Born to Be Wild…and Clothed?
This week, National Geographic made a public apology for its mistreatment of animals over its many years of publication. The biggest, and most startling part of the released statement made by CEO of the National Geographic Society, Gary Knell, was this:
“We are deeply sorry for offending anyone in the many decades of our publication. To continually expose animals in the nude is a violation of their rights and a negligence of our responsibilities to protect and preserve all life. Though proud of the good work that my company has produced for over 125 years, I am also aware that we have much to do in learning how to remain sensitive and discerning when it comes to the rights of all animals.”
Though this is a recent development, made just three or four days ago, there has been a lot of hush over what some, including myself, might say is a drastic and almost ludicrous viewpoint. Where the media coverage on this statement is, I do not know, but CNN spokesperson and known animal rights activist, Daisy Carrington, produced a two-page column yesterday, in detail expressing the concern (or lack thereof, really) for people not addressing this as a serious issue. She claims that real actions need to be made in clothing animals in the future before letting pictures of them loose onto print. Apparently, she feels that “not only are Americans twice as likely to pay attention to non-domesticated animals who are clothed by Photoshop and other means, but they are four times as likely to actually care about the protection of endangered species if they see that animals, domesticated or otherwise, are just like us.”
She continued to talk in length about productive measures that can be taken in the future such as “The Photoshopped Image and Tabloid for Animals (PITA) movement” and an immediate recall for all images of domesticated animals from the last five years by animal publishers like National Geographic and others. More liberal commentators have even been suggesting for penalties against any future exploitation of nude animals and a proposed bill is now in Congress for making it illegal to publish any animal in the nude.
What do you guys think?
What do you guys think?
Here’s a link from the main article. PLEASE TAKE A QUICK LOOK - it's very insightful to this whole process. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/2016/banthenude
Did I get you guys? Probably not, huh? Either way, the day I’m writing this is Friday, April 1st, so I thought – why the heck not? For those interested, here’s an actual and brief history of Aril Fools Day, the video is a quick watch: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OhVCTkpVX2Y
Stay golden everybody,
Last Friday was April fools day and since we all like jokes here at the Boylan Blog, let me tell you about one of my favorites.
For cartoonists it’s hard to write a good April fools day comic and have it stand out from the others. How else are you supposed to write an April fools day post without the punch line being “april fools?” Well, a large group of cartoonist convened to make a really cool collection of comics that will have you asking yourself, “haven’t I read this already?” The joke's on you this time.
The following cartoons all contain the same elements: four panels, a bucket of liquid, and the same four lines of dialogue.
For some reason I find these really funny. There maybe some subtext about originality in prank culture but I just really like seeing the different takes on the same idea. Maybe one of your favorite cartoonists created one of these, there are a ton that haven’t shown.
Here’s my take on the joke:
Are 'Apps' the New Cable?
The short answer: yes. Cable television is almost as obsolete as telephone booths and CD players. I'm sure we all remember the days when to watch something, a particular show or movie we wanted to catch, we had to actually be there. Yikes!
But then there were VCRs:
: Look at this artifact, this primary source, this evidence that we were once a less evolved species. As old as this thing may be, it was once an innovation! One could now record an episode of Judge Judy or Grey's Anatomy (The only two shows that have stood the test of time). However, blank tapes were expensive and people kept accidentally recording over monumental moments such as weddings and baby's-first-step videos.
DVRs, small built-in hard drives that can on average hold almost 500 hours of recorded television, came next. They're great. No sarcasm. DVRs allow one to record any and all shows and watch them at their leisure.
This desire for watching television and movies at leisure gave birth to what is now app TV: Netflix, Hulu, Amazon Prime, Showbox, HBO Go, iTunes, Google Play, and even YouTube. Averaging between $5.99 to 14.99 per month, these apps, even all together, are a fraction of what the average cable company charges. Plus, you only pay for what you actually want to watch. For instance, there are a two hundred cooking channels and home improvement networks. The cable company, knowing you probably don't care about this, includes them in a package with HBO and Disney channel (just an example). So now you're paying for 200 channels of deep fryer recipes and DIY kitchen remodeling just because you want to watch HBO and Disney Channel. Not only does App Tv allow you to just select HBO and Disney Channel, you can then take it even further and just select the specific shows on those channels.
Granted, app Tv does require internet access and possibly a smart TV so with all that considered, is it still cheaper? I don't know man, I don't know. However, I think I'm going to send my cable boxes back soon. Wish me luck.