Good Reads

[KRCummings]

http://qzprod.files.wordpress.com/2013/08/pink.jpg?w=600

Toward the end of the 1925 novel The Great Gatsby, Jay shows up to lunch with his mistress and her husband in a pink suit. For modern readers, it’s tempting to take his color selection as a sign of dandyism. Why would a man choose to wear the color of Mary Kay, breast-cancer research tie-ins and kitchen gadgets galore? When cuckolded husband Tom Buchanan criticizes Gatsby for wearing pink, he seemingly echoes the present-day assumption that pink is a feminine color.

But that would be imposing today’s view of pink on the past. Buchanan uses the suit’s hue not to discredit Gatsby’s masculinity or virility, but his intellectual bona fides. He mentions it only when Gatsby’s described as an Oxford man: “[Buchanan] was incredulous. ‘Like hell he is! He wears a pink suit.’”

Buchanan’s comments make it clear that men in pink meant something different in the 1920s than today. According to an interview with the costume designer for Baz Luhrmann’s recent film, the color had working-class connotations. Only in the relatively recent past did pink acquire its feminine connotations.

“In the 18th century, it was perfectly masculine for a man to wear a pink silk suit with floral embroidery,” says fashion scholar Valerie Steele, director of The Museum at the Fashion Institute Technology and author of several books on fashion.

Steele says pink was initially “considered slightly masculine as a diminutive of red,” which was thought to be a “warlike” color.​

- read the full article Pink used to be a masculine color (from Quartz)​

I've been telling men for years that in fashion pink is a more masculine color than they realize and that men look good in it. Sadly society has molded them into homophobic little bitches who think pink means they like large cocks in their butts.
Or something like that.

 

[Laurel]

I've been telling men for years that in fashion pink is a more masculine color than they realize and that men look good in it. Sadly society has molded them into homophobic little bitches who think pink means they like large cocks in their butts.
Or something like that.

Agreed. They really should be more open-minded. On both counts.

 

[lovetoread]

I dunno why but pink and all the "girly" shades are very popular with the men in the company I work for. Not just the ones here, but even internationally. Was there a memo sent out that I missed?

 

[KRCummings]

I dunno why but pink and all the "girly" shades are very popular with the men in the company I work for. Not just the ones here, but even internationally. Was there a memo sent out that I missed?

You see it more internationally because the stigma isn't nearly as strong.
Also interesting is that humans are one of the only animals where the male is not the most colorful. Used to be people were like other animals and men were very flamboyant and colorful but that changed for some reason.

 

[blackleggings]

I looove men wearing pink.

 

[Colonel Hogan]

The color doesn't seem to be generally in fashion for men these days, but I remember in the 70s and 80s when it seemed more prevalent. I had a solid pink polo shirt that was part of my regular rotation. I have no problem wearing the color.

It's really better as an accent color, however.

 

[RobDownSouth]

I single-handedly introduced the pink business shirt at the old Union Planters bank in Memphis around 1997. I was there on a contract assignment. Very stuffy, formal bank. One day I decided to wear a pink dress shirt, a clear violation of the unwritten dress code.

As luck would have it, I got on an elevator with old man Rawlins, the CEO, and his gaggle of underlings. There was a collecive sucking in of air from the gaggle.

Rawlins looked at me, and in his very propuh Old South voice, said "Young man, you must be VERY confident in your sexuality!" I smiled and replied I had never heard a single complaint from a woman! He blinked and then laughed at me.

Pink shirts began appearing shortly thereafter.

 

[Phelia]

http://25.media.tumblr.com/41374fd79991a560a6c6d66eb5221777/tumblr_mqdutwIHnt1sq65x0o1_500.gif

Kissing is so common that we rarely ask why humans touch their lips together to show affection. One obvious answer is that it feels good. Densely packed nerve endings make your lips some of the most acutely sensitive regions of your entire body, and few things get them more riled up than a kiss. But where in humanity's evolutionary history did smooshing our faces together come to be regarded as a display of lust, care, friendship and love? [...]

One of the most compelling hypotheses surrounding the emergence of kissing in humans (and kiss-like behavior in other species) is tied to the widespread practice of passing pre-chewed or regurgitated food from the mouth of one animal to another. Birds do it. Chimps (and a number of other mammals) do it. Many humans even do it. [...]

So how did humans make the leap from mouth-to-mouth feeding to full-blown makeout sessions? That's less clear — but scientists are on the case. Philematology (the science and study of kissing) is becoming an increasingly popular area of study, as researchers strive to sort out the mysteries of love and attraction.

- read the full article The evolution of kissing (from io9)​

 

[Phelia]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/30/opinion/2012juneIHTmag-mcgrathArt/2012juneIHTmag-mcgrathArt-articleLarge.jpg

Can bad people create good art? If that question pops up on an exam or at a dinner party, you might want to be wary. The obvious answer — so obvious that it practically goes without saying, and ought to make the examinee suspicious — is that bad people, or at least people who think and behave in ways most of us find abhorrent, make good art all the time. Probably the most frequently cited example is Wagner, whose anti-Semitism was such that he once wrote that Jews were by definition incapable of art. Degas, a painter often praised for his warmth and humanity, was also an anti-Semite and a staunch defender of the French court that falsely convicted Alfred Dreyfus. Ezra Pound was both anti-Semitic and proto-fascist, and if you want to let him off the hook because he was probably crazy as well, the same excuse cannot be made for his friend and protégé T. S. Eliot, whose anti-Semitism, it now seems pretty clear, was more than just casual or what passed for commonplace in those days.

- read the full article Good Art, Bad People (from the New York Times)​

 

[Saint Peter]

"What are you eating?"

"Kiss me!"

nom nom nom

 

[Phelia]

"Yes, we'd like to split the mushroom ravioli."

"Excellent choice, sir! Shall I bring out an extra plate?"

".....no."

 

[Saint Peter]

"I will have what she is having."

"Very good, Sir. I will have it right out."

"YOU DO THAT AND I WILL STUFF MY BOOT RIGHT UP YOUR ASS!"

 

[Laurel]

http://graphics8.nytimes.com/images/2012/05/30/opinion/2012juneIHTmag-mcgrathArt/2012juneIHTmag-mcgrathArt-articleLarge.jpg

Can bad people create good art? If that question pops up on an exam or at a dinner party, you might want to be wary. The obvious answer — so obvious that it practically goes without saying, and ought to make the examinee suspicious — is that bad people, or at least people who think and behave in ways most of us find abhorrent, make good art all the time. Probably the most frequently cited example is Wagner, whose anti-Semitism was such that he once wrote that Jews were by definition incapable of art. Degas, a painter often praised for his warmth and humanity, was also an anti-Semite and a staunch defender of the French court that falsely convicted Alfred Dreyfus. Ezra Pound was both anti-Semitic and proto-fascist, and if you want to let him off the hook because he was probably crazy as well, the same excuse cannot be made for his friend and protégé T. S. Eliot, whose anti-Semitism, it now seems pretty clear, was more than just casual or what passed for commonplace in those days.

- read the full article Good Art, Bad People (from the New York Times)​

This is good.

 

[Laurel]

Why did the heirs to one of the largest fortunes in America grow up horribly neglected and abused?

http://assets.rollingstone.com/assets/images/story/the-poorest-rich-kids-in-the-world-20130812/1000x600/20130813-duke-x600-1376344285.jpg

Inside the house, the twins called 911. The dispatcher at the police station couldn't make out what the hysterical children were saying, but local troopers knew exactly where they were needed, and quickly left for the remote Inman property, which Walker had dubbed "Outlaw Acres." Later on, in the presence of the Inmans' high-priced attorney, an officer would confront Daralee with the fact that she'd been driving with a blood-alcohol content of .05 – violating her probation – with her stepkids in the car, and Walker would admit he'd been drinking and driving too. And yet no charges would be levied that November 2009 morning; the Lincoln County Sheriff's department would simply close the case. As ambulances and police cars came screaming up the hill, past the demolition derby of wrecked cars to where Georgia and Patterson sobbed in the grand arched entryway to their palace, it was just another day at the Inmans', home to the poorest rich kids in the world.

Raised by two drug addicts with virtually unlimited wealth, Georgia and Patterson survived a gilded childhood that was also a horror story of Dickensian neglect and abuse. They were globe-trotting trust-fund babies who snorkeled in Fiji, owned a pet lion cub and considered it normal to bring loose diamonds to elementary school for show and tell. And yet they also spent their childhoods inhaling freebase fumes, locked in cellars and deadbolted into their bedrooms at night in the secluded Wyoming mountains and on their ancestral South Carolina plantation. While their father spent millions on drug binges and extravagances, the children lived like terrified prisoners, kept at bay by a revolving door of some four dozen nannies and caregivers, underfed, undereducated, scarcely noticed except as objects of wrath.​

- read the full article The Poorest Rich Kids in the World (from Rolling Stone)​

 

[Laurel]

http://www.budgetraygun.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Good-People-Bad-People-2.jpg

http://www.budgetraygun.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Good-People-Bad-People-3.jpg

http://www.budgetraygun.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Good-People-Bad-People-4.jpg

http://www.budgetraygun.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Good-People-Bad-People-5.jpg

http://www.budgetraygun.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/Good-People-Bad-People-6.jpg​

- read the full article How to Tell Good People from Bad People (from Budget Raygun)​

 

[Laurel]

Encouraging kids is fine, but films like Planes and Turbo take their messages to an extreme. Parents should turn to 1969's A Boy Named Charlie Brown for a reality check.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/culture_test/banner%20planes%20turbo%20charlie.jpg

After finishing last in the race's first two legs, Dusty briefly takes over the lead before crashing into the Pacific Ocean during a violent storm. Damaged and discouraged, Dusty nearly drops out before the race's concluding leg. But Dottie restores his faith by reversing her initial doubts: "You're not a crop-duster. You're a racer, and now the whole world knows it." Rejuvenated, Dusty overcomes his doubts--not to mention his oft-stated fear of heights--and triumphs in the race's final seconds. Hammering home the movie's already unambiguous message, a doting fan at the finish line tells Dusty that he's "an inspiration for all of us who want to do more than we were built for."

It's probably no coincidence that the supremacy of the magic-feather syndrome in children's movies overlaps with the so-called "cult of self-esteem." The restless protagonists of these films never have to wake up to the reality that crop-dusters simply can't fly faster than sleek racing aircraft. Instead, it's the naysaying authority figures who need to be enlightened about the importance of never giving up on your dreams, no matter how irrational, improbable, or disruptive to the larger community. As Jean Twenge, the controversial cultural critic of America's supposed narcissism epidemic, argues in her bestselling book Generation Me, younger generations "simply take it for granted that we should all feel good about ourselves, we are all special, and we all deserve to follow our dreams."

Following one's dreams necessarily entails the pursuit of the extraordinary in these films. The protagonists sneer at the mundane, repetitive work performed by their unimaginative peers. Dusty abhors the smell of fertilizer and whines to his flying coach that he's "been flying day after day over these same fields for years." Similarly, Turbo performs his duties in the garden poorly, and his insubordination eventually gets him and Chet fired. Their attitudes are all part of an ethos that privileges self-fulfillment over the communal good.​

- read the full article You Can Do Anything: Must Every Kids' Movie Reinforce the Cult of Self-Esteem? (from The Atlantic)​

 

[KRCummings]

Encouraging kids is fine, but films like Planes and Turbo take their messages to an extreme. Parents should turn to 1969's A Boy Named Charlie Brown for a reality check.

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/culture_test/banner%20planes%20turbo%20charlie.jpg

After finishing last in the race's first two legs, Dusty briefly takes over the lead before crashing into the Pacific Ocean during a violent storm. Damaged and discouraged, Dusty nearly drops out before the race's concluding leg. But Dottie restores his faith by reversing her initial doubts: "You're not a crop-duster. You're a racer, and now the whole world knows it." Rejuvenated, Dusty overcomes his doubts--not to mention his oft-stated fear of heights--and triumphs in the race's final seconds. Hammering home the movie's already unambiguous message, a doting fan at the finish line tells Dusty that he's "an inspiration for all of us who want to do more than we were built for."

It's probably no coincidence that the supremacy of the magic-feather syndrome in children's movies overlaps with the so-called "cult of self-esteem." The restless protagonists of these films never have to wake up to the reality that crop-dusters simply can't fly faster than sleek racing aircraft. Instead, it's the naysaying authority figures who need to be enlightened about the importance of never giving up on your dreams, no matter how irrational, improbable, or disruptive to the larger community. As Jean Twenge, the controversial cultural critic of America's supposed narcissism epidemic, argues in her bestselling book Generation Me, younger generations "simply take it for granted that we should all feel good about ourselves, we are all special, and we all deserve to follow our dreams."

Following one's dreams necessarily entails the pursuit of the extraordinary in these films. The protagonists sneer at the mundane, repetitive work performed by their unimaginative peers. Dusty abhors the smell of fertilizer and whines to his flying coach that he's "been flying day after day over these same fields for years." Similarly, Turbo performs his duties in the garden poorly, and his insubordination eventually gets him and Chet fired. Their attitudes are all part of an ethos that privileges self-fulfillment over the communal good.​

- read the full article You Can Do Anything: Must Every Kids' Movie Reinforce the Cult of Self-Esteem? (from The Atlantic)​

I agree with this. Encouragement is one thing but it doesn't do any good to tell kids it's all going to be perfect and you'll always win and you'll achieve every goal.
Peanuts has some great lessons through the years. Charlie Brown never stops trying to kick that ball but he continually fails. Wonderful lesson there.
At Halloween he's an outcast and gets nothing. That's life.
His friends don't really trust him much.
Most of his friends are kinda assholes and are weird in their own right.
Adults don't give a shit what the kids think.
And on and on.
I love kids movies and I like the lessons but Toy Story has more real life scenarios than stuff like Planes and Turbo.

 

[sweet_lusciousdesire]

................

 

[sweet_lusciousdesire]

..................

 

[KRCummings]

And then there's people who hide behind alts because they're chicken shit cowards.

 

[sweet_lusciousdesire]

.................

 

[Laurel]

I agree with this. Encouragement is one thing but it doesn't do any good to tell kids it's all going to be perfect and you'll always win and you'll achieve every goal.
Peanuts has some great lessons through the years. Charlie Brown never stops trying to kick that ball but he continually fails. Wonderful lesson there.
At Halloween he's an outcast and gets nothing. That's life.
His friends don't really trust him much.
Most of his friends are kinda assholes and are weird in their own right.
Adults don't give a shit what the kids think.
And on and on.
I love kids movies and I like the lessons but Toy Story has more real life scenarios than stuff like Planes and Turbo.

Last year a friend of mine who coaches youth sports was confiding that she was dismayed with the number of young players who honestly believe they are pro material - despite their lack of natural ability or work ethic. They (and their parents) really believe that if you want to be anything, you can. But that's blatantly untrue. First off, most things take effort - lots of it. And even then, you're not going to the NBA if you're 5'1" tall. You're not going to be an Olympic gymnast if you're 6'4" and 300 lbs. And these kids - when they hit the wall of reality, it's gonna hurt. A lot. And it's the parents' fault for not preparing them for real life.

 

[Laurel]

Bacon, an early bedtime, and a few tattoos to mark where the electrodes go

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/inthesuit.jpg

I was digging around the NASA archives when I stumbled upon the flight surgeon's report for the Mercury-Redstone 3 mission, otherwise known as the second flight by a human into space, and the first by an American. Alan Shepard was the man chosen by the United States to leave Earth.

The astronauts were accompanied by doctors at all times. They were fed a strict diet. Their vitals were measured. They were monitored constantly.

But while I've known this in the abstract, it wasn't until reading the surgeon's report that I realized that these flights, from a biomedical perspective, were experiments playing out in the astronauts' bodies. As such, as many variables as possible had to be controlled, while still allowing the pilots to function normally.

Here are 13 tidbits I extracted from William K. Douglas' report detailing the pre-flight ritual.

1. For the three days before the flight, the pilot lived in the Crew Quarters of Hangar "S" at Cape Canaveral: "Here he is provided with a comfortable bed, pleasant surroundings, television, radio, reading materials and, above all, privacy. In addition to protection from the curious-minded public, the establishment of the pilot and the backup pilot in the Crew Quarters also provides a modicum of isolation from carriers of infectious disease organisms."
[...]
8. BRUTAL: "No coffee was permitted during the 24-hour period preceding the flight because of its tendency to inhibit sleep. No coffee was permitted for breakfast on launch morning because of its diuretic properties." [...]
11. The Mercury astronauts had their electrode attachment locations tattooed onto their bodies! "The sensor locations have been previously marked on all Mercury pilots by the use of a tiny (about 2 millimeters in diameter) tattooed dot at each of the four electrode sites."​

- read the full article 13 Little Things NASA Did to Get Alan Shepard Ready for Space (from The Atlantic)​

 

[neci]

Bacon, an early bedtime, and a few tattoos to mark where the electrodes go

http://cdn.theatlantic.com/static/mt/assets/science/inthesuit.jpg

I was digging around the NASA archives when I stumbled upon the flight surgeon's report for the Mercury-Redstone 3 mission, otherwise known as the second flight by a human into space, and the first by an American. Alan Shepard was the man chosen by the United States to leave Earth.

The astronauts were accompanied by doctors at all times. They were fed a strict diet. Their vitals were measured. They were monitored constantly.

But while I've known this in the abstract, it wasn't until reading the surgeon's report that I realized that these flights, from a biomedical perspective, were experiments playing out in the astronauts' bodies. As such, as many variables as possible had to be controlled, while still allowing the pilots to function normally.

Here are 13 tidbits I extracted from William K. Douglas' report detailing the pre-flight ritual.

1. For the three days before the flight, the pilot lived in the Crew Quarters of Hangar "S" at Cape Canaveral: "Here he is provided with a comfortable bed, pleasant surroundings, television, radio, reading materials and, above all, privacy. In addition to protection from the curious-minded public, the establishment of the pilot and the backup pilot in the Crew Quarters also provides a modicum of isolation from carriers of infectious disease organisms."
[...]
8. BRUTAL: "No coffee was permitted during the 24-hour period preceding the flight because of its tendency to inhibit sleep. No coffee was permitted for breakfast on launch morning because of its diuretic properties." [...]
11. The Mercury astronauts had their electrode attachment locations tattooed onto their bodies! "The sensor locations have been previously marked on all Mercury pilots by the use of a tiny (about 2 millimeters in diameter) tattooed dot at each of the four electrode sites."​

- read the full article 13 Little Things NASA Did to Get Alan Shepard Ready for Space (from The Atlantic)​

the smithsonian also had a good article recently about space food leftovers. nasty looking cubed beef and coffee with cream. keepers or throwers? we may never really know/

 

[Laurel]

the smithsonian also had a good article recently about space food leftovers. nasty looking cubed beef and coffee with cream. keepers or throwers? we may never really know/

Have you ever tried any "space food" stuff? I ate "astronaut" ice cream I bought at a space museum. It was pretty gross. But I'll bet if I were out in space without a handy Dairy Queen or Haagen Daz, it'd be delicious.