Sex sells?

That sex sells is not exactly a stunning revelation, but this ad still managed to surprise me:

I cannot, for the life of me, figure out how there is any connection between the image and the text. It looks like the whole calculus went no further than "Put some blondes in bikinis in the ad." Maybe it'll work, too. Maybe this company will get more subscribers from this ad, just because of the women. But don't ads usually make at least a token attempt to connect their product to the skin - maybe showing some underwear model using the company's product, or at least looking at it? If for no other reason, than to give the reader a pretense for his/her lingering eyeballs...

When you don't even try, it's just embarassing. "Hey, we've got phone service. Oh, and here you go. We know you like this sort of thing too." The reductio ad absurdum of the whole thing is just kind of insulting....

Low-grade snark

In light of the Swiftboating of the retired generals (and anonymous active generals) who have had the temerity to criticize the Dept. Of Defense's prosecution of the "War" in Iraq, it seems a little more honest sloganeering is in order:

Padilla Update

The Supreme Court has decided not to hear the Padilla appeal. From the write-up, it sounds as though the Justices denied the appeal on the grounds that the case was moot.

When I wrote about this back in January, I guessed they'd hear the case, but if they didn't, it would be on the grounds that it was moot when the government decided to transfer Padilla to civilian custody, and not when he was actually transferred in January, after the 4th Circuit's odd little stunt. I'm still poking around trying to find the actual Court order, so I don't know for sure. I'll update when I do...particularly because I'd like to know whether I or a certain "nonpartisan" law professor diva was correct about what all the gamesmanship meant back in January...