Geez, sumi, that sucks a lot. I hope you aren't in desperate need of buying things or paying bills today!!

Jesse, I think the diverse green figures (with little hair drawn on!) are adorable.

Nope, hasn't happened to me before.

What happened before is that I went to a con and used my CC w/o letting my bank know and they thought something hinky was going on and stopped the cc.

Now - something actually hinky is going on.

Nora, I'm sorry about the lower offer. Is the bank taking what they can get or are you going to owe them the remainder after the sale?

They will get their money back through PMI (Private Mortgage Insurance) so I don't think they'll be needing to get any money directly from us. And if they do, um, good luck with that, bank guys.

Sexist humor from 1959....

Girl Watcher, A Creepy Men’s Humor Magazine From 1959

Jordan Smith of What Makes The Pie Shops Tick? has posted the entire June 1959 issue of Girl Watcher magazine which, at first glance, seems to be a typical fifties pinup rag. Upon closer inspection, its creepiness and downright misogynism is revealed with articles like “Some Advanced Field Notes on Stalking The Girl” and “More About Collecting Pretty Girls”. The latter seems to be a primer for serial killers as it says that “more ambitious Girl Watchers find it intriguing to bring home a specimen or two”. The magazine also encourages taking secret (and spiteful) photos of neighborhood ladies in the article, “The Girl Next Door”. And not for one second do I believe any of the “Letters to Girl Watcher” were actually written by women, like Anne Bolton of Boston who supposedly enjoys “panty raids”.

Update: A reader has pointed out that it was intended to be a humor magazine (like an adult MAD magazine). Even done in jest, the articles about stalking and “collecting girls” still read as super creepy, no matter the original intent.

Update: A reader has pointed out that it was intended to be a humor magazine (like an adult MAD magazine). Even done in jest, the articles about stalking and “collecting girls” still read as super creepy, no matter the original intent.

Related to something I just posted on Mad Men in the Cable thread, I remember finding cartoons in girlie mags from the era where a buxom, disheveled secretary would come out of her boss' office and the caption would say, "Is it rape if I enjoyed it?"

Mind boggling shit like that was so common before those buzzkill feminists came along insisting "That's not funny!"

I'm going to post this here because, HOLY CRAP, I'm still in shock. I went to Owen's class to help out today and got to read a piece he researched last week and has been writing this week. It's on the history of animation in America and this is exactly how it appears in his scrawled handwriting in his notebook:

Silent Shorts

Animated Films in America started in 1906. A short called Humorous Phases of Funny Faces was released. Originally a novelity, some early animated shorts were based on comics. Animation classics grow from Gertie the Dinosaur to Felix the Cat and Koko the Klown.

Sound Cartoons

In 1927 Walt Disney created Oswald the Lucky Rabbit for Charles Mintz and Walter Lantz of Universal Studios. In 1928, Charles' wife, Margaret Winkler hired away all of Disney's Oswald animators except for Ub Iwerks to start her own studio. Then Disney lost the rights to this cartoon. Then Mickey Mouse was born and Mickey first appeared in a test screening. On November 8, the short, Steam Boat Willy was released with was the first sound cartoon.

This goes on and on. He details the creation of Bugs Bunny and Looney Toons, then onto Gumby and into the 1970s! I've fact checked this and it is all correct. The spelling and punctuation are exactly as he has written them. I know adults that don't write this well.

Cash, that's amazing! Wow.

Will he ghost write my next book? Because that's pretty awesome, right there.

I have an interview in a half hour, and my IBS just decided that it wanted to eat me alive.

WHY?

indeed so That's awsome. What grade is he in?

2nd grade. I looked up some of the stuff on Wikipedia. I thought he might have just copied what he read there--but it doesn't appear to be plagiarized (not that he would have any idea what that is). But the facts are all correct and he has the correct people and the correct time line. It looks like he's cobbled together the facts and distilled it down to a very simple essay on the subject.