Posts by dyan campbell
Last ←Newer Page 1 2 3 4 5 Older→ First
-
most men would give being a women a go but most women would prefer being a dolphin.
My parents were fond of telling us we could be anything when we grew up, so when they asked my brother Rick what he wanted to be, he replied "oh, a skunk or a cannonball".
-
Here in Dundee it was 13C
Heh - Peter, I grew up in CHCH and Oamaru/Moeraki/Dunedin.
Actually, I grew up largely in the South Island. If you forgot your PE gear at school, they'd still make you run on the frozen grass.
Peter, Islander, Rustle... I have to pull rank on you all here and point out that I am from Canada .
-
It'd be a great excuse to dress like this. The eyepatch is even on the right side.
I have a (still gorgeous) friend from Vancouver who was the model for Arrow Shirts for years, and they always made him wear an eyepatch for the ads. Some gimmick or something. He made more from that campaign than for just about any other work.
-
But teh wiki agrees with me. It's called that because commandos did it. I find it especially hard to believe that GI Joe even could go commando - his undies are built in.
I never knew GI Joe had built in undies, but that does seem practical. But the phrase didn't refer to Joe's undies, but to the way he rappelled into battle (swinging wildly on a rope held by a little boy). The phrase "go commando" used in the ad was picked up to describe the way testicles behave when unrestrained by undies.
The Wiki does indeed back up the notion that commandos used to go without undies, though I seriously doubt that - undies and socks were very valuable to any soldiers anywhere - there is a great deal more chafing and less hygiene without them -. It doesn't really make sense to go without them for either reason.
The wiki writer probably isn't old enough (i.e. over 50) to remember the series of ads that ran on tv in the 60s with the catchy song:
"GI Joe, GI Joe,
Fighting man from head to toe
On the land, on the sea, in the air!"The ad showed kids playing with Joe who was driving in a tank, on a D-Day style amphibious vehicle, then by air and GI Joe would dangle from an aircraft by a rope, swinging back and forth. As GI Joe was was dangling from the aircraft of his choice, the announcer would say, over the music "GI Joe can go commando "
Then he'd say "accessories sold separately". There were a lot of accessories! I didn't play with GI Joe, but I must say I admired the GI Joe in the very prettyl silver space suit, with the Gemini Space capsule.
-
I believe the phrase came from the custom of commandos in the tropics to not wear underpants because they actually increased hygiene problems. Curiously, Arnie did not go commando in Commando. He feels much more comfortable in undies.
No, no Ben... the phrase "going commando" come from the tv ad for GI Joe doll that ran in the 1960s... "Joe can go in by air, in a tank, by parachute or... go commando " (cue to GI Joe rappelling into battle). It refers to the guy's testicles swinging free and that's why it's so funny to North Americans when women mistakenly use the phrase "going commando".
-
Sacha has summed it up very well:
And defying the police is not the same as giving the finger to mummy and daddy. Life lesson, as some have said. The students were warned what the consequences would be - no diversion - and they decided to go for it anyway.
The privilege these students enjoy doesn't necessarily mean they are wealthy - clearly they are ordinary middle class NZers. Their wealth is not the issue, their privilege and sense of entitlement is what is irritating people here.
The suggestion that these offenders are entitled to better treatement than other groups in society - like Maori and Pacific Island offenders - is galling:
Diversion is apparently not going to be offered to these "rich prick" kids
Although it is up to the Police to offer it, most first time minor criminals get it as right but it is only offered once
Most "rich kids" only need it once because they are quick learners unlike habitual criminals who are certainly not.Actually this isn't true.
Socioeconomic Factors in Sentencing
I can't cut and paste from that document, as it's a PDF, but it says that "Maori enter prisons at 8x the rate of non-Maori" and that "Maori were younger than Europeans the first time they entered prison" that "Maori fare less well in the judicial system than Pakeha, being more likely to be prosecuted, convicted and when convicted, receive harsher sentences than their European counterparts".
There was an earlier study that also showed that Maori and Pacific Island offenders are much less likely than Europeans to receive fines for offending - and more likely to receive custodial sentences - and a custodial sentence is considered a harsher penalty than a fine.
The reason given for this disparity in sentencing was that Maori and Pacific Islanders are less likely to be able to pay their fines than Europeans. This is profoundly unjust, and if this preferential treatment were administered strictly on the basis of ability to pay the fines - in other words, wealth - there would be some pretty loud wails of injustice from all quarters.
There were several of us from other countries who have expressed surprise at the blatantly preferential treatment some people (white, middle class) get over others (brown, poor). While this is exactly what happens in any other colonised country - Canada, the USA, Australia - at least there is some attempt to appear fair. Here I can think of dozens of cases where the mitigating circumstances consist of the defendant "wanting to work overseas" or "having a bright future that would be otherwise spoiled".
I can also think of an instance where someone in their mid-twenties received a light sentence for setting fire to two people - one who died, the other horribly disabled and disfigured - and the offender's "youth" and the fact that he was drunk were "taken into consideration". When a 12 year old who participated in the murder of a delivery guy, no such factors were taken into consideration, despite the fact that the defendant was less than half the age of the other "young" offender.
The actions of the students in Dunedin should be dealt with as harshly as the law allows. They were warned in advance of the consequences, they are all adults, whatever their lawyers want to argue, and if they were brown and from South Auckland they would certainly be feeling the full force of the law and considerably more wrath from the public .
-
Coming from Canada I agree with these comments:
We were amazed when we moved to this part of the world at the leniency shown students by civic leaders and police.
and:
My wife, who is from Europe, is always dumfounded that we are so lenient on drunken, irreverent, privileged kids.
The difference between the way wealthy white and poor brown people are treated is really surprising to anyone from overseas.
In Canada there is a greater need for justice to at least be seen to be done. Here I can think of many instances here where the very privileged status of the offender is given as a reason for leniency.
The objection to police turning up in riot gear is also amazing to me - if people are throwing bricks and bottles, then it seems not only sensible, but necessary that police be decked out in riot gear.
The cost in terms of police hours, clean up, medical treatment of both rioters and police, not to mention the processing through the justice system will be significant as it is. Had police not been wearing helmets and carrying shields someone is quite likely to have been killed.
To excuse those throwing bricks and bottles as "young" is also misguided. At what point do people stop being considered children in this country? I think anyone over 18 should be considered an adult and prosecuted as such.
-
This article may be of interest:
There are four ways of determining sex, said Dr Peter Bowen-Simpkins, of the Royal College of Obstetricians and Gynaecologists. The problem is that they can be at odds with one another. Chromosomal sex is defined by x and y chromosomes. The default position for mammals is that they will develop as females unless there is y chromosome present. In one rare condition, androgen insensitivity syndrome, the body is insensitive to the male hormone and develops to become a woman.
"It's very complex area," said Bowen-Simpkins, a consultant gynaecologist. "The male hormone is what gives bulk to muscles and bones so they are at an advantage. I have seen pictures of this girl and she has no waist and very masculine musculature."
As many as one in 3,000 are born with some kind of intersex disorder. "Some people are brought up as females even though they have no uterus or vagina. The sporting bodies don't have an agreed definition of sex. Cases like this may force them to define this particular issue.
-
I think that seeking to find ways to rule these women out of the competition is every bit as unfair as seeking to rule out men who have the same blessings. They will be rare women. They will be unusual women. But they are still women.
If the leaked test results are true then she is technically not a woman. Not being a woman and having enormously high levels of testosterone certainly does give an individual athletic advantages over women who are physically female, in almost all sporting events, especially if that testosterone has influenced everything from the V02 max to the Q-angle. Even the size of the heart, lungs, kidneys etc.
But all this must be incredibly harrowing for this poor young woman. SA sporting officials should have anticipated this, done this screening privately long before she was entered in any kind of competition. It's not like this hasn't come up in sport before.
__Men can't match women in some sporting events.__
Just curious, what sports are these?Ultra distance running (longer distances than 45- 50 km at a time) and long distance swimming in cold water.
And little girls will crush any other member of our species when it comes to strength to weight ratio. There's a good reason female gymnasts are not grown women.
-
In much the same way that someone who has any other 'natural' advantage can. Being a naturally man-sized woman is an advantage on, say, a basketball court. Just because they are freakishly few and far between does not mean they should not be allowed.
But women aren't just smaller versions of men. There are a lot of differences between the sexes.
Women have less bone density, less muscle mass, higher body fat to muscle ratios, finer tendons and ligaments, narrower heels (influences foot-strike, momentum etc), smaller V02 max, greater Q-angle (wider angle where the knee bone connects to the thigh bone because of the wider pelvis). Add to that the presence of estrogen during puberty will influence the gynoid pattern of fat distribution (ie. breasts, hips and butts are fleshier on women than men, which will influence speed). Also fact the higher levels of estrogen in women means greater ligament laxity. Which is great when we give birth, but not so great when dealing with impact, if we want to avoid injury, and a distinct disadvantage against someone who does not have such hormonal cycles.
Differences between the sexes are much more than just size, muscle mass and bone density.
Women have a distinct advantage in cold water distance swimming though.