December 10th, 2010


Exploring the Map of Tasmania

Took a survey from ebay. Looks like they may be considering providing packaging/shipping materials to sellers, and/or setting up package dropoffs at local locations [the survey mentioned Starbucks by name as an example].

I was thinking that our various circumlocutions for the genitalia are primarily used as terms of opprobium. You don't want to be a prick, a dick or a cock. Nor a cunt, twat, or pussy. Maybe we should foster a sex-positive genital endearment for popular use. But what should they be? Cunny may be too close to the C-word, even if it sounds like honey, which would seem to be a natural advantage. Twatwaffle sounds like it should be a good thing, but it's a bad thing. We may have to resurrect and take back something like quim.
The male side is even worse. No lack of options, but things like 'womb ferret' or 'heat-seaking moisture missile' really are just not suitable. Peener seems to have the requisite cuteness. Giggle stick? Package may have the right feel: "Bob's a prick, but Rob's quite the package."
Opinions? Other than that this idea of mine is far less than half-baked?

I was thinking [yeah, see where that got me last time] that the [primarily Christian fundagelical] antiscience advocates complain that a failing of science is that it's bedeviled by progress change. One day, a fossil is a hominid; the next day, it's a peccary.
And yet... when we look at the Bible, one day you can't eat bacon, the next day you can. One day you circumcise, the next you don't. One day it's an eye for an eye, the next day it's "Ye have heard that it hath been said, 'An eye for an eye, and a tooth for a tooth': But I say unto you, That ye resist not evil: but whosoever shall smite thee on thy right cheek, turn to him the other also." Which would seem to take the sting out of their criticism.
But this idea is also less than half-baked since it's not likely to impress these critics of science, since they've had it hammered into them that their god's nature is unchanging, and the NT is the same as (or fulfillment of) the OT.
Anyway, that was my second lousy thought of the day. You're welcome.

Oh, and while I'm blathering, I was looking into the No Religious Test clause, as one does, and found something kinda neat. Although the US Constitution forbade religious tests for office, many of the individual states had such tests at that time.
Ben Franklin unsuccessfully fought against the religious test added to the Pennsylvania constitution. Part of his motivation may well have been his realization that he couldn't pass the test, as it required belief in the divine inspiration of the (complete) Bible.
Fortunately, it only applied to the PA Assembly, so there was no bar to him becoming president/governor of the state and working to amend the religious test to something less restrictive (to merely "acknowledge[] the being of God and a future state of rewards and punishments").
Ultimately, of course, the 14th Amendment provided a de facto end to state religious tests, though some are still on the books.