Coffee Or Nude Celebrity Photos: A Tale Of Two Evergreen Posts

  As Paul Secunda noted, the other day, some blogs benefit mightily from evergreen posts - blog entries that Google searchers visit again and again.  At my old blog, Concurring Opinions, it was an open secret that significant amounts of traffic arrived in the form of web surfers seeking out pitcures of Jennifer Aniston buck naked (or is it butt naked?)   But I was always pleased that my own personal obsession - Starbucks Coffee - drew repeated guests as well.  Looking at today's Site Meter for Co-Op, I discovered to my great surprise that, in the last day or so, my Starbucks Secret Menu post attracted 45 visitors, while Dan Solove's Jennifer Aniston Nude Photos and the Anti-Paparazzi Act entry drew a mere 40.  It sounds to me like the star of Friends is out of vogue, while Starbucks only grows in popularity!  Does this mean that Jenny's fan base is aging or the new Starbucks market repositioning is working?  I don't suppose we'll ever know...

Comments

[George Lonewolf]

Remember when Angelina Jolie was burning up the search engines? I wonder how many of the younger folks have even seen Gia?

Here's a sample:
http://www.pornwolf.net/jolie_blog.jpg

[viagra online]

Personally, if this turns out to not be a publicity stunt of some kind, I think that this case would be an excellent test of the Anti-Paparazzi Act. Unfortunately, America has come to accept the fact that just because people are celebrities that their private life is also open to public view. However, this assumption denies celebrities the same right to privacy as other American enjoy. Clearly,Aniston had a reasonable expectation of privacy since she was in her own home. In addition to the new Anti-Paparazzi Act, Peter Brandt, by taking nude photos of Aniston,and then trying to sell them to the tabloid media for monetary gain without Aniston’s permission, has also violated two more commonly accepted laws:Appropriation and Intrusion into Seclusion. If this case does in fact go to trial and Aniston loses, it will mean not only that celebrities have not been protected by the Anti-Paparazzi Law as the California legislature intended, but also that in today’s gossip-hungry society, a person gives up their Constitutional right to privacy by becoming a celebrity.