<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/1.5.1-alpha" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Weekend Grab-Bag</title>
	<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/</link>
	<description>Just another WordPress weblog</description>
	<pubDate>Sun, 12 Feb 2012 07:29:00 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=1.5.1-alpha</generator>

	<item>
		<title>by: rainne</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397492</link>
		<pubDate>Mon, 30 Apr 2007 02:50:01 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397492</guid>
					<description>As a very very Christian type person, I hereby assert that feeding rainne large numbers of cocktails is directly linked to breast cancer.

There'll be a study to test this hypothesis, right?


...Right?

(Also, ElizabethTX, my flippancy is not meant to offend.  And I'm sorry for your loss.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>As a very very Christian type person, I hereby assert that feeding rainne large numbers of cocktails is directly linked to breast cancer.</p>
	<p>There&#8217;ll be a study to test this hypothesis, right?</p>
	<p>&#8230;Right?</p>
	<p>(Also, ElizabethTX, my flippancy is not meant to offend.  And I&#8217;m sorry for your loss.)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: For the record: &laquo; What am I doing with a blog?</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397224</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 16:26:59 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397224</guid>
					<description>[...] Thanks Pandagon.  &amp;nbsp; [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>[&#8230;] Thanks Pandagon.  &nbsp; [&#8230;]
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: tzs</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397087</link>
		<pubDate>Sun, 29 Apr 2007 01:55:20 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397087</guid>
					<description>Considering that all the physicists I knew that were involved in the Manhatten Project died relatively early of cancer......I'd take my chances with being an organic chemist instead, thank you.

(If you were a theoretical physicist and didn't insist on mucking around physically with uranium and plutonium, lifespans were pretty good.)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Considering that all the physicists I knew that were involved in the Manhatten Project died relatively early of cancer&#8230;&#8230;I&#8217;d take my chances with being an organic chemist instead, thank you.</p>
	<p>(If you were a theoretical physicist and didn&#8217;t insist on mucking around physically with uranium and plutonium, lifespans were pretty good.)
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Frumious B</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397013</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 17:15:38 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397013</guid>
					<description>Yes, breastfeeding has a protective effect against breast cancer.  There's a looooooong jump from that to any claim that abortion causes breast cancer.  1) It doesn't.  Numerous studies have failed to find a link between abortion and breast cancer.  2) By your logic, abstinence causes breast cancer.

Santelli is being disingenuous.  It's true that condom failure rate is about 2% with perfect use (wrt unwanted pregnancy), but with typical use it's closer to 15-20%.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Yes, breastfeeding has a protective effect against breast cancer.  There&#8217;s a looooooong jump from that to any claim that abortion causes breast cancer.  1) It doesn&#8217;t.  Numerous studies have failed to find a link between abortion and breast cancer.  2) By your logic, abstinence causes breast cancer.</p>
	<p>Santelli is being disingenuous.  It&#8217;s true that condom failure rate is about 2% with perfect use (wrt unwanted pregnancy), but with typical use it&#8217;s closer to 15-20%.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: piny</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397003</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 16:44:42 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-397003</guid>
					<description>&lt;em&gt;On a lighter note, it's funny that Derb cites &quot;Every Sperm Is Sacred&quot; as an anti-Catholic sketch. I've always found it more crypto-Catholic than anything else. There's the Protestant husband, pontificating about his Right As A Protestant to wear all kinds of exotic condoms, and there's his frustrated, longing wife wondering why they never actually have sex; meanwhile, next door, the Catholic world teems with babies and the couple seems to be getting it on every other day. I mean, at least the Catholic couple seems to enjoy messin' around with one another!

So to my mind, &quot;Every Sperm Is Sacred&quot; is an unintentional verification of the fact that the Catholic &quot;theology of the body&quot; is much more romantic and sexually fulfilling than a contracepted culture. (We should start a campaign to refer to Natural Family Planning as &quot;the H&amp;amp;C method,&quot; for Honeymoon and Courtship, since that's the real rhythm in the &quot;rhythm method&quot;...)&lt;/em&gt;

Like the part where the baby shoots out from under her skirt like a heimlich-propelled martini olive?  

Yeeeesh.  

You know, I always thought the CofE coda was a slam on stodgy old British people who happen to be married Protestants.  But far be it from me to contradict a traditional-conservative read of a work of satire!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p><em>On a lighter note, it&#8217;s funny that Derb cites &#8220;Every Sperm Is Sacred&#8221; as an anti-Catholic sketch. I&#8217;ve always found it more crypto-Catholic than anything else. There&#8217;s the Protestant husband, pontificating about his Right As A Protestant to wear all kinds of exotic condoms, and there&#8217;s his frustrated, longing wife wondering why they never actually have sex; meanwhile, next door, the Catholic world teems with babies and the couple seems to be getting it on every other day. I mean, at least the Catholic couple seems to enjoy messin&#8217; around with one another!</p>
	<p>So to my mind, &#8220;Every Sperm Is Sacred&#8221; is an unintentional verification of the fact that the Catholic &#8220;theology of the body&#8221; is much more romantic and sexually fulfilling than a contracepted culture. (We should start a campaign to refer to Natural Family Planning as &#8220;the H&amp;C method,&#8221; for Honeymoon and Courtship, since that&#8217;s the real rhythm in the &#8220;rhythm method&#8221;&#8230;)</em></p>
	<p>Like the part where the baby shoots out from under her skirt like a heimlich-propelled martini olive?  </p>
	<p>Yeeeesh.  </p>
	<p>You know, I always thought the CofE coda was a slam on stodgy old British people who happen to be married Protestants.  But far be it from me to contradict a traditional-conservative read of a work of satire!
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Ace</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396993</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:40:25 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396993</guid>
					<description>&quot;O-chem professor always talked about how organic chemist had shorter lifespans than other scientists.&quot;

It's true, as a chemE major it was stressful to memorize reactions.

As long as you follow safety guidelines you'll be fine; one caveat that I know of is that you should avoid pretty much any dangerous vaporous hydrocarbons while pregnant even with safety gear for the kid's sake.

There is nothing dangerous about doing your share of the groupwork in all the data analysis and writing.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;O-chem professor always talked about how organic chemist had shorter lifespans than other scientists.&#8221;</p>
	<p>It&#8217;s true, as a chemE major it was stressful to memorize reactions.</p>
	<p>As long as you follow safety guidelines you&#8217;ll be fine; one caveat that I know of is that you should avoid pretty much any dangerous vaporous hydrocarbons while pregnant even with safety gear for the kid&#8217;s sake.</p>
	<p>There is nothing dangerous about doing your share of the groupwork in all the data analysis and writing.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Lawrence Krubner</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396990</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:22:32 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396990</guid>
					<description>&quot;&lt;i&gt;But I cannot for the life of me understand this War on Condoms.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

Actually, I think their argument is that condoms break and therefore they lead to more abortion, as the use of the condom suggests people were having sex when they didn't want children. They follow that up with the argument that no one should ever have sex unless they want babies. &lt;a href=&quot;http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2002_05_01_archive.html#76128359&quot; rel=&quot;nofollow&quot;&gt;That's the gist of Eve Tushnet's take&lt;/a&gt;.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;<i>But I cannot for the life of me understand this War on Condoms.</i>&#8221;</p>
	<p>Actually, I think their argument is that condoms break and therefore they lead to more abortion, as the use of the condom suggests people were having sex when they didn&#8217;t want children. They follow that up with the argument that no one should ever have sex unless they want babies. <a href="http://eve-tushnet.blogspot.com/2002_05_01_archive.html#76128359" rel="nofollow">That&#8217;s the gist of Eve Tushnet&#8217;s take</a>.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Lawrence Krubner</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396989</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 15:14:37 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396989</guid>
					<description>&quot;&lt;i&gt;But I cannot for the life of me understand this War on Condoms.&lt;/i&gt;&quot;

People who use condoms are less likely to have children. Therefore the Republicans are oppossed to condoms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>&#8220;<i>But I cannot for the life of me understand this War on Condoms.</i>&#8221;</p>
	<p>People who use condoms are less likely to have children. Therefore the Republicans are oppossed to condoms.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: Mark S.</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396985</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 14:39:16 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396985</guid>
					<description>While I don't agree with them, I can at least understand why conservatives take many of the positions they do.  I can even understand why they oppose evolution.  But I cannot for the life of me understand this War on Condoms.

This is a federally funded program.  Your tax dollars are paying for outright lies about serious health issues for teenagers.  The next time some conservative accuses liberals of wanting Big Brother, point them to this article.  Regulating the sex lives of people is apparently a conservative principle.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>While I don&#8217;t agree with them, I can at least understand why conservatives take many of the positions they do.  I can even understand why they oppose evolution.  But I cannot for the life of me understand this War on Condoms.</p>
	<p>This is a federally funded program.  Your tax dollars are paying for outright lies about serious health issues for teenagers.  The next time some conservative accuses liberals of wanting Big Brother, point them to this article.  Regulating the sex lives of people is apparently a conservative principle.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
	<item>
		<title>by: micheyd</title>
		<link>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396978</link>
		<pubDate>Sat, 28 Apr 2007 13:41:04 +0100</pubDate>
		<guid>http://pandagon.blogsome.com/2007/04/28/weekend-grab-bag/#comment-396978</guid>
					<description>Well I for one am glad they did that study, because hopefully it might shut a door on the lies they've been telling for years, and the crackpot statistically-flawed studies they've been using to scare women into their ideology.  Maybe not, though, and they'll continue with their status quo.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[	<p>Well I for one am glad they did that study, because hopefully it might shut a door on the lies they&#8217;ve been telling for years, and the crackpot statistically-flawed studies they&#8217;ve been using to scare women into their ideology.  Maybe not, though, and they&#8217;ll continue with their status quo.
</p>
]]></content:encoded>
				</item>
</channel>
</rss>

