May 21, 2011 (yesterday)
Amazon Will Buy Your Old Electronics for Amazon Money [In Brief]
Amazon's trade-in program, which was previously only for a few items like books, video games, and DVDs, now includes electronics as well. If you have an old cellphone, camera, or other gadget that you aren't using anymore, you can send it off to Amazon and they'll credit your account (which, frankly, is almost as good as cash). They'll even pay the shipping fees for you. Head on over to their trade-in page to see if your gadgets are eligible (or to buy some discounted, pre-owned gadgets yourself), and hit the link to read more. [Amazon via Mashable] More »



Add star Like Share Share with note Email Keep unread Not interested Add tags
May 20, 2011 (2 days ago)
The United States of America Consumes 8 Percent Of World’s Olive Oil, Produces Just 0.1 Percent
It’s disappointing that in his speech earlier today, Barack Obama didn’t tackle America’s dangerous dependence on foreign olive oil:

It seems to me that the California Olive Oil Council needs to develop a more robust lobbying/pr effort to raise awareness on this front. I’m eager to offer my services!

It seems to me that the California Olive Oil Council needs to develop a more robust lobbying/pr effort to raise awareness on this front. I’m eager to offer my services!
Add star Like Share Share with note Email Keep unread Not interested Add tags
May 21, 2011 (yesterday)
What Makes a Body Obscene?
Cross-posted at Ms.
The cover of this month’s Dossier Journal magazine has caused a great stir. In a matter of a few hours, five readers — Andrew, Jessica B., anthropology professor Kristina Kilgrove, artist Thomas Gokey, and my brilliant colleague, music professor David Kasunic — all sent in a link. Here’s what all the fuss is about:
(source)The model is a man named Andrej Pejic, with hair and make-up usually seen only on women, sliding his shirt off his back. Some might say that he is gender-ambiguous and the image deliberately blurs gender; are we seeing a chest or small breasts? It is not immediately apparent.
Both Barnes & Noble and Borders “bagged” the magazine, like they do pornographic ones, such that one can see the title of the magazine but the rest of the cover is hidden. Barnes and Noble said that the magazine came that way, representatives for Dossier say that the bookstore “chains” required them to do it (source). Non-ambiguously-male chests pepper most magazine racks, but this man’s chest hints at boobs. And so he goes under.
What’s going on?
Explaining why it is legal for men to be shirtless in public but illegal for women to do the same, most Americans would probably refer to the fact that women have breasts and men have chests. Breasts, after all, are… these things. They incite us, disgust us, send us into grabby fits. They’re just so there. They force us to contend with them; they’re bouncy or flat or pointy or pendulous and sometimes they’re plain missing! They demand their individuality! Why won’t they obey some sort of law and order!
Much better to contain those babies.
Chests… well they do have those haunting nipples… but they’re just less unruly, right? Not a threat to public order at all.
So, there you have it. Men have chests and women have breasts and that’s why topless women are indecent.
Of course it’s not that straightforward.
It’s not true that women have breasts and men have chests. Many men have chests that look a bit or even a lot like breasts (there is a thriving cosmetic surgery industry around this fact). Meanwhile, many women are essentially “flat chested,” while the bustiness of others is an illusion created by silicone or salt water. Is it really breasts that must be covered? Clearly not. All women’s bodies are targeted by the law, and men’s bodies are given a pass, breasty or chesty as they may be.
Unless.
Unless that man’s gender is ambiguous; unless he does just enough femininity to make his body suspect. Indeed, the treatment of the Dossier cover reveals that the social and legislative ban on public breasts rests on a jiggly foundation. It’s not simply that breasts are considered pornographic. It’s that we’re afraid of women and femininity and female bodies and, if a man looks feminine enough, he becomes, by default, obscene.
(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)

The cover of this month’s Dossier Journal magazine has caused a great stir. In a matter of a few hours, five readers — Andrew, Jessica B., anthropology professor Kristina Kilgrove, artist Thomas Gokey, and my brilliant colleague, music professor David Kasunic — all sent in a link. Here’s what all the fuss is about:
Both Barnes & Noble and Borders “bagged” the magazine, like they do pornographic ones, such that one can see the title of the magazine but the rest of the cover is hidden. Barnes and Noble said that the magazine came that way, representatives for Dossier say that the bookstore “chains” required them to do it (source). Non-ambiguously-male chests pepper most magazine racks, but this man’s chest hints at boobs. And so he goes under.
What’s going on?
Explaining why it is legal for men to be shirtless in public but illegal for women to do the same, most Americans would probably refer to the fact that women have breasts and men have chests. Breasts, after all, are… these things. They incite us, disgust us, send us into grabby fits. They’re just so there. They force us to contend with them; they’re bouncy or flat or pointy or pendulous and sometimes they’re plain missing! They demand their individuality! Why won’t they obey some sort of law and order!
Much better to contain those babies.
Chests… well they do have those haunting nipples… but they’re just less unruly, right? Not a threat to public order at all.
So, there you have it. Men have chests and women have breasts and that’s why topless women are indecent.
Of course it’s not that straightforward.
It’s not true that women have breasts and men have chests. Many men have chests that look a bit or even a lot like breasts (there is a thriving cosmetic surgery industry around this fact). Meanwhile, many women are essentially “flat chested,” while the bustiness of others is an illusion created by silicone or salt water. Is it really breasts that must be covered? Clearly not. All women’s bodies are targeted by the law, and men’s bodies are given a pass, breasty or chesty as they may be.
Unless.
Unless that man’s gender is ambiguous; unless he does just enough femininity to make his body suspect. Indeed, the treatment of the Dossier cover reveals that the social and legislative ban on public breasts rests on a jiggly foundation. It’s not simply that breasts are considered pornographic. It’s that we’re afraid of women and femininity and female bodies and, if a man looks feminine enough, he becomes, by default, obscene.
(View original at http://thesocietypages.org/socimages)
Add star Like Share Share with note Email Keep unread Not interested Add tags
2:25 AM (12 hours ago)
the world
For the second Friday in a row I am ending the week with an old drawing. This one is from over three years ago, and judging from the number of notes it has received on Tumblr (over 2800), I'd say it seems to resonate with lots of folks.
This drawing is sold. Check for available drawings and prints.
Add star Like Share Share with note Email Keep unread Not interested Add tags
May 21, 2011 (yesterday)
Drink It In
Add star Like Share Share with note Email Keep unread Not interested Add tags
May 20, 2011 (2 days ago)
Geocacher Viewing the Endeavour Launch: “Right place at the perfect time”
You never know where you’ll find a geocacher. Avid geocacher Lorrie LeBlanc (Lorriebird) was piloting an airliner over Florida just as the space shuttle Endeavour launched through the clouds this week. She snapped these pictures. Her pictures went viral, even posting on CNN.com. Here’s her story.
Lorriebird writes, “I was flying a route from Miami to Montreal on Monday, May 16th. I hadn’t paid much attention to the shuttle launch because I knew I would be working at the time and would miss it. We were cruising at 37,000 feet, and the chatter began on the Jacksonville radio frequency about the launch. Other aircraft started asking for permission to turn toward the launch, but they were denied.“Then we received a message that the Endeavour was launching in one minute. I started looking at our position relative to the launch site and realized that we were VERY close at only about 40 nautical miles away. I told the Captain that I was flying with that we were the closest plane to this thing! I started looking for it and at that very moment the Endeavour punched up through the clouds in perfect position outside my window! The frequency erupted with questions….JAX center and other planes started asking us what we could see…but I was too busy taking photos to answer them! I mean, if I could have snapped my fingers to re-position our aircraft anywhere else, I wouldn’t have moved it! We absolutely lucked out and were in the right place at the perfect time.
“I cannot write what I was saying out loud at the time. But all the while I was shooting, I just kept thinking that we were watching history being made. I really cannot describe the feeling properly, because words like amazing and incredible truly don’t cut it for trying to describe that thrill. It took quite a while for the adrenaline rush to cut me some slack! The other pilot and I just looked at one another….did we REALLY just see that????”Check out even more of her photos here.
Add star Like Share Share with note Email Keep unread Not interested Add tags
Tidak ada komentar:
Posting Komentar