes up to the face. The chair? Maybe they used it to keep from distracting from the subject. Minimalist, ya know.

Posted by: harrison on April 17, 2005 09:14 PM

Incidentally, Kos has got a fairly entertaining thread up on this issue. Apparently lots of moonbats are cancelling their subscriptions to Time because of this cover story. Also plenty of liberal feminists claiming that Ann is really a man. I think they're serious, but who can tell?

No, I'm not going to provide a link. Those who are interested are just going to have to head over to Kos and wade through the slime for themselves.

Posted by: utron on April 17, 2005 09:30 PM

Megan,

Miss USA came from NC.

The South is getting it done. Big time.

Posted by: Birkel on April 17, 2005 11:06 PM

I figured out what's wrong with the cover photo. Shes leaning back on a tilted chair in such a way that her feet are significantly closer to the camera than her head. Thus there is a distance effect that doesn't translate on a 2-D media.

That said, I think Ann Coulter is nuts. But I agree with the general thrust of the post, that the article on her will move magazines.

Posted by: NF on April 17, 2005 11:32 PM

Firstly the illogical Liberal bias might be explained simply as having(however wrong) faith that they are persuing the right track but when it fails, in the wrong way( just like liberal government) so they will not lose sleep over a few million in losses as they are "right"
Secondly Time might be left leaning but gives a better ballance than the media here(UK) sure the letters page often riles me, they like printing anti Bush bullshit and some articles have a stupid side(like the Palastinian mother of a suicide bomber complaining that since sonny's attack it takes her 3 hours each way to get to her job in Israel, dumb bitch) it is the best I can get here.

Posted by: Chris Edwards on April 18, 2005 08:25 AM

About the photo, Coulter was on Drudge's radio program last night and was NOT HAPPY with it. She wasn't even going to read the article, which I understand is actually rather complementary.

Apparently they took a whole series of photos, but Coulter had no control over which they used for the cover. Apparently the reporter even told her that the photos were pretty good, but that there was one that wouldn't be good to use. So he didn't have control either; the choice was made over both their heads. She hadn't even seen the photos before seeing the cover on the web.

Neither Coulter or Drudge have anything about the conversation up on their pages yet, but hopefully if Ann is as dissatisfied as she sounded last night she'll say something about it. She's not exactly much of one for keeping her mouth shut when she's p.o.'d, but who knows, bitching about a lousy photo when she is on the cover after all may seem petty.

Posted by: francisthegreat on April 18, 2005 08:34 AM

Oh yeah, she described the photo as "Making her feet seem as wide as the Atlantic and her head as small as a pea." So yeah, not happy, but it was on awfully late so I don't know how many people heard it.

Posted by: francisthegreat on April 18, 2005 08:37 AM

apparntly they put a pic of a sign from the group "communists for Kerry" in the article...pretty funny

http://littlegreenfootballs.com/weblog/?entry=15493_Amusing_MSM_Moment_of_the_Day&only=yes

Posted by: johnny on April 18, 2005 10:47 AM

notice also the "criminals for gun control" sign in the back..protest warrior had be loving this

Posted by: johnny on April 18, 2005 10:50 AM

I think the picture is crap, but am more than pleased that Time finally got around to recognizing her impact.

Posted by: Defense Guy on April 18, 2005 11:40 AM

Those shoes she's wearing...I was at a department store with my mother recently and said, 'Everything old is new again,' when I saw them. I remember Mom wearing those pointy pointy things in pictures from before I was born.

She said 'the old joke about those shoes was that they were for killing the roach that tries to hide in the corner.'

I think in this particular case they make Coulter look even more impossibly angular; hard, sharp, whatever you want to call it, anything but feminine.

Posted by: lauraw on April 18, 2005 11:59 AM

Indeed Ann has hardly shied away from the liberal media why even CBC, the Communist Broadcasting Company in Canada featured an interview where I had to admit the interviewer from CBC could almost keep up with Ann, though not quite.

Actually the cover reminds me of Alice in Wonderland, probably because the chair seems out of proportion......

Posted by: Cancon on April 18, 2005 12:20 PM

Let's not argue about who is better looking....

though it does seem the high profile ladies of the right tend to be better looking than the high profile ladies of the left

perhaps because good grooming is "gasp" a traditional value

Posted by: Cancon on April 18, 2005 12:24 PM

The chair -- Barcelona chair, Ludwig Mies van der Rohe, 1929. This chair belonged to the German Pavilion at the World Exhibition in Barcelona. If there is any subliminal message there, I don't know what it might be.

But one thing I do know is that conservative politics doesn't need its messengers to be made out to look creepy and ghoulish. ESPECIALLY when they are as naturally attractive as Ann Coulter is.

W's "wholesome" factor was at least part of why he won and why Kerry (who looks like a member of the living dead) lost.

Posted by: Snowy on April 18, 2005 12:54 PM

>Those shoes she's wearing...I was at a department store with my mother recently and said, 'Everything old is new again,' when I saw them. I remember Mom wearing those pointy pointy things in pictures from before I was born.

Since conservatives are supposed to be such a bunch of illiterate hicks, I think it would have looked cool if she'd been photographed stockingless and barefoot. Maybe sitting on a bale of hay.

Posted by: Snowy on April 18, 2005 12:59 PM

You guys are totally nuts.

#1. It's not a fisheye lens. It's probably a wide angle lens, and if you knew anything about photography you'd know that objects that are closer the lens appear bigger, especially with wide angle lenses.

#2. The SAME photographer shot Clinton in the EXACT SAME MANNER for the Lewinsky issue, and his hands looked huge, since they were closest to the camera. OMG!!!111 THEY ENLaRGED HIS HANDS TO sh0w HOW He IS ALWAYS GROPiNG WOMEN!!!!!!!

#3. You are all idiots.

#4. She looks like a hag in the picture because she's a hag in real life. Seriously, if you find her attractive, you are probably just sick of looking at your fat wife.

Posted by: on April 19, 2005 02:19 PM