Tuesday, April 12, 2005
You know, advocating healthy eating is great and all, and you better bet it's something I'm on top of all the time, but shit you guys...
We're breeding a culture of food paranoia. And I think there's a big risk that instead of making things better, it's going to make things worse. It may, in fact, have been making things worse for a while now.
These are men who think a great deal about their penises; like Mike, they are submerged. But what concerns Dr. Sharlip is why men feel the need to raise the bar in the first place. Of those who come to him for advice, he says, "the very great majority -- 99 percent -- have normal penile size. It's a psychological problem more than a physical one."
Mike denies that his obsessions with enlarging his penis stem from some primordial trauma. "It wasn't a huge emotional drama I was trying to settle," Mike says. "What guy's not going to want to go out and make his dick bigger?"
Wow. The amount of amazing things we could all do with this time and energy...
Cool note on how Wikipedia and feminist blog rings were the first to report on Andrea Dworkin's death. Those pesky internets: moving far faster than the media at large.
It's like a giant game of telephone.
So why couldn’t we have a female character who was a creature of pure Id, whose unruly mounds of fat, like Homer’s, is always threatening to crush the furnature, leak over the sides of all restraints, and just generally refuse to fit in?
Well, I think there could be such a character. If she was well-written, I’d find her funny. But to have a woman be that character… well, it somehow wouldn’t be very status quo, would it? I think a lot of America might find a female version of Homer Simpson or Peter Griffen - that is, an unashamed fat woman whose fat gets everywhere and who unabashedly goes after every passing want - more than a bit threatening. Not exactly the comforting material that successful sit-coms are made of.
To the Editor:
"Moralists at the Workplace" (editorial, April 3) addressed "scattered reports" of employees refusing to perform certain job requirements that conflict with their personal moral or religious beliefs and customers seeking to have these requirements filled. We believe that there is a solution that accommodates the needs of both parties.
Recently, we introduced the Workplace Religious Freedom Act, which clarifies current law to say a person's religious beliefs should be recognized and accommodated in the workplace as long as this does not adversely affect the employer's business or customers.
The bill is supported by a diverse coalition of more than 45 religious and civil rights groups as well as a bipartisan group of senators and representatives.
If the bill becomes law, an employee who does not wish to do their job would not have to do so long as another employee is on duty and would do their job for them.
The Workplace Religious Freedom Act provides a sensible solution to the potential conflict between an employee's religious conviction and the needs of their employer and employer’s customers.
I, for instance, am part of a strict no-technology-using religion similiar to that practiced by the Amish. I work for a telecommunications firm where my job requirements include using computers, telephones, and managing projects that aid in the spread of telecommunications technology, which I do not believe in.
Luckily, thanks to this law, I can come into work everyday and have my coworkers do all of this work for me while I write novels longhand.
I believe this solution accomodates the needs of all parties involved.
Kameron Hurley; AA, BA, MA