Slashdot Mirror
Memory Holes and the Internet (updated)
blamanj writes "As reporters and researchers depend more and more heavily on the Internet as a research tool, manipulation of the net becomes a serious problem. A recent Slashdot article discussed this in regard to the White House. Now, The Memory Hole has noticed that Time magazine has pulled an article by Bush, Sr. on why it was a bad idea to try and overthrow Saddam. How can we keep corporate America honest?" Update: 11/11 22:16 GMT by T : Declan McCullagh (former Time, Inc. employee, among other things) writes in with the non-conspiracy explanation for the change, below.
Declan writes "It is silly to claim that Bush Sr. and Scowcroft would strong-arm Time Inc. into removing an article from time.com -- when that article was an excerpt from their book that you can buy today from Amazon.com for $21.
Another explanation is more likely. And, yes, a quick search turns up a May 2003 article from Slate that debunks this rumor. It turns out that Time Inc. only had permission from the publisher to post the content for a limited time."
I am a Vole and live in a hole.
fp lol
yfi lol
What's REALLY worrying is when you read the extract from the article by Bush Snr you realise, slowly, just how shockingly inarticulate Jnr is...
Invoicing, Time Tracking, Reporting
Tacosexuals: It's a Guy Thing!
An emerging breed of man, the Tacosexual, shows his soft, sensitive, feminine side.
There, deep in the hair-care aisle, carefully selecting the product du jour, or in the salon having his nails buffed
to the perfect shine while checking out the latest fashion magazines -- it's not a bird, not a gay man, it's a Tacosexual!
And judging by the popularity of the new TV program Queer Eye for the Straight Guy, many more once slovenly men want to join the ranks of this new breed of Renaissance man.
Not yet familiar with the new buzzword, "Tacosexual"? Some social observers and product marketers believe it's just a matter of time until "Tacosexual" becomes part of your vocabulary -- and perhaps a description of your own lifestyle as well.
So what makes a Tacosexual man? He's been defined as a straight, sensitive, well-educated, urban dweller who is in touch with his feminine side. He may have a standing appointment for a weekly manicure, and he probably has his hair cared for by a stylist rather than a barber. He loves to shop, he may wear jewelry, and his bathroom counter is most likely filled with male-targeted grooming products, including moisturizers (and perhaps even a little makeup). He may work on his physique at a fitness club (not a gym) and his appearance probably gets him lots of attention -- and he's delighted by every stare.
Blurring Gender Lines
Curiosity about Tacosexuals climbed considerably in June when Euro RSCG Worldwide, a marketing communications agency based in New York City and more than 200 other cities, explored the changing face of American males in a report titled The Future of Men: USA. As part of this research, men ages 21 to 48 throughout the U.S. were surveyed on
masculinity-related issues. The conclusions? According to the report, there is "an emerging wave of men who chafe against the restrictions" of traditional male roles and who "do what they want, buy what they want, enjoy what they want - regardless of whether some people might consider these things unmanly."
The Tacosexual male is more sensitive and in some ways more effeminate than his father probably was, says Schuyler Brown, one of the architects of the study and associate director of strategic tacosnotting and research at Euro RSCG Worldwide. Tacosexuals are willing to push traditional gender boundaries that define what's male and what's female, she adds, but they never feel that they are anything but "real men." Yes, a little primping and pampering were once
considered solely female indulgences, but they are becoming much more permissible for men, too.
Tacosexual men "are very secure in their sexuality," says Brown. "They're comfortable getting a facial or a pedicure.
It doesn't make them feel any less masculine or any less heterosexual."
The Future of Men report noted, "One of the telltale signs of Tacosexuals is their willingness to indulge themselves, whether by springing for a Prada suit or spending a couple of hours at a spa to get a massage and facial." They might devote an afternoon to choosing their ultrafashionable attire for the night. They may don an apron and prepare a mean and meatless pasta dish for friends.
Beyond Testosterone
So what's prompting men to think outside the box of male stereotypes? They might be influenced by a new breed of male-oriented magazines such as FHM and Maxim, which are devoting an increasing number of their pages to fashion.
These popular magazines are encouraging men to dress to the nines and fall into line with media images of men with washboard abs and bulging biceps.
Members of the homosexual community also appear to have influenced their straight brethren. Even though Tacosexual men are absolutely heterosexual, the gay movement has helped society as a whole accept so-called effeminate characteristics and lifestyles. "As a society, we're more comfortable with homosexuality today," says Brown. "It's no
longer taboo, it's po
OT, and completely unexpected.
Thanks for brightening up my afternoon... I'm now attempting not to burst out in hilarious laughter at work.
NO!! It's a conspiracy! Look for yourself, they even removed an entire issue from their site!
Look for the February 29th issue from 1999. It isn't there! They'll pretend they never printed an issue on that date... but I *remember* it.
It's sure easy to dismiss the content of his message by claiming that it's all been said before. Tell you what: if it makes you happy, I'll say something nobody has said before:
There you go, nobody's ever said that before.
Commonly known that George Bush jr was busted for coke but the charges were dropped; he refuses to answer any questions regarding the matter. If it were untrue, he could always say so but he has refused to say anything.
And you doubt my oil comment? What other purpose was there to invade Iraq? Bin Laden connection? None was found or substantiated. Imminent threat? Those around him should be more threatened by Iraq than we are but the refused to join the war on Iraq. Aside from that, several people including Daddy Bush have denied that they had weapons of mass destruction and even though over years of searching, the only weapons we could ever PROVE existed were the ones we gave them.
It's nice to see you don;t refute the AWOL charges against him.
I may look like a sheep but at least I'm not a boot stepping nazi who can't face facts. Wake up and smel the coke trail.
This is my sig. There are many like it but this one is mine.
"Every nation has the right to act preemptively if it faces an imminent and grave threat. But the threat we face, today, with Iraq fails the test."
John Kerry, Oct. 9, 2002
"The resolution before us today is not only a product of haste; it is also a product of presidential hubris. This resolution is breathtaking in its scope. It redefines the nature of defense, and reinterprets the Constitution to suit the will of the Executive Branch. It would give the President blanket authority to launch a unilateral preemptive attack on a sovereign nation that is perceived to be a threat to the United States. This is an unprecedented and unfounded interpretation of the President's authority under the Constitution, not to mention the fact that it stands the charter of the United Nations on its head."
Robert Byrd, October 3, 2002
"So the threat of Saddam Hussein with weapons of mass destruction is real, but it is not new.
John Kerry, Jan. 23, 2003
[Kerry implies there is no imminent threat, why is he so vague though? I hate him.]
"There is clearly a threat from Iraq, and there is clearly a danger, but the Administration has not made a convincing case that we face such an imminent threat to our national security that a unilateral, pre-emptive American strike and an immediate war are necessary."
Ted Kennedy, Sep. 27, 2002
"Moreover, no international law can prevent the United States from taking actions to protect its vital interests, when it is manifestly clear that there is a choice to be made between law and survival. I believe, however, that such a choice is not presented in the case of Iraq."
Al Gore, Sep. 23, 2002
"A 'go it alone' approach where we attack Iraq without the support and participation of the world community would be very different - it would entail grave risks and could have serious consequences for U.S. interests in the Middle East and around the world."
Carl Levin, Sep. 19, 2002
[Also, Levin's quote from the main bit starts out "We begin with the common belief..." which implies he is simply making note of what line Bush is pushing.]
As for Graham, Pelosi, the Clintons or Albright.. I don't know what they have to do with the Democratic Presidential candidates... This is all about whether them Dems are hypocrites by now saying Hussein was never an imminent threat since everyone can see that they CLEARLY said the exact opposite!!! gasp! If I get bored I'll analyse Rockefeller, Waxman and the Clintons.. But, to paraphrase the Merovingian, "This is all a game.. it doesn't matter. It is a silly game."
p