Friday, May 26, 2006
Flashback
Derek Bok is President, Jeremy Knowles is Dean, and that minor official in Washington is named Bush.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Thursday, May 04, 2006
Archetypical Origin of the Species picture
What is the archetype of the Origin of the Species or Ascent of Man picture, such as the one parodied above in the Mutts comic strip, or in the opening of the Dilbert animated cartoon, and so many other places, the one that shows either the fish and some early reptile crawling up the shore from the primordial swamp and various more "advanced" animals, or the one that shows an ape and a caveman and a moden man? One source hints it was a Victorian theme.
Update: See also Lucky Cow, May 27, 2006:
Update: And also Flying Mcoys, July 23, 2006:
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Monday, May 01, 2006
Idiots write letters to the Herald
BostonHerald.com - e-Letters to the Editor (but the print letters aren't there.)
In today's edition of the Boston Herald (Monday, May 1, 2006, the day without illegal immigrants), J.P. Grogan of Milton writes
The Herald has it correct: Sex offender registries are a good idea (Sex offender sites protect the public," April 24 [sic -- it appears the editorial ran April 19]). As the father of two young children, I demand to know if there is a convicted pedophile or rapist in my neighborhood. It is very easy not to be on the list -- do not commit a crime that would mark you as a sex offender. People who commit these crimes either know or should know the consequences of their actions, and should suffer because the victim will suffer for a lifetime after robbed of his or her innocence.What a maroon! Sex offender registration may be required ex post facto, since it is not considered punishment. Among the sex offenses in Massachusetts are public urination (although as I've written, merely doing something in a bathroom is not enough for it not be gross and open lewdness either), gay sex, and having sex with your future wife when she was underage. Meanwhile Meghan Enos of Plymouth writes
I found the numbers of those polled to be OK with bare breasts interesting ("More to breast flashing than meets the eye," April 24). Now let's see how many people would still be for it if there was a baby attached, using breasts for their natural intent?Who says that attracting members of the opposite sex, by announcing that one is a healthy and fertile member of one's own sex, is not a natural intent?
Comments:
I never said it wasn't a natural intent, but society has sexualized the breast so much so that it's original purpose, to feed babies, has been overshadowed to the point that people are offended by seeing a nursing infant, but are completely fine with naked breasts hanging out all over the place. I do not appreciate being called an idiot, by the way.
# posted by 
: Sunday, September 3, 2006 11:24:00 AM EDT
: Sunday, September 3, 2006 11:24:00 AM EDT
Point taken, you didn't say that the other function (attraction)wasn't natural, but then again I didn't say you didn't, nor did I actually call you an idiot.
I suppose it would be politer for me to headline the entry "I strongly disagree with these recent letters to the Herald, some of which may have been edited by the Herald to appear worse than their authors intended" but this is my blog, primarily a write-only/read-never affair, so I'll stick with the hyperbole.
Yes, breasts are sexualized ("have become" implies a timeline that predates any currently lactating breasts) but I don't think that many people are offended by nursing in situations where they wouldn't be at least equally offended by an actual bared breast not about to be covered by an infant, certainly not if they are allowed equal freedom to look in both situations. (Again, you didn't say, only implied, that they would be.)
I do know a mother who is more offended than I about public nursing (of the discreet, "Oh yes, now that you mention it, she's not just holding that baby to her chest, she's feeding it, and there's no bottle involved" variety); OTOH I think it was impolite by not recognizing that she would make her guest feel awkward because of that reality that breasts are sexualized and are generally kept covered, when a certain new mother, while I was visiting to see the baby, opened her blouse and exposed herself preparatory to nursing said baby.
The "natural intent" argument you mention, often used by those defending nursing in public, is not dispositive. As I noted above and elsewhere, urination, while certainly natural and generally hygeinic, can also be a sex crime if not done privately enough.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.
Post a Comment
I suppose it would be politer for me to headline the entry "I strongly disagree with these recent letters to the Herald, some of which may have been edited by the Herald to appear worse than their authors intended" but this is my blog, primarily a write-only/read-never affair, so I'll stick with the hyperbole.
Yes, breasts are sexualized ("have become" implies a timeline that predates any currently lactating breasts) but I don't think that many people are offended by nursing in situations where they wouldn't be at least equally offended by an actual bared breast not about to be covered by an infant, certainly not if they are allowed equal freedom to look in both situations. (Again, you didn't say, only implied, that they would be.)
I do know a mother who is more offended than I about public nursing (of the discreet, "Oh yes, now that you mention it, she's not just holding that baby to her chest, she's feeding it, and there's no bottle involved" variety); OTOH I think it was impolite by not recognizing that she would make her guest feel awkward because of that reality that breasts are sexualized and are generally kept covered, when a certain new mother, while I was visiting to see the baby, opened her blouse and exposed herself preparatory to nursing said baby.
The "natural intent" argument you mention, often used by those defending nursing in public, is not dispositive. As I noted above and elsewhere, urination, while certainly natural and generally hygeinic, can also be a sex crime if not done privately enough.
Thanks for stopping by and leaving a comment.
Links to this post:
Self-incrimination
OUI loophole (April 30, 2006)
In Massachusetts, and three other states, juries in criminal trials cannot be told if a defendant refused to take roadside tests or a Breathalyzer. ... But Yarmouth police are hoping to change that - through public education about the laws, visits to local town boards, and intensive efforts to stop and arrest drunken drivers. They have also spoken with state legislators about helping change what they consider a loophole rooted in the state constitution. ''I think it's the most serious crime,'' Yarmouth police Lt. Steven G. Xiarhos said. ''It kills thousands of people each year and many of them are innocent people. Is that the way we want to live?''Why does Lt. Xiarhos want to stop there? Why shouldn't the Constitutional right against self-incrimination also be abolished for less serious crimes like rape and murder?
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
Un Año Sin Inmigrantes
Un Dia Sin Inmigrantes
So the illegals are going to show us how important they are by staying home from work today. They ought to show us how much they're needed by staying out for an entire year.
Comments:
Post a Comment
Links to this post:
