As we may observe with children and soldiers, common activity is not excluded even in the excretory functions. The one great exception is provided by the sexual act, in which a third person is at best superfluous and in the extreme case is condemned to a state of painful expectancy.
Freud, Sigmund. Group Psychology and the Analysis of the Ego. Trans. and ed. James Strachey. New York: Norton, 1957. 54-55 n.3.
Last night, the announcer for the Hawks game declared that they had a great offensive half, scoring 39 points on 43% shooting, with only seven turnovers.
“The Solomon Islander ornaments everything he can, spares no pains about it, and has an excellent eye for proportion.” (J. Barnard Davis, “A Few Notes Upon the Hair, and Some Other Peculiarities of Oceanic Races.” The Journal of the Anthropological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland. 2 [1873]: 98)
“I heard the prime minister of the Solomon Islands express surprise that his was one of the nations enlisted in the ‘coalition of the willing’: ‘I was completely unaware of it.’” (Elliot Weinberger, “What I Heard about Iraq.”)
I’m sympathetically disposed towards the author of this article because of the endless hours of amusement Borat has given me over the last few months. But who could have thought up an experiment that involved having infant children look at a mechanical mobile? How can you reasonably draw conclusions about a male preference for systematicity at such an early developmental age? How about if it’s just shiny? I’m tempted to write a “just-so” about aliens to really explain this effect.
As long-time readers know, I taught a course last semester called “The Rhetoric of Evolution in America.” This course was organized into three sections, with last two focusing on debates without and within evolutionary theory. As you might expect, in the fomer I taught selections from intelligent designers along with even YECs. One of the student comments on the course evaluation complained that I only taught “well-written articles from an evolutionist perspective and poorly written creationist ones” or something similar. That might be true, but I fear it’s not selection bias which explains it. You’re going to look bad rhetorically next to Dawkins, Gould., and Lewontin even if your argument has scientific merit.
The US television network that recently broadcast a passing glimpse at Janet Jackson’s anatomy was excoriated for its wanton lapse of taste; but the avalanche of accompanying commercials for products designed to enhance male potency passed quite without comment. The female breast, it seems, can rot a nation’s moral core; but malfunctioning penises are wholesome family fare.
From this New York Review article by Tony Judt, which is well worth reading.
“It is easier to explain what is meant by economic nationalism in German than English.” Gregory, T.E. “Economic Nationalism.” International Affairs (Royal Institute of International Affairs 1931-1939) 10. 3 (May 1931): 289.
Also, on a different but still fascinating topic, note “the argument that you have to keep agriculture going as a type of economic production which requires a vigorous manhood, since you also require a vigorous type of manhood in war” (294).
Several folks have commented that the Manu Ginobli’s dunk in overtime last night in the Suns game over Stoudemire and Marion was positively Goodwinian. While not disputing the essence of this claim, I should remind everyone that his dunk a) occurred during a game and b) was executed on a 10-ft. rim.
I should also add that not only did that dunk end the game, it also ended the Suns’ entire season. I no longer think they’re going to make it out of the first round of the playoffs.
Available here.
What the hell is that, you may wonder. That’s a very good question, and I’m glad you asked. Here’s a starter article. And here’s a discussion board at the Fortean Times. One and two Metafilter threads. An unfiction forum (site apparently devoted to large-area role-playing games).
The most important depository of information about the matter is the site I linked to above.
I have a theory about how to interpret this. I’ll share it before too long.
The climate here is rather humid, but it must, at the same time, be very healthy, because the people who inhabit the mountains are very healthy and well built. In my opinion, they may be considered the purest type of the race called the Papuan, which, I may say here en passant, has no claims to be considered, ethnologically, a distinct race. These mountaineers appear until recent years to have kept entirely aloof from the world, living quietly in the mountains and having no intercourse with strangers. They were considered cannibals until, in 1872, I was first enabled to ascertain for myself that a European could live among them without running any danger of being cooked and eaten.