This seems very unethical.

The article points out that the doctor has worked on several geriatric patients which seems to be aiming for press, rather than concerns about quality of life for the parents or children. Also this: “People say, what will happen to the child once we die. But I have full faith in God. God is omnipotent and omnipresent, he will take care of everything.” Not a responsible parenting strategy.

...Can we start with the fact that you can buy something that makes your targets explode and that's "normally safe"? Why can you even buy that?

As an actual historian, I'd like to point out that this is blatantly false. There have been some authors who love the February coincidence and have made this argument, but they're generally regarded on the same level as Mr. Ruskamp and his China discovered America theory.

Lupercalia seems like a seriously weird thing to moderns what with the hottest young men running around the city and women trying to get hit by the strips of hide they carried in order to up their fertility. As interesting as it is, it has nothing to do with Valentine's Day. (Also I'd love to know what ancient source this writer got the idea of a "matchmaking lottery" from.)

Lupercalia, in a form much different from the original festival, was officially abolished in the 5th century and replaced with the feast of the purification of Mary. We don't have any evidence of Valentine's Day existing before it shows up in Chaucer and a number of other fourteenth century English and French poets (where, I'd like to add, we don't have any evidence that the Lupercalia festival was ever celebrated in the first place). And yes, supposedly the saint was an early Christian martyr, but the hagiography of Valentine (like Saints Lucy and Agatha) was a much later construction. That's a huge geographic and temporal gap to claim a connection.

Haven't we seen this before?

http://gawker.com/cleaning-lady-throws-away-expensive-modern-art-she-mist-1527595660
http://gizmodo.com/5856515/a-janitor-accidentally-scrubbed-away-a-million-dollar-art-piece
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2563671/Crumbs-Cleaner-throws-broken-biscuits-lying-floor-art-gallery-unaware-installation-worth-8-000.html

And considering the amount of coverage an otherwise mediocre and uninteresting piece got because of this, I'm going to go ahead and wonder if it was really such an accident.

I'm going to go against the grain of most of the comments here, but I don't really see anything wrong with it, it's not like they're forcing women to let people in if they don't want to or forcing people to watch. Personally, I think it's worse the way some people treat childbirth, nursing, and women's bodily functions in general like they're shameful and need to be hidden from the public eye.

Maybe being an ancient historian gives me a strange bias, but it's really an amazing thing how much privacy we have nowadays.

I think these are mostly based on outdated ideas of what men and women do. Where I work you see men and women equally holding doors open for people close behind them without regard for gender, like Lisa said. Also if you've seen a man give up a seat for a woman for just being woman and not for being pregnant, holding a baby/groceries, or being elderly / disabled then you haven't been on public transit in the last few decades.

And despite the anti-feminist articles linked in the comment above, I think you'd find that most feminists are as opposed to these kind of things as a men's rights activist. Feminism is an equal rights movement, not a women should get all the advantages while men suffer movement.

As a history buff, this kind of thing is really problematic. I mean, what this seems to say is that the definition of war has really changed in the last few decades. We live in an increasingly globalized world where non-intervention is becoming untenable. Definitely, even if the younger generations has spent more of their lives in a country at war than the older generations have, I don't think that they feel that way (as Martha Raddatz points out). There's no draft, no war shortages, unless you have family in the armed services, being at war has no effect on your life that you are conscious of.
I guess the question that this chart raises is: is there something really different going on now than before? Are we applying the word "war" to something that wouldn't have gotten that label in previous generations? Or has the way that wars are fought fundamentally changed?

My name comes up with: sorry! we couldn't find data for your name, meaning it shows up fewer than five times.

/sigh

I second sandyra, this is the only website I read that ever posts anything about these celebutantes and this is like the third reference to them in a week (ironically including the blocking the kardashians thing). Please stop.

And that figurine is most definitely a child of the goat from the game Mansions of Madness (which is an absolutely fantastic game, by the way, think Clue mixed with HP Lovecraft) doused in a heavy coat of black paint... though I guess seeing one of them trapped in a maze could be kind of satisfying for players who have been cursed by them one too many times.

Considering how little we know about actual religious practice in the pre-Christian period, this is less of a "revival" and more a total fabrication (like most forms of neo-paganism).