Reflections, Reflections

One of the things I find annoying about the blogosphere (how I hate this word) is how much surfing work one needs to put in to discover good blogs. Hours have been spent...

But it's the only way unless you get lucky and have some blog dropped on your virtual lap.

So here I went on another blog discovery quest and what do I find? AcesWylde.

I just glanced at it and it I didn't want to write any first impressions here because I wasn't in the mood to really READ pages and pages of the blog's posts, so that I wouldn't just profess some compliment now only to find I was totally misled by reading more later on. But, there I was, eyes scanning the text, trying to quickly grasp some idea of the blog and its author, when I hit the bottom of the page, and find this pearl:

That which does not Kill Me....Is Starting to Annoy Me...

I couldn't stop laughing, too sweet...

.

I was reading the Phantom Prof, hadn't done it for awhile. The more I read, the more I found that she has become extremely sour regarding rich people. Not that it's anything new, but it just keeps intensifying. I had liked some of her posts before, exactly because of the satirical jabs at her rich and spoiled students, and how stupid rich people can be. The problem is rich people are no more crappy (percentage-wise) than middle-class or poor people.

This is so typical of a profile befitting left-wing or liberals. Point their fingers at one of their scapegoat "villain" groups and never hold anyone else accountable for anything.

.

Why are there so many stupid people exactly like this the world over? Now we have a display of the Austrian version.

I'm going to copy here my comment to qkl re stupid versus intelligent people because, by coincidence, it's pertinent:

qkl: "Stupid people learn more from intelligent people than the opposite."

me: You know, this statement made me stop to think about other things. I think I know what u mean, like in a class, a bright student that has do something and does it well and sets an example that other students can learn something from.

However, I started to think about something that is in a different context. "Stupid" people (the ones with stupid attitudes - not simply lacking factual information on a subject) rarely learn much, that is, stupid people remain stupid and they usually dont learn from intelligent people, even if they are together. In fact, stupid people usually dislike and/or despise intelligent people because intelligent people can critique stupid people way over their heads.

Or sometimes, the stupid will idolize what they think are "very" intelligent people, not that they would know how to gauge the intelligence, like a doctor or a consultant that can sound very intelligent without necessarily being so.

I've already written about why the Austrian museum people are so stupid in many related posts (check out also the posts they link to, if interested): Offensive Last Supper Ad Banned by Churches in France; The Power of a Look; There's more to Nipplegate than meets the naked eye; What has the women´s movement achieved that remained today in our lives? ; Hardcore Hypocrisy - CSUC Fraternity's Porn Film Angers University Officials; Not Sure What Kind of Revolution Has Hit Iran ; The Disappearing Act of Female Athletes´ Clothing; What Liberals Just Don´t Get - It´s Your Destructive Culture; Equal Topless Protection in California ; Liberals and Aggression;

---

Here is a discussion I had with a hardcore liberal (Luke) at WorldMag re nakedness:

me:And on a similar vein...

As the Los Angeles Times recently reported, a lawyer's group is pressing for a "topless sunbathing" bill at the request of a female attorney who insists that it is sex discrimination to allow men, but not women, to go topless in public.

"At some point, men's breasts became liberated and women's didn't," Liana Johnsson said.
=================================
Is it something in the California water supply? Don't we have more important issues than these braindead "pseudo-equality" contests?

I imagine this attorney is already consumed with her next equality bill, "Stand up for your rights!" This is the one about the state violating your equal right to utilize restrooms openly standing up alongside other women.

We know... at some point, men became liberated and stood up and women didn't.

Or maybe it was the other way around, women sat down, or they both stood up and then sat down, I don´t know, I wasn´t around at the time. Anyways, time to "Stand to Reason!" Aren´t we glad Liana is here to do it?
Posted by: Alessandra at March 6, 2005 09:21 AM

---

Well, why can men walk around topless and womyn can't? Why you even tried to answer the question?
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 12:08 PM

---

Luke: "Well, why can men walk around topless and womyn can't? Why you even tried to answer the question?"

Ever notice something a little bit different about the structure of the female breast?
Posted by: KJS at March 6, 2005 01:03 PM

---

KJS, please explain what exactly about the structure of the female breast makes it less suitible to public display. why should I merely except that it's difference makes it some how more obscene when exposed. after all my ear is far more different form my hand than the male breast is to the female, yet these difference does not seem to affect the way I can display them.

Also does your analysis take fat men, whose own breast look very much like a womyn's into account. Are these breast less suitable for diplay? What about a very flat chested womyn? Shouldn't she meet the structure you say is needed before one can walk around the beach topless?
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 02:50 PM

---

Luke: "Well, why can men walk around topless and womyn can't? Why you even tried to answer the question?"

Ever notice something a little bit different about the structure of the female breast?
============================
Indeed KJS, and did you ever notice that these "liberate their breasts" people are always the first to call indigenous women hideous for having bare breasts below their waists?

Apparently there are some indigenous communities where the women carry their babies high on their backs, and they swing around a breast to feed the baby, while the mother continues working.
What is the reaction of these "breast liberator" people when you tell them this? EEEwwww.

As if there could be anything more natural and maternal than breastfeeding and having the breast elongate because of this function. Our culture continues to be just as demented about certain body parts and their shapes as the Chinese foot-binding people were.

Same thing with body-hair shaving. I've always found it intriguing how enormously significant shaving is within our culture and why it has become one of the biggest male/female differentiators. (I'm not saying it needs to be different, just noting how significant a symbol it is).
Posted by: Alessandra at March 6, 2005 02:58 PM

---

Luke: "KJS, please explain what exactly about the structure of the female breast makes it less suitible to public display. why should I merely except that it's difference makes it some how more obscene when exposed. after all my ear is far more different form my hand than the male breast is to the female, yet these difference does not seem to affect the way I can display them."

Your lack of logic is on display once again, but I know that logic is an intolerably oppressive force to you. Nonetheless, I press on. The breast itself is not obscene, and you would do well not to assume that I have some irrational horror of the female body. However, basic standards of modesty dictate that body parts whose usual function is either to excrete or secrete remain covered. The female breast, unlike the male, contains a mammary gland which produces milk for the nourishment of a newborn babe. This is the difference in structure to which I refer, not the mere physical shape.

The move to "liberate women" by insisting that they be able to uncover in just the same way as men is just another development in the trend downplaying the real differences that exist between men and women. All that it ends up doing, ultimately, is masculinizing women and feminizing men, making for a rather confused society.
Posted by: KJS at March 6, 2005 03:55 PM

---

Luke, do you actually remember the 1960's? I didn't think you were older than me. If a person is dressed as a woman but is actually a surgically altered man, and wants to use the women's bathroom, how would anybody know this isn't a woman? How do any of us know that the people who use the same restrooms as us actually have the same kind of plumbing as we do? And what business is it of ours anyway if they have their body parts natural born or surgically enhanced or completely renovated? If they look like they are women and they use the women's restroom and they behave respectfully like most women do, then what is the problem? I think transgendered people should quit trying to force the world to treat them with kid gloves and act like normal people, get on with their lives. But if they make bathroom gender neutral then I will find an alley, a dumpster, a coffee can, some other place to risk arrest rather than stand in line in a common bathroom with strange men. That is so completely offensive and shameful to me. Where are some people's sense of decency?
Posted by: Lucia at March 6, 2005 04:30 PM

---

An amusing conversation where people's hang-ups conderning body parts and functions are on display.

The suit in California is similar to one lauched in Onatario several years ago in which the woman won the right to appear topless in public as long as it wasn't for finiancial gain. The sky has fallen as unfortuantely not enough women have decided to exercise this particualr right.

Inherent in the above and in any discussion of body parts/funcitons in the public arena is the desire to demystify and/or desexualize the human body. In many cases, most people become more comfortable with their selves and others around them and less sacrosanct in view of their privacy.

the parnoid tendcies exhibited here in regards to public toilets has been propagated in most parts by the media's generated climate of fear. By reporting every gruesome and oddly sexualized assault (to drive sales and advertsing), the odds of such attacks are grossly over percieved. The result has been a culturally genreated fear of the 'other' be s/he sexuully different, racially different or simply strange looking.
Posted by: hrw at March 6, 2005 05:45 PM

---

Alessandra, that doesn't sound gross to me at all-

"The female breast, unlike the male, contains a mammary gland which produces milk for the nourishment of a newborn babe."

If you have a surgical breast enhancement than the breast can't serve that function anymore! Can we expose fake female breasts? Our noises, eyes, mouth and pores all secret fluids, yet we don't insist on covering up any of these body parts. And, i fail to see the logic in covering a secreted body part in the first place? If it is true that a function of a breast to to produce make for feeding it, it is illogical to insist that that breast be covered and therefore make it more difficult to feed a baby.
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 08:15 PM

---

Luke: "Our noises, eyes, mouth and pores all secret fluids, yet we don't insist on covering up any of these body parts."

Pores are not a body part. And it's patently obvious why we don't insist on covering up noses, eyes, and mouths, whose usual function is not to secrete or excrete at any rate.

Luke: "And, i fail to see the logic in covering a secreted body part in the first place? If it is true that a function of a breast to to produce make for feeding it, it is illogical to insist that that breast be covered and therefore make it more difficult to feed a baby."

That's because it can be uncovered when it's necessary to use, much as you can unzip to take a piss in the bathroom.
Posted by: KJS at March 6, 2005 08:50 PM

---

None of those functions as reason why we cover up female breasts! You all know the answer you just don't want to say it. "girls that show there titties are whores! but it's ok for boys because we have double standards!" SIMPLE---

But you people would rather talk about secretions because you know the actual answer sounds stupid!
Posted by: Luke at March 6, 2005 09:52 PM

---

Hmmm Luke is pretending boys and girls have the same anatomy, then abusing people for noticing he's wrong. How amusing.
Posted by: Christopher Taylor at March 7, 2005 10:43 AM

---

Luke: the difference between male and female breasts is that male breasts belong to men, and female breasts belong to women.

No other reason to make a distinction really needs to be "justified." The fact that men AREN'T women and women AREN'T men is enough basis on which to make a distinction.

Now whether you choose to agree with making that distinction is another matter, but if you're going to argue about it, you'd need to show why it is actually wrong to make it.
Posted by: Jane D. at March 7, 2005 11:10 AM

---

Luke: "But you people would rather talk about secretions because you know the actual answer sounds stupid!"

I did mention something about "modesty," didn't I? Women who walk around baring their breasts are extraordinarily immodest.

But really, Luke, do you think we all ought to run around naked? Do you have some reason men and women should cover up at all? All you're doing is being your typical, shrill, unreasoning self.
Posted by: KJS at March 7, 2005 12:04 PM

---

hrw:
the parnoid tendcies exhibited here in regards to public toilets has been propagated in most parts by the media's generated climate of fear.
==============================
Actually if you take into account toilets, locker rooms, gyms, and barracks - this is no paranoia. There are a considerable number of same sex harassment cases happening all the time, thanks to homos and bisexuals. Most of the cases don't get formally complained about, most never go to trial, and most never make it in the media. If the media ever decided to make a scandal out of this issue,
they could broadcast 50 cases a day easily. It would be just like the Catholic Church abuse scandal, everyone saying, "why didn't anyone speak about this before..."
Posted by: Alessandra at March 7, 2005 12:28 PM

---

Alessandra,

If all this same-sex harassment is going on "under the radar", how is it that you know so much about it?

I'm a straight male who's belonged to gyms and athletic clubs all my life and I've never observed even one incident of the harassment you claim is so rampant. And none of my male friends have either. My wife belongs to the Y, and she said she doesn't see the things going on that you claim.

Also, if you're a woman, how do you know what goes on in a men's locker room anyway?

What I really suspect is that you're engaging the in the all too familiar anti-gay "baiting". Such behavior is more appropriate for godhatesfags.com.
Posted by: Remington at March 7, 2005 06:28 PM

---

Jane, we are talkign about why it is ok for men to show there breasts but not womyn. Perhaps you were confused, but i was never saying that there were no differences, only that the reasons those difference translate into different costomes about sun bathing is very stupid. Try to say on top of things please.

"Women who walk around baring their breasts are extraordinarily immodest."

"how is it that you know so much about it?'

Oh, Remington Alessandra is very in the know, if you check the archives for a trhead called "slippery slope" you'll find out all sorts of interesting things about gay judges---Alessandra is actually a fount of information. Actually i think i saved it on my computer! I'll just repost it!
Why is that? No one seems to call the men immodest. In fact it's usually the accepted norm that men are topless around swiming pools and beaches- And there are legal differences as you have seen. Even if we assuem that men that walk around topless are immodest, why is it legal for men to be immodest and not womyn?
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 12:08 AM

---

Remington, how many children have you observed being abused?

And if you haven't, or you are going to lie that you haven't, then we have to take your great "observation experience of not seeing any child being abused" as what constitutes reality?

I'm sure you've seen women being abused and raped, since you love pornography, not that you would care to know when abuse was happening in pornography production, but let's leave out porn and ask you how many women have you watched being raped? And if you haven't that means no woman was ever raped?

And, just to diminish your ignorance and homo-obsession, there are reports and studies about same sex sexual harassment. You don't have to be a man to get info on male same sex harassment or to view it first hand.

I also don't doubt that even if you had your eyes open to a scene of homo harassment, you wouldn't see it, cognitively speaking. Your homo-fanaticism overrides reality by a long-shot.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:17 AM

---

Remington,

Also, you should talk to more people other than your wife and your 2 friends if you would like to know what happens in the world. But a fanatical bigot doesn't need information to shape his views, you're like that saying, you never let facts and information get in the way of your convictions.

And there is another interesting thing about observation, people who practice sexual harassment usually don't see it in any other context either.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:33 AM

---

Luke,

Homo saunas, SM, rape, promiscuity, reckless spread of STDs, child and adolescent abuse, sexual
harassment, battering, murder, prostitution are all real problems that exist in the GLBT population. It sure makes you uncomfortable to read about it, doesn't it?

Your homo-fanaticism is based, in part, on a great irresponsibility and inability to deal with reality.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:37 AM

---

"there are reports and studies about same sex sexual harassment."

Can you provide us with links to some? the hournal articles they are published in, or even to some abstracts?

"But a fanatical bigot doesn't need information to shape his views,"

HA ha ha ha---Thaken in concert with your little story above this is really funny!

"people who practice sexual harassment usually don't see it in any other context either."

What's you warrant for this claim? I mean, I understand you wanna accuse remington of sexual harassment, but do you have any reasons why people should believe this is true?

"It sure makes you uncomfortable to read about it, doesn't it?"

Actually reading your littel story makes me laugh like crazy- Your bigotry is surely not informed by fact and your depiction of the adverage gay person is all the proof I need. Do you even think it's POSSIBLE to spread HIV to 50 people in one night? I love the fact that you go on these rants! They remind me not to take the world, and especially conservative christians to seriously. I mean, do you think you would be able to get even the Family Research Counsil to validate your depiction! Girl, Exodus International would call you crazy! Seriously, is your name Alessandra Phelps?
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 11:56 AM

---

Luke:
"Can you provide us with links to some? the hournal articles they are published in, or even to some abstracts?"
==============================
You mean you're so ignorant about sexual harassment studies you haven't read a single one? You don't even know where to look for them? You've never read a confidential report on the subject?

Maybe you should go to school, Luke. Or ask for your local librarian to teach you how to do document research. Or you can post here that great article you read somewhere that says there is no same sexual harassment in the world. Nor rape, nor prostitution, nor battering, nor murder, nor abuse, nor anything else you have trouble facing.

===================================
"people who practice sexual harassment usually don't see it in any other context either."

Luke: "What's you warrant for this claim? I mean, I understand you wanna accuse remington of sexual harassment, but do you have any reasons why people should believe this is true? "

I'm not accusing Remington of sexual harassment, just noting that a person can be in denial of what they practice and consequently of what other people practice as well. My warrant is called human psychology - specifically questions of denial.

Luke: "Do you even think it's POSSIBLE to spread HIV to 50 people in one night? I love the fact that you go on these rants! "

If you took the fictional story that is full of examples of real violence in the GLBT population as a factual account of just one person, you missed the point.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 01:04 PM

---

Alessandra, that doesn't sound gross to me at all-

"The female breast, unlike the male, contains a mammary gland which produces milk for the nourishment of a newborn babe."

If you have a surgical breast enhancement than the breast can't serve that function anymore! Can we expose fake female breasts? Our noises, eyes, mouth and pores all secret fluids, yet we don't insist on covering up any of these body parts. And, i fail to see the logic in covering a secreted body part in the first place? If it is true that a function of a breast to to produce make for feeding it, it is illogical to insist that that breast be covered and therefore make it more difficult to feed a baby.
================================
Luke, you're pointing out to cultural conventions. There are both practical reasons and just other cultural reasons why we have the dress norms we do. The thing is they are very deeply ingrained. Just like other private parts. A man who goes around naked in our culture is not liberating himself, he is offending other people. A woman going topless does nothing in terms of "liberation." I think what society faults more is in respecting women, listening to women, fostering women's dignity. Showing breasts doesn't accomplish that.
It's just aping men. That's why I don't think it's "liberating," it's more like the penis envy complex. It wouldn't be different than saying that women had to wear a suit and tie to liberate themselves.

Aside from questions of modesty, which play here as well with the breast thing. Our culture has serious problems with degrading women and part of that is done through oppressive slutty dressing, very little immodest dressing, sexually objectifying dressing.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 01:15 PM

---

"You mean you're so ignorant about sexual harassment studies you haven't read a single one?"

I would like to know which ones you have read, please. You were after all the first one to mention these reports- What i have read would seem to conflict a great deal with your portrayal. You could share your sources with me, and continue this dialogue or we can stop talking to each other-

"If you took the fictional story that is full of examples of real violence in the GLBT population as a factual account of just one person, you missed the point."

well what was the pint of saying it was 50 people, Alessandra. Do enlighten us! Could it have something to with the fact that a gay who gives HIV to 50 people is more evil than one who gives it to just one? And you did want to portray the most evil gay man you could didn't you? Given that your story is a lie, what is it's purpose?

"There are ...practical reasons ...why we have the dress norms we do."

She's sunbathing in the summer! Assuming she's wearing sunscreen please give on praticle reason for a LAW require her breasts be covered.

And i'm not refuting that there ARE cultural norms- I'll give you that one. My question to which you all have had ZERO answer is--WHY DO THOSE NORMS EXIST?

"I think what society faults more is in respecting women, listening to women, fostering women's dignity. Showing breasts doesn't accomplish that."

The womyn isn't trying to FOSTER DIGNITY- She's trying to have the same rights, to sunbath without tan lines on her chest that men have- It's not about dignity- it's about the "undignified" things we allow men to do, but BAR womyn from- In our history, one of those "undignified" things was VOTING- Conservatives made the arguement that politics was a nasty place that would not bring your "dignity" to womyn and so refused suffrage.

"It wouldn't be different than saying that women had to wear a suit and tie to liberate themselves.
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 02:02 PM

---

Luke,

No - Alessandra is a "fag hater". She would be in good company with Rev. Fred Phelps. There is no reasoning with an ignorant hatemonger like her.
Posted by: Remington at March 8, 2005 09:46 PM

---

The womyn isn't trying to FOSTER DIGNITY- She's trying to have the same rights, to sunbath without tan lines on her chest that men have- It's not about dignity- it's about the "undignified" things we allow men to do, but BAR womyn from
=========================================
But my point is if you degrade people in society, if you trample on their dignity, you have done harm. If you don't foster dignity, you also do harm. We need dignity, composure, modesty. Fostering dignity is much more important than some lack of tan lines. BTW, why do you think tan lines are bad? Isn't that just a silly beauty convention you adopted? Also, why is someone who is claiming to be fighting for "equality of rights" not concerned about dignity and respect? Isn't that a major contradiction? Don't women have a right to dignity and respect?

"My question to which you all have had ZERO answer is--WHY DO THOSE NORMS EXIST?"

That's not true. There were answers. One was, "Luke, you're pointing out to cultural conventions. There are both practical reasons and just other cultural reasons why we have the dress norms we do."

You're equating voting (political participation) to going topless in a society that has serious problems demeaning women and seeing women's bodies in a vulgar way, including breasts. It´s clear the two issues are very different.

Why aren't men complaining they need to liberate themselves from tan lines caused by swimming trunks if tan lines are such an oppressive thing in themselves? Or are you suggesting just tan lines over the upper half of the body are oppressive to humans? Where did that norm come from?

You see, your statement "She's trying to have the same right" is not correct because she is not trying to have the same *right*, since this isn't a right, it's an attempt to mimic a norm, a convention. And because of the very different sexualized and non-sexualized meanings that we have for women's and men's chests,
it's not the same if both go topless. If she went topless, she would not be able to change these meanings in the minds of other people. Only by changing internal meaning could a possible liberation happen, such as the indigenous communities who see the human body differently than we do.

However, in our culture, she would only reinforce a slutty meaning for women's bodies and selves. And we already have too much of that problem.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 09:50 PM

---

Luke,

Since my information on same sex harassment contradicts yours,
1) does it mean you have never witnessed a single incident of same sex harassment? (defined here as unwanted and unwelcome sexual behavior, usually repeated, but not necessarily) I have, many.
2) does it mean you have never talked to someone who has experienced same sex harassment? witnessed it? I have, many.
3) does it mean you have never read about any incident of same sex harassment? I have, several.

How many of your studies cover the whole world? the whole nation? Since you are making affirmations that you seem to know what's happening everywhere regarding same sex harassment, your "studies" need to cover a lot of ground, for many years, and in depth for you to prove solely with them that SSH is not happening anywhere. Which studies are these?
Posted by: Alessandra at March 8, 2005 10:09 PM

---

"Don't women have a right to dignity and respect?"

Look, she's not saying you HAVE to go topless- this isn't a requirment. She's saying there should not be laws that restrict womyn from sunbathing topless because there are no suck laws in place for men.

Again, all you are doing is repeating that the norms exist! I want to know why they exist- You say there are practicle reasons, i want to know what they are-
and it's BECAUSE society see's a woman breasts avulgar that we have these laws- Forcing womyn to cover up never says anything good about there bodies (before you start- yes YOU may say good things about your body by covering YOURSELF but that is rather different than HAVING A LAW that says you AND ONLY YOU NOT THE BOYS have to do it!)

"And because of the very different sexualized and non-sexualized meanings that we have for women's and men's chests,"

YES NOW TELL ME WHY THOSE EXIST!

"If she went topless, she would not be able to change these meanings in the minds of other people"

A- That is a completely unwarranted statement B- who cares, shes not trying to- She's just trying to tan without lines! Men can do it. She want to as well- AND THERE IS A LAW PREVENTING HER- you aren't dealing with this LAW thing!!!!

OK when you site some studies- i'll talk to you about studies- they appearently span the whole world, it should be no large task for you to give some reference material.
Posted by: Luke at March 8, 2005 11:23 PM

---

Luke: "Why is that? No one seems to call the men immodest. In fact it's usually the accepted norm that men are topless around swiming pools and beaches- And there are legal differences as you have seen. Even if we assuem that men that walk around topless are immodest, why is it legal for men to be immodest and not womyn?"

That's because the men aren't being immodest by going without a top: they don't have female breasts!
Posted by: KJS at March 9, 2005 12:28 AM

---

Luke, I'm totally confused now. I was talking about women. You're talking about something called "womyn." I've never heard of those. Do they have breasts, and if so, are they different from, or the same as, those of men and women? And if so, if their breasts are different, wherein arises your assumption that they should be treated as the same? Anyhow, I guess it's irrelevant, because whatever "womyn" are, they must not be human, because all adult humans are either men or women.

Anyhow, the discussion was about men and women, not about whatever "womyn" are. Try to keep up.
Posted by: Jane D. at March 9, 2005 10:34 AM

---

"That's because the men aren't being immodest by going without a top: they don't have female breasts!"

So, we are going to be back to the orginal question-

WHAT IS IT ABOUT THE FEMALE BREAST THAT MAKES IT TABOO TO EXPOSE, WHILE THE MALE BREAST CAN JUST BE FLASHED AROUND AT WILL!

Yeah, Jane I know you're trying to be cute, but really that just made you come off as a bitch! I mean, pretending to be ignorant is one thing, glorifying ignorance is a step beyond what i'm willing to put up with nicely.
Posted by: Luke at March 9, 2005 11:35 AM

You're the one who thinks that mispelling words changes the world (or accomplishes ANYTHING at all other than making the mispeller look trivial for that matter), and I'M the one who looks ignorant.

Now THAT'S funny.

BTW, as for the rest of your post, now you're finally asking the right question. Merely insisting that there is no reason to make a distinction between two things that are clearly different doesn't cut it.

The answer is that women's breasts are sexualized in Western culture. You can cry at the moon, rant at the universe, try to see if mispelling something helps, and it won't change that little fact.
Posted by: Jane D. at March 9, 2005 04:05 PM

---

me:"If she went topless, she would not be able to change these meanings in the minds of other people"

Luke: That is a completely unwarranted statement
=====================================
Totally warranted. Seeing a woman topless does nothing to change the tremendously ingrained sexualized meaning of breasts in someone who has that meaning ingrained already, which is just about everyone in our culture.

Regarding where do the norms come from, you know where, history, tradition, religion, values, in short, our culture.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 10, 2005 12:07 AM

---

me:"Don't women have a right to dignity and respect?"

luke:Look, she's not saying you HAVE to go topless- this isn't a requirment. She's saying there should not be laws that restrict womyn from sunbathing topless because there are no suck laws in place for men.

============================
Which woman goes topless does not change the fact that this woman will not be perceived with respect by a lot of people, she will be sexually objectified and demeaned. And with that she will reinforce these attitudes towards other women as well. It's like a catch-22 situation.

luke:
Again, all you are doing is repeating that the norms exist! I want to know why they exist- You say there are practicle reasons, i want to know what they are-
and it's BECAUSE society see's a woman breasts avulgar that we have these laws-
============================
Changing the law won't change the entire ingrained culture that we have. It's like the prohibition. You change the law to prohibit alcohol and wait to see if people change their attitudes towards drinking. Doesn't happen like that. Why you don't care about the fact that women are sexually objectified and demeaned in society is where the problem lies. These bad attitudes are what needs to change, not the fact that a woman has some swimsuit mark or not.

You know what this debate reminded me of? The women who have complained that the dress code for men in the corporate world completely unsexualizes them and "protects" them, by covering the entire body in a lose fitting way. And that women's business attire continues to sexually objectify women, with shorter skirts, tight pieces, revealing garments. When you think about it, the only difference between a burkha and a man's suit is the head cover. Yet one is a symbol of freedom/power and the other of oppression.

And here we have this "other side of the same coin" woman saying that she needs to uncover just like a man to
Posted by: Alessandra at March 10, 2005 12:41 AM

---

And here we have this "other side of the same coin" woman saying that she needs to uncover just like a man to be "free." One says she needs to cover just like a man, the other says she needs to uncover just like a man. The standard is always the man. Why?

On another note, in all of these questions, what I thought was the most interesting is to think where is meaning localized? And also regarding feelings of vulnerability and oppression and clothing.
Posted by: Alessandra at March 10, 2005 12:43 AM

---

"The answer is that women's breasts are sexualized in Western culture."

WHY?

and WHY is the a justification for having laws that treat womyn and men differently?

"These bad attitudes are what needs to change, not the fact that a woman has some swimsuit mark or not."

Ok, I agree. But why is that a reason for having two sexes being treated unequally by the LAW? Are you denying that the legal inequitty is part of why we have different attitudes? How is arresting a sun bathing womyn (who is topless) going to change the way society sexualizes female breasts?

"The standard is always the man. Why?"

Not a bad question- A response to this situation could be to change the laws that allow men to expose there nipples at beaches. It think that would be counter intuitive to the point of desexualizing a womyn's breasts but it would make the womyn the standard instead of the man. Can we imagine a society where men are required to where stupid little bikini tops to cover there nipples!

And it's occured to me that it really is the nipples and not the breasts that womyn can't expose! You'll see pleanty of breasts at a beach!
Posted by: Luke at March 10, 2005 11:13 AM

.

From Clayton - One more beautiful example of this.

Click to enlarge image to see the wonder of it.

.

The National Hot Dog and Sausage Council estimates that over seven billion hot dogs will be eaten by Americans between Memorial Day and Labor Day.

During the July 4th weekend alone (the biggest hot-dog holiday of the year), 155 million will be downed.

Isn't it funny that there is a Sausage and Hot Dog Council?? :-D

I wonder if there is a Pork Chops Council? Grilled Tuna Council?

I like hot dogs, also veggie ones. But not unless I put a ton of mustard on them.
In fact, I like everything that has mustard usually, all types of mustard. Very cool condiment. And no calories...

.

I wonder if this is true:

YOUNGSTERS perform best in school if sitting side by side with people from different social classes, a new report has claimed.

Researchers at Heriot-Watt University have found that children benefit from interacting in the classroom with those from different backgrounds.

However, youngsters in all-middle-class schools, or ones in predominantly deprived areas, do not learn social skills as fast, they claim.

Researcher Noah Kofi Karley said: "The important thing is the social mix - they learn from each other.

I think this class mix for younger kids could be beneficial, for example, to diminish prejudices regarding money and status. However, I wonder if the kids wouldn't reproduce all these status hierarchies in the classroom, as older kids and teenagers often do.

I went to pretty homogeneous schools in terms of family income. And the kids were stupid about everything, i.e., one kid or clique looking down on another kid or another group for all kinds of infantile reasons. It makes me think that adding class differences would only accentuate all those stupid dynamics between the kids. Than again, it might depend on the teachers and how they dealt with it, the type of environment they are able to foster, etc.

.

Trip from hell - from Clayton. There is nothing funny about it, because it's awful, but I've been in so many equivalent "hellish situations" that I empathize completely. But it is a perfect situation for those "hell vacations" comedy movies.

:-D

Ok, so that sounded a bit too dark and depressing, but a new study shows aerobics decline is very serious with age. And if you were having a gloriously happy day, well, now you can start worrying about something ;-)

Fitness levels decline dramatically as we grow older, but exercise is the key to remaining independent in the golden years, according to a report in Circulation: Journal of the American Heart Association.

[...]

"This study does not mean that older people can't improve their fitness," he said. "By participating in a training program, you can raise your aerobic capacity 15 percent to 25 percent, which in our study would be equivalent to being 10-20 years younger. Over time, your aerobic capacity will decline, but at any given age someone who exercises will have a higher capacity than someone who is a couch potato."

Declining muscle strength, another factor that contributes to frailty as people age, can also be countered through strengthening exercises, he said.

And

Using the treadmill results, researchers calculated the change in aerobic capacity for each decade of age. Aerobic capacity declined in each decade in men and women, but at a far greater rate in older age groups. The rate of decline was 3 percent to 6 percent per decade in the 20s and 30s but more than 20 percent per decade in people in their 70s and beyond.

Beginning in the 40s, men's decline in aerobic capacity was greater than women's, regardless of their reported physical activity. For example, men lost an average of 8.3 percent of exercise capacity per decade in their 40s, and 23.2 percent per decade in their 70s.

Probably the only thing I have heard in a long time where women get an advantage in these biological health differences. (Although they didn't say exactly how much difference in percentage there was).

.

Clayton has a post alerting/reminding people about misdiagnosed skin cancer, its dangers and reality. I have never personally known anyone who had a serious skin cancer like he mentions. I have known people who have had minor surgery to remove small spots and such. Perhaps that explains why it always seems like a faraway possibility or danger to me, when it probably is nothing of the kind.

Such a dangerous world... sometimes it surprises me we live at all.

.

Why do Spanish people seem so petty and boring? Maybe because that's what their cinema shows about them, specially men-women relations.

.

Too funny: "suspicious orange glow."

British Prime Minister Tony Blair has spent more than $3,000 of taxpayers' money on make-up and make-up artists over the past six years, it has emerged. [...]

In the run-up to the May general election, many pundits noted that Blair had acquired a suspiciously orange glow.

The prime minister insisted he had merely picked up a tan while sitting in his garden during the less-than-tropical month of April.

.

Now if I were superstitious... here would be a great opportunity to believe in magic making things happen. The spellcheck button has magically reappeared on the Create Post window right after I posted that it had disappeared :-)

Aha! My wish is my command or what?

Not to get too carried away, but I had customized my Google News page with subjects that interest me (such as psychology, sociology, religion, sexuality) and it all disappeared recently, back to the stupid default subjects. I just customized everything again because somehow my magic didn't work there to make it come back to how I had first done it. Maybe I need a little more practice with my spells, or is Harry involved in any of this?

You know which Harry, right?

.

I didn't grasp what the objective of the Egyptian bombing was (i.e., why Egypt??? London, Paris, NY, I can understand... but Egypt?)

---

'We shot the wrong man' - Police

This was so weird.

Friday's shooting before horrified commuters prompted criticism of police for overreacting and expressions of fear that Asians and Muslims would be targeted by a ``trigger-happy culture'' after two well-coordinated attacks in two weeks.

Why was he wearing a big coat in the middle of the summer? And why didn't he just stop when police approached him if he was just a legal foreign worker? Was he involved in other types of wrongdoing? Or did he think the police was not the police? Was he one of these completely dense people and misread the whole thing so that he started fleeing for some bizarre reason, maybe thinking the police were robbers? Was the British police instructed to make this mistake because this guy is involved in something else?

Such a weird picture altogether. In any case, trigger-happy indeed.

---

Punk icon HENRY ROLLINS is furious when his sexuality is questioned - because he's never met anyone as blatantly "un-gay" as himself.

I don't know who this Rollins is, but I do know how insane our culture is about slapping a homo label on several men and women who aren't. It's more than obsessive, it's like a mental disease, equivalent to how people were obsessed about slapping the witch label on certain women in the past.

At the same time, "society" hates to recognize how many married people are bisexual, always automatically framing any married person as being heterosexual.

Humans are such dinosaurs.

---

Just heard it. Very nice. It has some really captivating moves/moments for the violin.


Symphonie Espagnole

From Wikipedia:

The Symphonie Espagnole is a piece for violin and orchestra by Edouard Lalo, his opus 21 in D minor. Written in 1874 for violinist Pablo de Sarasate, it was premiered in Paris, France in February of 1875. Though officially a symphony (the name translates into "Spanish Symphony"), it is considered a concerto for violin by musicians today.

The piece has Spanish themes throughout, and introduced a period when Spanish-sounding music was popular (George Bizet's Carmen premiered a month after Symphonie Espagnole premiered). The Symphonie Espagnole is considered one of Lalo's most famous works, the other being his cello concerto.

Édouard Victoire Antoine Lalo (January 27, 1823 - April 22, 1892) was a French composer of Spanish descent.

He was born in Lille, France and studied at the conservatoire, and then at the Paris Conservatoire under François Antoine Habeneck. He worked as a violinist (particularly playing chamber music) and teacher in Paris before gaining fame as a composer. He died in Paris.

Although Lalo is a lesser known 19th-century composer, his Symphonie Espagnole for violin and orchestra enjoys a prominent place in violinists' repertoire. He is also known for other solo works, including his Cello Concerto in D minor, and for his opera "Le roi d'Ys" (premiered 1888). His work is notable for strong melodies and colourful orchestration.

This is a tremendously cool idea - to make 3D interactive virtual environments of ancient or older touristic sites and offer it to tourists. I always do this in my head anyways when visiting castles, fortresses, and old towns. Everywhere I look, I mentally "paint" in the people with gowns and all the royal dresses and the place comes alive for me.

An equally interesting idea, as the computer generated one, and that would probably cost a lot less is just to populate these famous sites with real people, actors, who are all dressed up in the time period clothes.

Can you imagine going to Versailles and seeing 20 dressed up royals including the King and Queen? Much more interesting than just looking at the walls and furniture.

The tourism industry which will reap billions with my idea (if implanted) could at least thank me for it. Where is their imagination?

Pompeii gets digital make-over

Visitors would have to wear a head-mounted display.

The old-fashioned audio tour of historical places could soon be replaced with computer-generated images that bring the site to life.

A European Union-funded project is looking at providing tourists with computer-augmented versions of archaeological attractions.

It would allow visitors a glimpse of life as it was originally lived in places such as Pompeii.



It could pave the way for a new form of cultural tourism.

There are so many cool things to do with tourism and museums. That is one of my dream careers that I will probably never dab in, but have fun imagining it.

.

I am not the biggest fan of sychronized swimming, but I like it.

A 26 ans, Virginie Dedieu, la reine de la natation synchronisée, déjà triple championne d'Europe, quitte la compétition de la plus belle des manières, sur un deuxième titre consécutif de championne du monde en solo. Un exploit que la naïade d'Aix-en-Provence est la première à réaliser.

I wish I could have seen the competition.

---

Le Figaro - I use throat lozenges every year, I get sore throats easily, and it really helps to soothe for me. I don't know if these little ones have antibiotics or if they are just pain relievers. Anyways, it's good that the French govt is concerned about harmful effects of constant or inadequate anti-biotics usage.

Mal de gorge : les antibiotiques locaux supprimés

Inefficaces, ces médicaments sont également accusés de favoriser l'apparition de bactéries résistantes aux antibiotiques.


Tous les médicaments destinés à traiter le mal de gorge et utilisables par voie locale (comprimés à sucer, spray, bains de bouche) seront retirés du marché à compter du 30 septembre 2005. L'arrêt de commercialisation de ces produits, dont des dizaines de millions de boîtes sont vendues chaque année, devrait complètement modifier la prise en charge des pharyngites et rhinopharyngites, d'origine virale dans la majorité des cas, qui guérissent spontanément avec ou sans traitement. Ainsi devraient disparaître des pharmacies, dans leur forme actuelle, le célèbre Locabiotal en pulvérisation, la Lysopaïne, la Bacitracine, la Solutricine, le Veybirol Tyrothricine... Certains sont d'ailleurs pris en charge par la Sécurité sociale.


«L'Agence de sécurité sanitaire des produits de santé (Afssaps) vient d'achever la réévaluation des médicaments contenant des antibiotiques et administrés par le nez, la gorge, la bouche, peut-on lire dans un communiqué de l'Agence. Cette expertise conclut à l'inefficacité de l'antibiothérapie par voie locale dans le traitement des rhinopharyngites, des angines, des infections buccales ou la prévention de leurs complications. De plus, l'usage inadapté d'antibiotiques favorise l'apparition de bactéries résistantes. L'Afssaps a considéré que ces médicaments ne devaient pas être maintenus sur le marché et a demandé aux laboratoires concernés d'organiser l'arrêt de leur commercialisation.»


Cette mesure courageuse s'inscrit dans le cadre de la rationalisation de l'usage des médicaments et tout particulièrement dans le Plan national pour le bon usage des antibiotiques lancé en 2001. «Notre pays se caractérise par une forte utilisation de ces formes locales, explique le Dr Isabelle Pellanne (chargée des antibiotiques à l'Afssaps). Et nous avons de surcroît un des taux les plus élevés d'Europe de résistance aux antibiotiques. En 2001, nous avons commencé la réévaluation du rapport bénéfice/risque de toutes les spécialités locales contenant des antibiotiques.» En 2003, une première vague de ces médicaments a déjà été retirée du marché. Cette seconde vague, en juillet 2005, est la suite logique de ce travail d'expertise.

For some unknown reason I woke up extremely tired today. I jumped out of bed, fueled by anticipation to open up my mailbox and find some emails I have been eagerly waiting for and which are very important. And guess what? Nothing. Ugh. And now I am in this zombie state, not at all sleepy, but feeling completely exhausted. Even formulating a simple thought is like lifting a heavy log. Can't sleep, can't work.

I'll just stare at the computer screen. ;-)

kidding...

.

You probably did not notice this, but Ace of Spades has been demoted in my blog list. Now he has been relegated to the Other Blogs category. I usually like when Ace talks about culture, and I always like his writing style, independently of the subject, but his blog has not featured much cultural posts of late, and I don't really care for too much of his national or international politics, which I find rabid.

.

And from Fractured Memories, a nice post about something we've all experienced:

Have you ever noticed that some people cannot get far enough out of the problem they're in to see the cause and correct it. What I mean is along the lines that say everytime you went out ot your car it had no petrol in it, and when you put petrol in it, it ran out almost immediately. You'd want to know why, right? You'd take it in to the garage and say, fix the damn thing. You'd find the root cause of the problem (say a punctured fuel tank) and have it patched up or replaced. What you wouldn't do (if you had any common sense at all is buy a big can to carry round spare fuel. And carry round a second big can full of fuel in case the first one ran out. And buy spare cans to keep full of fuel at your favourite visiting spots so you could fill up there. That's so stupid you might have trouble believing anyone acting like that, but they do!

If you're spending money buying a new computer to run a program and it runs slow, would you go and buy another computer so you could run another program at the same time? Only if you were stupid. Would you upgrade the first computer so it could run faster? Maybe, maybe getting there but still not there. Would you find out why it was running slow and fix it (i.e. The program)? Yep, much closer. Getting there. What you should do is find out why it was running slow (which could be the program or it could be the hardware, or it could be both!) and fix that problem. If you had any sense you would.

There are too many people who run around like headless chickens shouting about getting their symptom cured, and ignoring the cause of the problem (so it could be fixed for them and everyone else). And those people make my job a bloody nightmare sometimes. Well, most of the time actually, but trying to be fair.

---

There are too many people who run around like headless chickens shouting about getting their symptom cured, and ignoring the cause of the problem (so it could be fixed for them and everyone else).

Tell me about it... You forgot to mention that additionally, you get the loveliest of attitudes towards you to go along with all that. 99% of the time, if you suggest to the moron that the cause might be a hole in the fuel tank, they snicker and debase you for thinking something so "stupid," according to their chickenhead perceptions of the situation.

Then they will look down at you even more and think they are being really smart for carrying around not 2, but 5 cans of petrol. And they will tell themselves, "See, I knew this guy was stupid! Punctured tank! Doesn't have a clue about what the problem is. This guy who is trying to sell me an extra truck to carry 50 cans of petrol where ever I go is on top of the money. Da man."

Even worse, what really drives anyone insane is when the chickenheads have power, and their perceptions are decisive and under them are more chickenheads who all turn a deaf ear to you because they are all so clueless and you feel powerless, because you can't even communicate how out of touch with reality they all are.

.

What's next, her speaking with a British accent?

Pop star Madonna has fallen in love with English country life, she has told American Vogue magazine.

In a interview with the magazine, the singer said she sees England - and not the US - as "home".

She is pictured in the August edition of the style magazine with her husband, film director Guy Ritchie, and two children Lourdes and Rocco.

The 46-year-old also said she is very different from her overtly sexual image of the 1990s.

"But now I love England and want to be here and not in America. I see England as my home."

Madonna added that she and Ritchie fell in love with their 1,000-acre estate, Ashcombe, on the Wiltshire/Dorset border.

She said she wears sensible shoes around the estate, goes hunting and fishing, rides horses and looks after her flock of chickens.

Her children, Lourdes, eight, and Rocco, four, feature in photographs in the 17-page Vogue spread called "Like a Duchess".

"To me, Ashcombe is a reflection of me and my husband in many ways, because it reflects our willingness to make a commitment," she added.

---

She seems to have gone from being a huge monstrous liberal crap to a more subdued one.

I don't follow celebrity lives, but did he marry for money?

Related posts: Great Kabbalah Followers of Our Time; What liberals just don't get; There's more to Nipplegate than meets the naked eye;

.

Continuing my curiosity about Harry Potter, here's another interesting article, by H. Chapman:

Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince could have been called In Love and War, but I heard that one was already taken.

In Harry Potter's sixth year at Hogwarts, tensions are running high: Harry and his friends are coming to grips with raging teenage hormones even as an increasingly powerful Voldemort wreaks havoc all over England.

[...]

So make no mistake: This is not a book for small children. As the original audience has grown, so has the reading level of the Harry Potter novels.

[...]

Though it's nothing so bald as an allegory, Half-Blood Prince often brings to mind the so-called "war on terror" of recent years.

A new minister of magic has been elected who is strongly reminiscent of President George W. Bush in many ways. The minister is a rangy fighter, a wartime leader who came to power to help alleviate the fears of terrified wizarding folk.

In its rush to look like it's doing something about Voldemort, however, the ministry is arresting and imprisoning many who are probably innocent (which brings to mind the controversy over prisoners in Guantanamo Bay, Cuba).

Using Voldemort and his followers, Rowling also explores themes of racial purity, ethnic cleansing and terrorist tactics with a deft hand.

But the book isn't just about war. Over and over, the characters demonstrate how the more you love someone, the more you have the power to hurt him or her, whether purposefully or not.

That the resulting heartache doesn't have to dictate your actions, that people are ultimately in charge of their own destinies, is another major motif in the book. For example, though Harry and Voldemort have much in common as orphans with great power, they used their talents differently: Voldemort to injure and dominate, Harry to heal and help.

Even the much-vaunted Prophecy is shown to be merely a prediction that is only bound to come true because of Harry's almost certain choices in the future.

Harry isn't the only one with tough choices, though. Harry's schoolyard nemesis, Draco Malfoy, is a poignant example of the crushing power of living under the heavy expectations of one's father (one of many father-and-son relationships examined in this book).

It's also a reminder that evil isn't absolute; there's room for shades of gray, and sometimes even pity. But don't think you know who's evil and who isn't at the end of this book.

Assumptions from previous books about certain characters have been turned on their heads, and I wouldn't be surprised if the same was true of new assumptions in the next book, reportedly the last in the series. Rowling has raised the red herring to a fine art.

However, the pacing of the book feels rushed; there is a lot more telling than showing in parts that should have been expanded upon.

Though the Half-Blood Prince turns out to be a very important character, the subplot in which Harry and friends try to figure out who he is seemed unnecessary, as did the new addition to the faculty. Of course, they will probably come into play more in book seven.

Half-Blood Prince reminds me most of Star Wars: Episode V -- The Empire Strikes Back. Though the book has its own discreet plot and climax, most of it seemed like a long setup for the finale, where the real action will undoubtedly start.

And I'm looking forward to it. In the Harry Potter books, Rowling has offered a world full of utterly believable people who, wizards or not, look a lot like the people next door. Or in the bathroom mirror.

---

hmmm... interesting.

.

Man, that was fast!

LONDON (Reuters) - The sixth book in the Harry Potter series, the fastest-selling book of all time, has become among the quickest to fall prey to Internet piracy, with illicit copies available online within hours of its release.

Tech-savvy fans of the boy wizard teamed up to scan the entire 607 page book into digital form, with unauthorized e-book copies appearing online less than 12 hours after "Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince" went on sale on Saturday.

And...

Hard-copy piracy has also spread to India, where street vendors have been seen hawking illegal copies of "Half-Blood Prince" at steep discounts.

---

Here is the future for all entertainment media.

.

A sordid affair in France;

The Nation's notes on Roberts;

WashPo - Under fire for presidential adviser Karl Rove's role in the leak of an undercover CIA agent's identity, the Bush administration on Wednesday labeled as "bad public policy" legislation to protect reporters from being jailed when they refuse to reveal their sources;

and...Microsoft sues Google for luring away exec

Microsoft (MSFT) sued Google (GOOG) on Tuesday, accusing it of poaching a top executive the search engine company had wooed away to head a new research lab in China.

In a complaint filed in King County Superior Court in Seattle, Microsoft accused Lee of breaking his 2000 employment contract, in part by taking a job with a direct competitor within a year of leaving the company.

Microsoft also accused Google of "intentionally assisting Lee."

"Accepting such a position with a direct Microsoft competitor like Google violates the narrow non-competition promise Lee made when he was hired as an executive," Microsoft says in its lawsuit. "Google is fully aware of Lee's promises to Microsoft, but has chosen to ignore them, and has encouraged Lee to violate them."

Microsoft and Google, along with Yahoo (YHOO), are locked in a fierce battle to dominate search, both online and through programs that index computer hard drives so files can be instantly located. Google also has begun offering new services, including e-mail, that compete with Microsoft offerings.

Hey, it's like Godzilla against that other ugly monster - I hope they batter each other to death - too sweet ;-)

And the clause seems a little stupid to me, a whole year?

---

Global sales of cell phones will reach nearly 800 million this year, and the annual tally will surpass 1 billion in 2009 though market growth will soon slow sharply, the research firm Gartner Inc. (IT) says in a new forecast.

The report Wednesday also estimated 2.6 billion mobile phones will be in use by the end of 2009.

Amazing! The biggest global revolutionary invention that came after computers.

.

Isn't it awful when you predict you are going to get well from an injury in two weeks and it takes four? Or you predict one month and it takes two?? Argh.

.

from Fractured Memories, Onkroes talks about how he likes to read:

Odd thing this - I always read the last few pages of a book before I read the book itself. Why? I probably don't know the real reason, but I've always rationalised it to myself as this; if it's got a good ending, then I know it's probably worth reading, because if it's got a good ending then it's probably good too, but even if it's bad the good ending will probably make up for it. And if it's got a bad ending then it's probably not worth reading because it's probably bad too, but even if it's good, it'll be ruined by the ending. Maybe it's because I just don't like to venture into a journey without knowing the ending in advance, 'risk averse' nature showing through again perhaps.

That's so funny! (in the intriguing sense). I'm the total opposite!!! I can't stand if I have the plot spoiled, specially the ending, I will die if I know it in advance, and although it rarely happens, I may not want to read the book. And usually when you are 3/4 already into any book, the main plot has been laid out and it's just that unbearable treading and slow grinding of reading until the end when you will have the book's conclusion, but even so.. I die, but I NEVER peek :-D

Not so with movies. Most movies I never go to see without reading several reviews, which is different than knowing the ending, but still sometimes all the reviews added together will give me several plot details. I hate going to any movie that I don't find interesting and by reading several reviews I usually have the necessary clues if the movie is the type I will enjoy or not.

.

A great post at Budman:

Disciples could care less what other men think.

When Paul wrote “am I now seeking the favor of men, or of God? Or am I striving to please men? If I were still trying to please men, I would not be a bondservant of Christ (Galatians 1:10)” he was warning us — by way of his own example — that disciples must choose whom they will please when defending the gospel: men or God?

[read more...]

In The Fountainhead Ayn Rand pens a piquant criticism of the ambitious who measure themselves by the opinions of other men. It illustrates the absurdity of disciples of grace who occupy themselves with the opinions of those who oppose grace:

His clients would accept anything, so long as he gave them an imposing facade, a majestic entrace and a regal drawing-room with which to astound their guests. It worked out to everyone’s satisfaction: Keating did not care so long as his clients were impressed, the clients did not care so long as their guests were impressed, and the guests did not care any way.

In the end those who oppose grace will neither understand nor care about grace.

Lord, deliver us from the desire to be approved of and accepted by men who do not understand your gracious gospel. Help us to be known as people who are for the gospel of grace rather than against those who pervert grace into works.

A great reminder, always.

.

A top aide to one of the U.S. Senate's leading antigay members has told a Washington blog that he is gay and stands by his boss, Pennsylvania Republican Rick Santorum.

Robert Traynham serves Santorum as the main spokesman and deputy chief of staff for the Senate Republican Conference, which Santorum chairs. After receiving tips from readers of his Web log, BlogActive, Michael Rogers called Traynham and asked him if he is "out to the senator." In a tape Rogers provided to Advocate.com, Traynham responded, "I am." Asked whether the senator's constituents know he's openly gay, Traynham said, "I'm not sure that's really relevant."

Does this make any sense whatsoever? A spy maybe? But doesn't look like it by the story. So why Santorum, of all people? And Santorum comes out supporting the guy?

Santorum was a leading sponsor of the Federal Marriage Amendment, restricting marriage to straight couples. In 2003, criticizing the Supreme Court ruling that struck down Texas's sodomy law, he said the decision would open the door to incest, adultery, polygamy, and bigamy. "If the Supreme Court says that you have the right to consensual [gay] sex within your home, then you have the right to bigamy, you have the right to polygamy, you have the right to incest, you have the right to adultery," Santorum said in an infamous interview with the Associated Press. "You have the right to anything. Does that undermine the fabric of our society? I would argue, Yes, it does."

Reflects my views as well. Not to mention all the violence issues that occur in the private sphere.

Rogers himself has come under fire from gay and lesbian activists for his outing of various officials in Washington. In fact, his outing campaign has exposed more than 20 gays who work for conservative causes and politicians.

Actually I am in favor of outing all the crap of homos and bisexuals everywhere. No closeted anyone. Sexual abusers and pedophiles and ephebophiles as well. Out in the open where both conservatives and liberals can smell how much they stink sexually speaking.

"Society" isn't really so afraid of outing homos, the real panic would occur if someone started outing the bisexual crap out there. Not only that, but it would be so nice to out how sleazy, kinky, and violent people are sexually speaking (specially the heterosexuals). So many married people pretending to be cleancut heterosexuals, when in fact they are walking piles of violent sexual crap. Out in the open.

And I am definitely in favor of secret cameras to gather proof of sexual harassment. Change the privacy/filming laws and get it on camera.

.

I hadn't heard about this, but since I hate Alan Dershowitz, I hope he gets stung, if not nailed by the allegations/facts.

Dershowitz in feud over plagiarism allegation

At the center of the argument is a book by Finkelstein claiming that Dershowitz -- the lawyer famous for representing O.J. Simpson and other high-profile clients -- inappropriately lifted material from another author when writing the book "The Case for Israel."

Finkelstein's book claims that "fully 22 of the 52 quotations and endnotes in chapters 1 and 2 of 'The Case for Israel' match almost exactly -- including, in long quotes, the placement of ellipses -- those in 'From Time Immemorial.'"

[more...]

And look, even wikipedia has an entry on this feud already! Including:

The $10,000 challenge

In an appearance on MSNBC's Scarborough Country, Dershowitz made the following challenge to Sam Husseini:

I will give 10,000 to the PLO. in your name if you can find historical fact in my book that you can prove to be false. I issue that challenge, I issue it to you, I issue it to the Palestinian Authority, I issue it to Noam Chomsky to Edward Said [2].

Finkelstein rose to the challenge on Amy Goodman's Democracy Now!. He first started with "concrete facts which are not particularly controversial". Finkelstein cited for a count of between 2,000 and 3,000 emigrant Arabs actually gave the range as between 200,000 to 300,000. Dershowitz replied that the mistake could not have been intentional on his part, because he had used these numbers to counter a claim that no Arabs at all had emigrated during the interval he had been addressing, and because it would only have served his argument to have gotten the numbers right. "Obviously, the phrase '2,000 to 3,000 Arabs' refers either to a sub-phase [of the emigration] or is a typographical error," Dershowitz said.

Finkelstein countered Dershowitz's claim that "Israel is the only country in the Middle East to have abolished any kind of torture in fact as well as in law." on page 206 by quoting The B'Tselem Israeli Information Center for Human Rights in Occupied Territories. "Torture. Interrogation by torture is absolutely prohibited by Israeli and international law. Despite this, Israeli security forces breached the prohibition and torture Palestinians during the interrogation." Finkelstein showed how also Amnesty International and Human Rights Watch reached the same conclusion. Dershowitz said that "They are wrong.". Next was Dershowitz's claim that "There is no evidence that Israeli soldiers deliberately killed even a single civilian in Jenin." on page 126 Finkelstein quoted Human Rights Watch as concluding that "there's prima facie evidence that Israel committed war crimes in Jenin. Many of the civilian killings documented by Human Rights Watch are mounted to unlawful or willful killings by the IDF." and "among the civilian deaths were those of Kamal Zgheir, a 57-year-old wheelchair bound man who was shot and run over by a tank on a major road outside the camp on April 10 even though he had a white flag attached to his wheelchair." Dershowitz said the HRW's report was wrong.

.

There used to be a spellchecker in the Blogger editing window. Now the button for it has disappeared. Or did I do something? If you have noticed hundreds of spelling mistakes, that's why... :-(

It's too much work to write the posts in a word editor and then copy them here... doesn't feel like that impromptu blogging writing. Not that I like to write stuff full of mistakes. So, perhaps that's what I'll have to do from now on...

.

Nothing particularly interesting in the news again. I refuse to comment on bizarre sexual crimes that Drudge insists on splattering on his website almost every day now. Instead of making sensationalist cheap reading fodder of such events, news publications should take these events as an opportunity to educate the public in a more sophisticated way.

But then again, I see that most people just love to be ignorant and salacious (which has always depressed me about the human race). And although it's unnecessary to say liberals thrive in everything sleazy and sexually diseased, conservatives can get into the sensationalist act too.

.

Nice article -Pottermania -- which camp are you in? BY ANA VECIANA-SUAREZ - Miami Herald

The frenzy has long been in the making, frothed up by a fawning media and faithful fans, but it truly turned serious at one minute after midnight this morning, when the sixth book -- and second to the last installment -- of you-know-who's saga went on sale. Its release divided the world, or at least the world of my immediate vicinity, into two camps: Pottermaniacs and the rest who just don't get it.

Whether you realize it or not, you belong to one side or the other. Choose now or forever be left out. (Clue: If you don't know what I'm talking about, if you have no idea why so much has been made over a mysterious half-blood prince and some orphan wizard boy, you're most definitely not in.)

Both camps look at each other with a mix of disbelief and disdain. There have been converts, true, but by all counts and if my keen observation proves correct, the majority of those who have an opinion on Harry Potter and his magical friends at Hogwarts School of Witchcraft and Wizardry remain steadfast in either their devotion or their denial.

I know of people, perfectly sane, perfectly responsible, perfectly adultlike, who order their Potter book weeks ahead and, at the stroke of midnight, costumed children in tow, visit Books & Books for their very own copy. They're among the thousands who will attend the estimated 2,500 Potter Parties across the country. In real life -- if there is such a thing -- they're simple Muggles with desk jobs and mortgages.

Equally comfortable in a life of water cooler discussions and children's sports practices is the other set. They watch such behavior with mock horror and can't figure out why sleep-deprived parents (and this is about parents, after all, not their kids) stayed up late Friday night to purchase a book the absolute moment it became legal to do so. Why not just buy it on Saturday morning at a normal hour?

''It's a kids' book, for Pete's sake,'' they exclaim, with a righteous nod of their collective head. ``Grow up!''

Well, most of us, fanatic or not, should know by now that this isn't just any kids book. J.K. Rowling's series is a publishing phenomenon, a fascinating entry in the history of literature that has sparked all kind of theories about marketing and reading. In the United States alone, 102 million copies of the preceding five books have been published. They've been translated into 62 languages and have chalked up 270 million copies sold.

[more...]

I haven't read any of the HP books, I glimpsed at one and found it boring. Not that I am the intended audience. But I was curious about what in the first book captivated so many kids. So I asked someone and they explained to me the initial plot set up and I can see why (orphan type boy fighting against mean adults -others) can be a type of plot that will strike a major chord with kids and adolescents.

I have watched the movie, which I thought was very nicely done, and gave me more clues of why children identify so much with the characters. There are some important empowering messages for kids on an emotional level. That was my brief analysis.

Still...

In the era of video games and instant messaging, how does a book bring such a motley crew of readers together?

The answer, I think, can be found between the covers. A good yarn, captivating characters, a universe imagined from whole cloth -- these will always make for a good read. But the series was blessed with something else, too, something of great importance in the media age: an incredible marketing machine that has masterfully pumped up anticipation.

Can this mega-success of sales be so much simply a product of modern marketing masterminding? The publishers' tactics are all very smart, but they are nothing more than that. Nothing that any publisher couldn't apply to any other book. So why does only HP sell this staggering 270 million copies? This is the population of several European countries put together! And if Rollings rolls out a book a year, although apparently the series now is ended or something like that, in ten years, she would sell more than 2 billion books...

And what amazes me too is that the size of the books is not trivial. Each volume is huge, even for adults, that's a major read.

Anyways, since I haven't come across any information that implies there is something wrong or negative with the books, although I'm sure we could always wish for improvements, all the better for the kids to have such an engrossing series of books to read.

Maybe now Rollings should start her Sally Potter series.

---

Found some interesting additional article bits - UPDATED JUL 20:

Publishing vs. movie and TV

The publishing industry has long put economic returns above artistic achievements. But Bloomsbury stands out by clinging to its traditional regime despite dramatic changes in this sector, untouched by the hot wave of cooperation between publishers and multi-media groups. Heidelberg predicts that by 2010 printed media will only take up a 48 percent market share with the other 52 percent held by e-media.

Profit driven, many publishers choose to bind themselves with competitive multi-media groups and cut staff and costs at the same time. Cooperation between Viacom and Simon & Schuster and that between News Corporation and HarperCollins are of this kind. Despite that, many publishers remain in the red, for everybody knows a sales miracle like Potter is rare. The United States saw 195,000 kinds of books published in 2004, but only a limited number of them turned out profitable.

The success of Harry Potter on the other hand reveals the disadvantageous position of publishers: they are not given economic returns other than the copyright once a book turns out a blockbuster, such as those brought by book-turned movies and TV series. Bloomsbury depends on the 16 million pounds brought by Potter last year for its other commercial plans. But in contrast, Time Warner, who brought Potter's movie copyrights and the right to put it into other commercial operations, reaped 984 million US dollars in the box office of Harry Potter and the Sorcerer's Stone alone.

Harry Potter and the Compendium of Utterly Useless Trivia

1 If all the published copies, hardback and paperback, in all translations, of the six Harry Potter books were laid flat, edge to edge, they would entirely cover Brazil.

2 If, however, the Brazilian rainforest continued to be reduced at the current rate, by the afternoon of April 17, 2057, there would be room only for a single-volume tower of all the published copies of the, by then, seven Harry Potter books. It would be 48,977 miles high. It would be the only pile of books visible from Mars.

Rowling dreads ‘The End’ to Potter
Latest Potter sells a record 9 million copies, set to be fastest selling book ever

In the interview, Rowling said she had mixed feelings about ending the saga of the boy wizard.

‘‘I am dreading it in some ways. I do love writing the books and it is going to be a shock, a profound shock to me,’’ she said. ‘‘Even though I have known it is coming for the past 15 years, I have known that the series would end, I think it will still be a shock.’’

Before she sits down to start the seventh book, Rowling said she would take time off to spend with her six-month-old daughter Mackenzie Jean.

Meanwhile, Harry Potter fans in Britain and the US bought the latest Potter book at record speed, as Potter mania swept the planet from Scotland to Singapore, New York to New Delhi. In Britain alone, a record 20,09,574 copies flew off the shelves, said publisher Bloomsbury. Added to the 6.9 million copies sold over the same period in the US, almost nine million copies of the book were bought on the first day in those two countries alone.

---

If the Da Vinci Code was a mega success, why shouldn't Harry Potter sell many more billions? It seems it doesn't take all that much for big success, not that Rowlings doesn't deserve credit. (More than Brown, that's for sure.)

.

In my blog, I have written informally on the PC issue (which I often call liberalism). I read a review of the book "Destructive Trends in Mental Health: The Well-Intentioned Path to Harm", (Edited by Rogers H. Wright and Nicolas A. Cummings, 2005). And although I disagree somewhat or totally with some of the issues outlined, they are quite correct in their PC criticisms summarized below.

Understanding Political Correctness - Review exceprt by A. Dean Byrd.

The authors note that there is no empirical data on political correctness because it is "politically incorrect to question political correctness" (p. 22). They pose two questions regarding political correctness, and offer a number of hypotheses for potential testing. The questions are: "What psychological functions does political correctness fulfill for the individual?" and "What is the attraction of political correctness to certain personalities?" The hypotheses offered to understand these behavioral phenomena include:

* Political Correctness Harbors Hostility/Domination/Intolerance
* Political Correctness Is a Form of Profound and Dysfunctional Narcissism
* Political Correctness Masks Histrionics
* Political Correctness Masks a Serious Lack of Ethics and Responsibility
* Political Correctness Functions as Instant Morality
* Political Correctness Wields Power
* Political Correctness Serves as Distraction
* Political Correctness Involves Intimidation/Attack/Overt and Covert Tactics of Repression and Censorship
* Political Correctness Lacks Alternatives
* Political Correctness Is Corrupt Regarding Social Justice, Since PCers Perpetrate a Lot of Violence in the World

* I have altered the list above to reflect more precisely my analysis.

The empirical study of the above questions may offer valuable data on the phenomenon of political correctness. Meanwhile, the authors note how this understudied phenomenon is hostile to science by allowing the dismissal of any finding not consistent with a particular ideology or agenda: "Thus, political correctness and the postmodernism that currently pervades academic psychology go hand in hand" (p. 24).

The authors assert that political correctness is hostile to certain research questions that may be unpopular, and can have a chilling effect on science. Further, political correctness can view certain questions as settled moral issues rather than empirical questions requiring scientific investigations.

This is why liberals make such trash of researchers and social scientists. They are very much anti-science and anti-ethics.

In my view, the authors left out a main function of liberalism/PCness/pro-homosexuality: it legitimizes and glamourizes all the lack of consciousness and irresponsibility in sexual issues of those who adhere to it.

.

And in the category of pearls of self-knowledge we simply cannot live without, we bring you:

The Amazing, Fantastic "Which Ocean Liner Are You?" Test

I took this test for posterity. The test very truthfully revealed that I am, obviously...

THE NORMANDIE

Your ship is 92% opulence, 52% speed, and 54% popularity.

WHO YOU ARE: Normandie, French ship, active 1935-39. You're the apotheosis of the ocean liner. [I'm modest...]

You're the biggest, the fastest (for a while), and certainly the most luxurious ship ever built. Your accommodations shimmer with gilded Art Deco opulence. All your passengers are famous, glamorous people in gowns and dinner jackets. [of course...]

Your first class dining hall is the best restaurant in the world, on or off shore. You are everything beautiful and powerful. There will never be another like you. [I know...]

HOW YOU'LL DIE: [What? Die?!?! What about my immortal charm?]

Trapped in New York at the outbreak of World War II, you'll be requisitioned by the U.S. Navy and turned into a troopship. But before the conversion is complete, a massive fire breaks out and destroys you from stem to stern. [ARgghhh!!! ]

Eventually you're cut up for scrap iron.

[What infamy!

OH, THE HUMANITY!]

How do I compare with other test takers?

How you compared to other people your age and gender:

You scored higher than 99% on opulence

Only 99% higher on opulence, eh? Need to find me a ...

If only intelligent, wonderful, eligible ones existed...

;-)

Related posts:
What Kind of Candy Are You? ; Online Cupid Personality Test ; What faith you are.
.

I don't know who the author of the pic is, but I liked this photo. It express what I am feeling right now in my life.

.

My favorite selection from the 14 commandments of the Romans.

1. You're born tired, you live to rest.

2. Labor is exhaustion.

3. Rest by day, sleep by night.

4. Never do today what you could do tomorrow.

5. When the desire to labor draws near, sit down and let it pass by.

6. No one ever died from too much rest.

And the top 3 are...

7. Love your bed as yourself.

8. You always hear of accidents at work; never of accidents while resting.

9. In life, try to do little, and that little that you do, assign to others.

.

I only recently found out something I had never heard of before in my life regarding Hitler. Hitler apparently sexually exploited/abused his niece (who was just a young woman, much younger than him) to the point that she killed herself. Through a dynamics of increasing sexual abuse, domestic violence and terrorizing, Hitler kept her isolated, home imprisoned, leading her to commit suicide.

I saw this in a film and researched the topic on the web, and found it so disturbing, I couldn't even blog about it at first. Even though this was at the beginning of Hitler´s rise to power, when he was far from concentrating his future extreme power as the pinnacle of the Third Reich, which didn't even exist at the time, all his political zombies of his party's inner circle began to notice what was going on and succumbed to Hitler's commands for them not to ask questions or interfere.

Related posts: Hitler quotations; What pro-homos hate to face: the truth about Homosexuality and the Nazi Party.

.

I got so much work done in the last 4 days, I just can't believe it! I have caught up with tons of things (actually a few big important ones). I'm extactic. I worked about 20 hours this weekend (doing nothing else). I thought it would take me a lot longer to meet several deadlines, but I am on a roll... :-)

.

Too funny, this exchange:

"The International Olympic Committee has the honor of announcing that the games of the 30th Olympiad in 2012 are awarded to the city of London," IOC president Jacques Rogge announced, following a dramatic pause to open the envelope containing the winning city's name.

In recent days, backers for frontrunners and traditional rivals Britain and France have traded snide remarks, prompting a cross-Channel media slanging match.

Members of the London team annoyed the French by questioning the suitability of Paris's showpiece sports stadium, the Stade de France, drawing complaints from Paris Mayor Bertrand Delanoe.

British tabloids reacted crossly to reported comments by President Jacques Chirac -- speaking to the leaders of Russia and Germany earlier this week -- to the effect that "you can't trust people who have such lousy cuisine."

"The only thing they [the British] have done for European agriculture is mad cow disease," declared Chirac, in comments reported by the French newspaper, Liberation.

Although Prime Minister Tony Blair said he would not be tempted to respond, the mass-circulation UK tabloid The Sun called Chirac a "nasty, petty, racist creep."

The Daily Express said it hoped Chirac would have "remembered his manners" by the time Queen Elizabeth hosts him and other G8 leaders at a dinner in Scotland later Wednesday.

"As for her majesty, it would be quite understandable if she were tempted to reply to his rudeness with a plate of beans on toast," it added, suggesting that the best place for her to put the food would be "on his head."

Even the broadsheet papers bristled at Chirac's comment, with the Daily Telegraph saying the embattled French president "seems to have gone a little off his rocker."

Nothing like international brotherly love. :-)

I would have preferred Paris, 100 to 1. Make it 100,000 to 1. And, ugh, another victory for the detestable Blair. If I were real nasty, I would wish that Blair got mad cow disease. ;-P

.