You are currently browsing the monthly archive for March 2005.
A harp seal looks at the remains of other seals during the first day of the annual harp seal hunt on a ice floe in the Gulf of St. Lawrence, Prince Edward Island, Canada Tuesday, March 29, 2005. (AP Photo/Jonathan Hayward, CP)
related news article:
Hunters were expected to kill more than 300,000 seals by May 15, when the federal, three-year plan ends, allowing sealers to harvest a total of 975,000 seals since 2003.
The purpose of learning is growth, and our minds, unlike our bodies, can continue growing as we continue to live.
Mortimer J. Adler
1902-, American Educator, Philosopher
p.s. Purely by chance I came across this Yahoo News photograph that goes perfectly with this quote.
The dogmas of the quiet past are inadequate to the stormy present. The occasion is piled high with difficulty, and we must rise with the occasion. As our case is new, so we must think anew and act anew.
From ABC News:
CSUC officials have confirmed that some members of the Phi Kappa Tau fraternity participated in the making of a pornographic movie.
The film was shot in what appears to be the fraternity’s living room and featured adult film actresses and fraternity brothers engaging in sexual activities
From the Courier:
“We bring the porn stars and the cameras, and we just film,” she said. “We get hundreds of letters every month from college students wanting us to come out to their schools.”
Let me see if I understood this right… administration officials, who, like a lot of faculty, are irresponsibly liberal and pro-porn, these major hypocrites are uptight because students have made a porn film? Isn’t it the utmost hypocrisy?
So, now, trashy liberals recognize there is something foul in the kingdom of porn when one of their students is engaged in it, but not if some otherwise anonymous offscouring of society is?
Every single liberal official is reaping what they have so eagerly sowed.
CSUC once was ranked by Playboy magazine as the top US party school.
I wonder what the results would be if we did a study asking faculty and administrators what their attitudes regarding porn are. Then we could ask all the ones that are pro-porn if they would have any objections to their students making porn. If there were any conflicts in these two positions, it would be so nice to investigate the perfumed reason for the contradiction.
Related posts: Hitler quotes; The Liberal Pig Larry Flynt May Be Finally Leaving! Thanks to Bush; PC Homo Hate-Speech Wars – This Time in Australia; Large cable firm stops offering hard-core pay-to-view pornography; Glorifying Rape – new Deep Throat movie; Clinton Style Schools – Where Cheap Is Exotic; Liberals Have Won the Cultural Wars; One Axis of the Culture Wars; Consequences of Losing the Culture War.
update March 31, 2005:
John left a comment:
Many people on the left are very anti-porn because they believe it to be a degradation of women. It is a gross over simplification to say that all the left is for porn. Just as it is to say that all the right is against it. I’d bet that the business men who rent porn in hotel rooms all around the country are overwhelmingly Republican.
“Many people on the left are very anti-porn because they believe it to be a degradation of women.”
Which goes to show just how stupid the left is, because in a case like this, if it were a bunch of male homos doing the porn and no women were involved, then the left would have nothing to object to according to your statement.
” It is a gross over simplification to say that all the left is for porn. Just as it is to say that all the right is against it. “
These 2 statements are not equal: #1 “All liberals are pro-porn” #2 “Liberals are pro-porn.” A generalization is not a hard number, a precise statistical quantity, nor is it equal to 100%. To say “liberals are pro-porn” means there is a significant number of liberals who are pro-porn, it does not necessarily mean every single liberal is pro-porn. It also means that the set of political and social positions ascribed by liberalism endorses porn. I didn’t say all the left was pro-porn. I also think there is a difference between liberals and the left. “Liberals” encompasses a larger, more diffused group. But even regarding the left, I don’t think most leftists are anti-porn as well; a minority, yes.
There are many Republicans that are liberal, that is, they are liberal in personal/social matters and conservative in economic/nationalism matters. I certainly agree that we find a good deal of Republicans and self-entitled conservatives mixed in the production system and consumption of porn.
The fact here is that CSUC is not a bastion of conservatism, but a typical liberal university.
Related blog entry from Matt Lavine: porn+big biz+politicians.
Mike started his comment like this:
You’re dumb. You claim CSUC faculty are liberal because of a national study done on ALL universities nation wide. Well, if you check out several other national studies, you’ll find the reason why college professors lean to the left is because studies show the more educated you are, the more likely you will be open to new ideas and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others. (aka…being liberal).
Obviously, Mike is a liberal. How can we tell? He starts his comment not with intelligence, but with name calling and insult. This is just how immensely intelligent liberals are. He then goes on to say:
“you’ll find the reason why college professors lean to the left is because studies show the more educated you are, the more likely you will be open to new ideas and tolerant of the ideas and behavior of others.”
Obviously, either Mike is not very educated or he is not very open to new ideas and tolerant of ideas of others. Or maybe, being nothing more than a container of liberal idiocy, Mike thinks that name calling is tolerance, violence is peace, and being obnoxious is an ability to reason in a debate.
Apparently, he could take over any faculty position at CSUC immediately and no one would notice the difference.
“So let me see if I understand YOU right…”
You haven’t. He continues:
if university officials did nothing you would roll your eyes and call them “too liberal” to do anything (or as you put it “pro-porn”) but now that they are taking a right wing moral stance on it, you are calling them hypocrites?
What IS IT that you want from them?”
They are taking this moral “anti-porn” stance in what context exactly?
For any newcomers, read this before leaving a comment:
Liberals and Verbal Aggression – Rules for Comments
The Intolerance of Tolerance by Gregory Koukl
From ABC News:
A former Boy Scouts of America official has been charged with possession and distribution of child pornography. […]
Smith, 61, was also chairman of the Scout’s Youth Protection League — alerting scout leaders to the dangers of predators on the Internet, ABC News has learned.
“There’s no typology for the child pornographer,” said John Clark, Deputy Assistant Secretary for Immigration and Customs Enforcement. “And that’s part of the problem we have in law enforcement. They run the gamut of persons, doctors, lawyers, teachers, priests, clergymen of all sorts.”
“You’re going to find people who are accessing pornography from every segment of our society, which means we need to do a better job of protecting our kids and make no assumptions about where our kids might be safe,” said Shay Bilchik, president and CEO of the Child Welfare League of America.
Smith is expected to appear in federal court Wednesday. Prosecutors say they expect him to plead guilty.
If he is convicted, will he get more than a slap on the wrist? Does society care at all?
Related posts: Death for Child Rape; where´s the government on child porn?; the ACLU and NAMBLA again; 8 members of NAMBLA arrested; Paedophile Internet crimes up 307% in two years in the UK and the Horrible Abuse Case Trial Begins in France.
This is my version of this photo.
You may be interested in reading about the female Last Supper ad controversy, which relates to this post in many ways. This case has a significant difference, it does not involve advertising and its magnificent objectives of stuffing jeans down people’s throats by tawdrily manipulating their emotional needs.
As Paul from Off the Beaten Track posted:
On Good Friday, after night has fallen on the medieval Umbrian town of Alviano, the crowds flock to the annual spellbinding re-enactment of the Passion of Christ.
But this year’s performance has caused controversy – in the depiction of the crucifixion the part of Christ on the cross is to be played by a woman. As The Telegraph reports, the decision to cast a female in the role has been welcomed by the younger members of the town, who see it as representing the universality of Christ’s message.
I think the decision to cast a woman as Christ on the cross is admirable, and certainly brave in Italy – the centre of the Roman Catholicism. I hope it introduces a fresh perspective on the traditional Passion story, and prompts those watching to think a little about their faith…
Quote from the Telegraph:
Last week, the mayor, Nazario Sauro Santi, urged Mr Sorbara to “display some humility”, arguing that the image of Christ that local people were used to was the “one taught by the Church fathers”.
Mr Sorbara remained unmoved by what he called the “dictates of people with a different vision of Christ. The Bible says, ‘In Christ, there is no male or female’ ,” he said.
Mr Sorbara has agreed to attend a meeting in the town hall this week to take part in a “civil discussion”, though the event promises to be stormy.
Mr Sorbara, who describes himself as a fervent Catholic, said that he had not meant his casting to be provocative, but had merely been following the scriptures.
The power of a symbol, eh?
I will start by saying that I think the proposal to have a civil discussion is an interesting sign, the desire and attempt at dialogue even when positions are entirely diametrical and feelings are intense is reasonably rare in our world.
I found an article that quotes Mr. Sorbara, and it seems he put in a lot of thought to the matter and why he has chosen to partially represent Christ as a woman. He does has some beautiful thoughts on the matter.
“The dignity of the woman is the purposeful expression of God which she has inherited from her creator,” he said. From the Italian article:
Non scambio una figura maschile con una femminile. Non scambio Cristo con una donna», ha spiegato Sorbara all’ Ansa. «È solo che trovo nella divinità, proprio nel simbolo della Croce, anche l’ altro volto di Cristo, cioè quello femminile, quella parte di creature che formano l’ umanità. Tanto più che la Chiesa può annoverare delle martiri che hanno dato la loro vita per la croce, come la grandissima filosofa del ‘900 suor Teresa Benedetta della croce, al secolo Edith Stein, che nel suo testamento spirituale scrive che chi vuole seguire Cristo non può non accettare la crocifissione, la sofferenza e la morte». Nessuna provocazione, quindi, per il regista, che non pensa, inoltre a reconditi significati politici: «Non c’ è una motivazione politica dietro alla mia scelta – ha detto – nel senso di volere riscattare la dignità della donna. Perchè secondo me la donna non ha bisogno di riscattare ciò che qualcuno le ha dato e cioè la pari dignità con l’ uomo». Piuttosto, a convincerlo, sono stati alcuni passi della Bibbia, come quello in cui si dice: «Non ci sono nel regno di Dio nè giudei nè greci, nè schiavi nè schiave, nè maschi e nè femmine»
My objection is that so many disgusting people have arrogated the function of being spokespersons for women’s dignity for ages.
Who is qualified to talk about women’s dignity without becoming a hypocrite? Is this Mr. Sorbara against exploiting women through prostitution systems? Is he against demeaning women through pornography? Has he done any theater work dealing with violence against women in Italy? Has he objected to how women are sexually objectified in Italian fashion, cinema, media, theater? Who is he and what values does he have to talk about women’s dignity? Is he dignified enough to represent my dignity?
I would not be surprised if the town’s young people are in various ways just as hypocritical and demeaning to women’s dignity, at the same time that they clamor for a female Christ.
I also think religious symbols are complicated things to mess with. It’s not that I would oppose all representations of Christ as female, but depending on how this representation is carried out and the context it is carried out in, it becomes nothing more than the debased Girbaud version of women’s lib, a dictatorship of greedy, stupid, disrespectful, frivolous, irresponsible trash of women (and men) making grand speeches about women’s “rights and freedoms,” and now, dignity.
A recent “Last Supper” advertisement was ordered to be taken down in Italy and France, since it was ruled it was a gratuitous offense to Christians. (see recent long post on this controversy). I just found out that about five centuries ago, Veronese also incurred the ire of the Inquisition because of his choice of mixing religious and profane elements in his gorgeous, enormous version of the Last Supper. His solution to the threats and charges from the Inquisition is quite entertaining, although I’m sure the Inquisition was not at all amused:
From the International Herald:
“The Last Supper” (now at the Accademia, Venice) Dimensions : Hauteur 555 * Largeur 1310 cm
[…] in the case of “The Last Supper” for the refectory of the SS Giovanni e Paolo monastery in Venice, Veronese’s tumultuous mélange of classical and Christian, religious and profane, had apparently gone too far. In July 1573, he was arraigned before the Inquisition and cross-questioned as to the significance of the details of the picture’s contents. In his replies, Veronese bravely defended the right of painters “like poets and madmen” to follow their own invention.
The inquisitors remained unsatisfied, and ordered him to remove from the canvas “the buffoons, drunkards, German soldiers, dwarfs and other such absurdities.” He afterwards responded merely by changing the name of the painting to “Feast at the House of Levi.” The inquisition was unusually weak in Venice, and kept that way by the Venetian state to minimize external, especially papal, interference. In another place, Veronese’s impertinent response could have cost him his liberty, if not his life.
This is a website (Realm of Venus) that functions like a small museum or encyclopedia of women’s clothes and accessories in 16th century Venice. It is so interesting.
Lots of information and lots of details of paintings and drawings illustrating the various topics.