@Bikebreath-
I sympathize with you. Try subscribing to Scientific American -- it's most sad what a biased single-view political agenda piece of trash that has become. No more subscription to me, but I still occasionally buy it because of a technology article that interests me (usually when I am trapped in an airport on an unexpected layover). EVERY time I shake my head in disgust that they only powder puff one side of the issue or look at some proposed energy solution through rose-colored glasses. Show us BOTH sides and let us learn and decide ourselevs.

Back to the monkeys... I like critters. Some I find very tasty. Others are useful at saving human lives through research. In either case, though, they should be treated with respect and not subjected to unnecessary suffering or cruelty.

@Pol x-
I think you are dead on! The problem is that most Americans are *extremely* culturally illiterate (to borrow the phraseology of E.D. Hirsch). Yes, we know a good bit about Paris and Nicole, but topics really pertinent to the nation's founding and the roots of Western civilization draw complete blanks.

I shook my head when I read about the George III film being renamed. Perhaps knowing the complete genealogy of the Hanover kings is a bit much to ask for, but George III was the monarch in Britain at the time of the American Revolution! People should know who he was! It to HIM that the list of grievances in the Declaration of Independence are directed. We ought to know who he was and a little about his recurring lunacy.

The "Philosopher's Stone" was another great example -- in this case the movie reflected the dumbed-down title of the U.S. version of the book. "Philosopher's Stone" is a real reference to a reputed stone (or substance) capable of turning base (i.e. cheap) metal into gold or providing eternal youth (as in the Potter book). The search for it was *fundamental* to history of alchemy. That's something we (hopefully) scoff at now, but for hundreds of years, some of the most brilliant minds out there (including Roger Bacon, Tycho Brahe, and even Isaac Newton) devoted a lot of their research effort toward it. Calling it that in the title and throughout the book MADE SENSE. Changing it to "Sorcerer's Stone" was stupid. I read the U.S. version of the book and regretted not getting the UK edition. There are a lot of places in the book where the US publisher monkeyed with the wording for the ignorant U.S. audience. For anyone accustomed to reading British authors, a lot of the tampered passages were quite evident -- they really detracted from the work. I have heard that in the following books, they were a little less heavy-handed with the changes (perhaps Rowling had the power to reign them in at that point). I haven't read those yet, but I should hope so. Just the same, I think I'll probably get the UK editions.

What is the harm of letting our children (and adults) learn a little of the history and culture of the world of the past and the world beyond our borders? Unfortunatelty, the government school system here teaches to the lowest common denominator. Better that all the kids should pass some very low standard, than the best among them to really excel.

Sounds like he's got poisoning with copper sulfate or some other copper compound.

ted interprets the pic correctly, but the very fact that it is a little vague/creepy looking makes it the butt of jokes... They meant well, but I think it should have been reviewed a bit internally before release.

The Church has to go through a lot of pains to clean house and and restore the itself universally to orthodoxy (the Vatican hasn't deviated from orthodoxy, but a lot of dioceses are run by bishops who do). While well-intended, the Vatican II conference of teh early 1960s paved the way for liberals to preach moral relativism within the Church and protect/make excuses for a small number of perverts and pederasts. In earlier years, the vast majority of these would have been rooted out while still in the seminaries. The excesses that followed Vatican II let them stay and even a small number were able to do tremendous damage when put in positions of trust.

That said, I think a large fraction of the abuse cases are certainly bogus. Although some people were unquestionably wronged, the majority are scammers lining up at the cash drawer. The problem is that because individual bishops protected a few of the perverts, the whole Church lost credibility to the public (and juries). It's going to take decades (at least) to recover, but I have confidence that no-nonsense orthodox leaders men like Benedict XVI will prevail.

I'll bet she can out-moonwalk Michael Jackson.

Dreidel, dreidel, dreidel, I made you out of claymore mines!

Take that you terrorist bastards!
KABOOM!!!!!!!!

Roger is dead on here... Whilst von Braun was a brilliant engineer & scientist, his own "labor practices" during the War left a bit to be desired. He and the other Operation Paperclip were *really* lucky that the Cold War immediately followed WWII. Were that not the case, he probably would not have enjoyed the coddling he subsequently received.

I'm thinking it's more like a beaver. I've never seen a squirrel anywhere NEAR that big. Definitely a beaver.

As for the disorder... One of my friend's nieces had that same problem whilst in high school. One day I saw the girl's school pic hanging on my friend's kitchen fridge. In the photo she was wearing some sort of odd head scarf. Not knowing her problem, I stick my foot in my mouth (again), and say "Hey Josh, what's with that wacky do-rag on your niece?" I then got the whole story about how she likes to eat her hair and there was a big bald spot when school pic time came around. I had never heard of something so wacky, but considering some teenager chicks hack their bodies up with razor blades, this is almost tame. The good news is I think they got the kid a first class shrink who straightened her out. No do-rag over a bald spot in any event...

Sandman has a good point of course, but I don't think that's an excuse for cruelty... these monkeys are pretty clearly being housed in "cages" (really just envelopes of chicken wire) way too small for them. We don't have the background on how long they are transported like this and how well they are otherwise treated, but the picture suggests the worst. Score another one for Red China. (yeah, I know they don't have a monopoly on this, but their valuation of life in general never seems to disappoint me).

@Mr S.-
Until about 25 years ago, almost all commercially available American beer was absolute crap - pale weak swill made with a lot of corn and rice. Around that time, small "microbreweries" started doing things the right way and began introducing beer that tastes good. Gradually these little tiny operations began to chip away at the big breweries' market share (or at least capturing all the market growth) Simultaneously, wide availability of decent imports (rather than US-taylored versions of Heinekin, Becks, and mediocre Canadian brews) furthered the pressure. The big US brewers (Budweiser, Miller, Coors, &c.) were forced them to release somewhat better product lines as well. These were still cheapened up, but are a good lot better than the old "American (ahem) Pilsner" swill.

I still can't find a available-nearly-everywhere US brew that I like as much as Guinness for the same price. You can get some superb U.S. ales, stouts, and porters, but they still come from microbreweries which don't have the economies of scale of the big ones. The mass-market brewers put out some semi-reasonable pretty cheap stuff, though, and for that we should be thankful. They still make the swill of old in their main lines, but only old men, poor college students, and trailer park residents in in wife-beater shirts drink it anymore.

Samuel Adams is a US brewer than started out really small a couple decades ago and then grew phenomenally with their success. They are still *tiny* compared with the likes of Anheiser-Busch (Budweiser), but put out a TON better product for not a lot more money. Kudos to them for kicking the big guys in the balls and changing the industry. Now please come out with a year-round (they do a lot of changing season beers) good stout that is available everywhere.

You can copy whatever the heck you want (inventions, handbags, artwork, designer clothes, whatever) as long as it isn't for commercial use. I'm surprised a US resident would be confused on this -- it's pretty straightforward and is generally well understood.

The (ahem) "daycare" centers are really just babysitting businesses. I don't know the specifics of the case, but if they were hanging real legally purchased Disney posters and artwork, they should have been fine. If it was non-licensed artwork (including owner-drawn stuff or murals like this), they were essentially stealing Disney intellectual property and profiting (via more babysitting clients coming to their nicely decorated site).

Near where I live, there is a local government grade school actually named for Walt Disney (the man). It's got a lot of Disney characters hand-painted on an exterior wall mural visible from the street. I'm presuming Disney, Inc. lets them get away with it since it's a government entity, not a private school (although taxpayers cough up about $15K per student per year to the school district... that's another windmill for me to joust, though) and the school was named in honor of Mr. Disney decades ago. If a for-profit school tried it, they wouldn't have a chance in court, though. It's Disney, Inc.'s intellectual property, plain as day.

Don't like it?
1. Create your own cute cartoon characters and put them in the public domain.
OR...
2. Move to Red China where intellectual property isn't recognized.

Blasphemy! 40 lashes!
Oh yeah, this isn't (generally read in) the Sudan is it?

yep... I just got the link to finally work... must have been too many Neatorama readers headed there at once. It's at Headlands Historic Missle Site near San Francisco. She calls them "warheads" too, but that's only because she is an "artist".

Not too pick too small a nit, but the Nike-Hercules was the missle which could (optionally) *carry* a nuclear warhead (model W31 typically), not the warhead itself. While they could be used as a short range nuclear ground-ground system, they were probably much more frequently fitted with conventional payloads (fragmentary explosive) and used for surface-air defense -- taking out Russian bombers or even incoming missles. In this role, it's been replaced by the Patriot system, which is a lot more portable.

The ones shown here are probably museum pieces as I'm pretty sure they've been deactivated. Maybe a retired military guy can comment more on the specifics of the ones shown here?

heh heh... this is pretty funny. It makes her point well, but I wonder if ultimately she wouldn't be happier giving it to some charity that does work that pleases her. Being bitter is not a great way to spend one's final years... Ultimately, it is HER $ though!