In which a group of graying eternal amateurs discuss their passions, interests and obsessions, among them: movies, art, politics, evolutionary biology, taxes, writing, computers, these kids these days, and lousy educations.

E-Mail Donald
Demographer, recovering sociologist, and arts buff

E-Mail Fenster
College administrator and arts buff

E-Mail Francis
Architectural historian and arts buff

E-Mail Friedrich
Entrepreneur and arts buff
E-Mail Michael
Media flunky and arts buff

We assume it's OK to quote emailers by name.

Try Advanced Search

  1. Seattle Squeeze: New Urban Living
  2. Checking In
  3. Ben Aronson's Representational Abstractions
  4. Rock is ... Forever?
  5. We Need the Arts: A Sob Story
  6. Form Following (Commercial) Function
  7. Two Humorous Items from the Financial Crisis
  8. Ken Auster of the Kute Kaptions
  9. What Might Representational Painters Paint?
  10. In The Times ...

Sasha Castel
AC Douglas
Out of Lascaux
The Ambler
Modern Art Notes
Cranky Professor
Mike Snider on Poetry
Silliman on Poetry
Felix Salmon
Polly Frost
Polly and Ray's Forum
Stumbling Tongue
Brian's Culture Blog
Banana Oil
Scourge of Modernism
Visible Darkness
Thomas Hobbs
Blog Lodge
Leibman Theory
Goliard Dream
Third Level Digression
Here Inside
My Stupid Dog
W.J. Duquette

Politics, Education, and Economics Blogs
Andrew Sullivan
The Corner at National Review
Steve Sailer
Joanne Jacobs
Natalie Solent
A Libertarian Parent in the Countryside
Rational Parenting
Colby Cosh
View from the Right
Pejman Pundit
God of the Machine
One Good Turn
Liberty Log
Daily Pundit
Catallaxy Files
Greatest Jeneration
Glenn Frazier
Jane Galt
Jim Miller
Limbic Nutrition
Innocents Abroad
Chicago Boyz
James Lileks
Cybrarian at Large
Hello Bloggy!
Setting the World to Rights
Travelling Shoes

Redwood Dragon
The Invisible Hand
Daze Reader
Lynn Sislo
The Fat Guy
Jon Walz


Our Last 50 Referrers

« How Much Does Species Genetic Commonality Matter? | Main | Musings About Civilization By One of Da Boyz »

January 29, 2007


Michael Blowhard writes:

Dear Blowhards --

* This must have been some excellent TV! Can anyone find the actual video footage online?

* John Tierney and commenters muse about a perennial puzzler: Given the affection that most men have for feminine curves, why do so many women try so hard to be thin-thin-thin?

* Lynn Barber doesn't think the latest incarnation of Penthouse stands a chance.

* Agnostic (bouncing off a posting by Steve) wonders if blondes really are sexier.

* Shouting Thomas attends the motorcycle show. Pix of some of the wild and crazy mechanical beasts are here.

* Claire goes abstract.

* Rick Darby is amused by the alarm with which the MSM view the new media.

* Jake Horsley raves about "The Libertine."

* Do all our shiney, convenient new gadgets just make it easier for us to be untruthful?

* Kirsten has learned to be wary of purple fringing and detachable lens covers.

* Since we seem to have entered a world of user ratings for everything, why not user ratings for gurus?



posted by Michael at January 29, 2007


In re a biological basis for women's striving to be thin thin thin: there may be reason for men seeking out a second wife when in their 30s or 40s to look for a thin woman. Say you are 34 and, having looked around a bit, have concluded you would be best off with a woman your own age. The faded-rose woman - the voluptuous mid-30s flower who has begun, ever so slightly, to go to seed, is to my mind almost more lovely than the perfect rose. But how will she weather the next 20-30 years, as compared with her thinner sister?

When I was that 34 year old man, I voted for the latter woman. But then I've always been attracted to the gamine type, so maybe it was just an age-appropriate adaptation. In any case, my point is that slim may be reproductively advantageous for a woman of a certain age, in an urban social milieu.

Posted by: robert on January 29, 2007 6:30 AM

No, blondes aren't sexier.

Have you noticed how many women no longer have any hips? In this era of childlessness and only child families, women just don't experience the widening of their hips through childbirth.

I don't find this at all attractive. But, then I know that many men do.

And, Michael, thanks for the notice for my cycle show pics. I've been struggling to keep up with posting and reading. My new job is very demanding and I'm in the process of forming a new band and getting it out there.

Posted by: Shouting Thomas on January 29, 2007 2:52 PM

Thanks for the link, Michael.

The more I use this camera the more I like it. IMO digital camera gadgetry has had a rough time finding the sweet spot between features and ease of use; this one is so simple to operate! I believe I've found my ideal snapshot camera :-)

Posted by: Kirsten on January 29, 2007 3:04 PM

Yes, blondes really are sexier. How do I know? My nuggies tell me so.

Posted by: ricpic on January 29, 2007 3:30 PM

If men are attracted to female curves why do women strive to be thin?

Could it be because women....are mad?

Posted by: ricpic on January 29, 2007 3:44 PM

In theory, ricpic, thinness emphasizes the difference between waist and hip size, which is probably an indicator of fertility.

The effect, granted, is lost when we cross the line into skeletal ;-)

Posted by: Kirsten on January 29, 2007 6:52 PM

"Lynn Barber doesn't think the latest incarnation of Penthouse stands a chance."

She speaks of the UK version, apparently retooled to be like FHM/Maxim, only with shaved bush and clit exposure. By contrast, in the past year the US print version has grown decidedly less explicit.

Posted by: Harry Palm on January 30, 2007 11:00 AM

Thanks for the link, Michael!

Posted by: claire on January 31, 2007 2:36 PM

Post a comment

Email Address:



Remember your info?