Posted by: bridget | 13 September 2006

From the Elephant’s Mouth

Harvey Mansfield agrees with Ellen Goodman on international women’s rights:
“The feminists at Harvard seek to remove every vestige of patriarchy in America, but they have said almost nothing about the complete dismissal of women’s rights by radical Islam. To do so would be to attack Islamic culture, and according to multiculturalism, every culture is equal and none is evil. They forsake women in societies that repudiate women’s rights and direct their complaints to societies that believe in women’s rights. Of course it’s easier to complain to someone who listens to you and doesn’t immediately proceed to slit your throat. No sign of any rethinking of feminism has appeared in the universities where it flourishes.”

Three of Ms. Goodman’s Equal Rites awards went abroad. Prof. Mansfield’s critique is similar to that recently voiced by the Independent Women’s Forum.

Snobby Tea: Did it really take the New York Times this long to catch onto the trend and figure out that Lipton is the food equivalent of a seaside vacation in South Dakota? While I applaud all efforts to improve the gastronomical situation of America, I can’t help but think that Lipton’s move will lower the quality of good teas. Before, you knew that you were getting crap tea for not much money. Now, they are selling “beginner” teas for about $0.17/cup, more than the price of Fauchon loose-leaf teas ($12-$15 for 125 grams).

“Though there are myriad gadgets on the market, like little metal infusers, for brewing a single cup from whole tea leaves, they do not eliminate the chore of cleaning up the soggy remains.”

ACK! You use a little metal infuser, but the wet tea leaves/infuser on a darling little tea bag holder (or plate), let it dry for an hour, and the leaves fall out of the infuser.

More on food: Nora Ephron’s op-ed about restaurant service.

MIT Hack: To honour the 9/11 firefighters, MIT put a mock firetruck on the Great Dome. Of course, the big question is how they get everything up there (which may have been explained, at least a bit, in, “If At All Possible, Involve A Cow“). This firetruck is not real, so it could have been assembled on the spot. For a more colourful explanation, I refer you to Richard Bejtlich’s theory:

“OK, everyone, after hours upon hours of deep thought I have I believe I have figured out how MIT students have placed what appears to be a multitude of objects on the MIT dome over the years. Drum roll please…………….. the answer is they used a very sophisticated high tech MIT designed 3-D hologram device that projects whatever they want upon the dome. That is how no one ever sees them doing anything because there is nothing to see but the final image when a switch is thrown probably over the internet from some MIT dorm room. What makes the MIT system unique is that the image can be seen equally well in daylight as in darkness.The detail capability is amazing. Even the alleged tie down ropes are the result of holograms!”

Holograms? Maybe. Or perhaps a double convex (i.e. converging) lens?


Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s


%d bloggers like this: