I just read a story in the Daily Mail about Julian Assange’s sordid truth, and most of it is the kind of thing you’d read in any Gossip Girl novel . The bottom line is he lied to women to get them into bed, and he’s apparently got an ego the size of a planetary system. I’ve seen interviews with him, and he is a pompous windbag. I am of the mind that all governments lie with impunity to their own citizenry, and should be held in check for betraying the people they represent, but I’m not dumb enough to think that Assange is on a mission to save the world from the tyrants. He’s doing this to satisfy is need for attention. He’s the Paris Hilton of international scandal.
But what he’s done isn’t what this post is about. This post is about the two women who have brought him up on charges in the UK. It’s not even really about them. It’s about the pictures of the women the Daily Mail elected to publish in their publication and online. It left me scratching my head when I saw them. See if you have the same reaction.
What exactly are we supposed to glean from these two pictures? Did they need to fill in space? Maybe they want us to know he likes blondes. Are we so out of control that a mere glimpse at these two women’s hair will feed our voyeuristic appetites? Just what is the deal? The pictures serve no purpose unless their faces really look like that, then I could see the point. Assange has a fetish for women with pixelated faces.
Thanks to the Daily Mail for giving me something idiotic to write about.