Reflections From a Murky Pond

The British ladies are busting out and throwing the world a set a curves.

It seems that a recent market study determined that the lovely ladies of England have the shapeliest breasts in the world, or at least of those on the far side of the Atlantic.

This was determined by a Bra Usage and Attitude Study performed by COIN, for lingerie manufacturer, Triumph International. While not truly global, the study did include China, France, Germany, Italy, Japan, and the UK.

It’s certainly a titillating study and one that will garner a lot of well-deserved attention. It, however, has some interesting points for both the $30 billion per year global lingerie market and for societal views of body image.

Asylum UK distills the salient points:

Researchers have discovered that women in Britain have the most shapely bodies on the planet.

A recent global survey of breasts discovered the average British woman wears a size 34D bra — meaning she has bigger boobs and is more slender than most around the world.

Over in Germany and Italy women have a larger under-bra size of 38 inches and in France the average bra is 36B.

In Japan and China women are said to have the same 34 inch ribcage measurement as Brits, but this is again only paired with B cup boobs.

And while British women have an average of a 34D bra, the most common cup size is said to be a rather generous ‘DD’.

The Triumph international “Bra Usage and Attitude Study” also compared results to those from 50 years ago, finding that British woman’s chest and hips are now 4cm bigger.

If this continues it will mean that by 2060 the average UK bra size will be a gigantic F or G cup… how come they never mentioned that on Tomorrow’s World?

Obviously, despite the borders of the British Empire having contracted, it’s assets are still quite astounding and growing more so with the passing years. This and the finding of COIN’s study can be born out by empirical study of these delicious British lasses who all have DD cup sizes and whose underbreast measurements average to 34 inches:

Making Statistics Beautiful

Similarly, one can see from representative samples of women from China, France, Germany, Italy, and Japan that COIN’s study is certainly not too far off the mark.

Still, the British women, indisputably as fine as they are, shouldn’t gloat too much or become complacent. There are many, many roads to beauty and sexiness – and the study that Triumph International commissioned didn’t address the glories of women’s legs or butts.

I hope that Triumph doesn’t make the mistake of ignoring their “bottom line” by focusing their efforts exclusively on the bra. That’s the sort of marketing mistake that could hurt them in “the end.” 😉

~*~

While the pleasant and prurient aspects of the curvaceousness of British women and the size and shapeliness of their breasts is quite nice and a wonderful distraction, the COIN study on bra usage and attitude towards brassieres also presents some much more important data relating to manufacturing, marketing, and to women’s and societies’ body images as compared to objective reality.

Read the rest of this entry »

President Obama’s chosen nominee to replace retiring Supreme Court Justice John Paul Stevens, Elena Kagan has some “interesting” – read as willfully ignorant but not unexpected – views on the SCOTUS’ role in judging the constitutionality and therefor legality of laws, especially when it comes to Americans’ rights to freedom of speech and expression.

Obama’s Mini-me being his nominee makes more and more sense and it seems she bodes as ill for our nation as Obama so far has.

From CNS News:

Supreme Court nominee Elena Kagan said the high court should be focused on ferreting out improper governmental motives when deciding First Amendment cases, arguing that the government’s reasons for restricting free speech were what mattered most and not necessarily the effect of those restrictions on speech.

Kagan, the solicitor general of the United States under President Obama, expressed that idea in her 1996 article in the University of Chicago Law Review entitled, “Private Speech, Public Purpose: The Role of Governmental Motive in First Amendment Doctrine.”

In her article, Kagan said that examination of the motives of government is the proper approach for the Supreme Court when looking at whether a law violates the First Amendment. While not denying that other concerns, such as the impact of a law, can be taken into account, Kagan argued that governmental motive is “the most important” factor.

Yes, that’s right; Kagan believes that, while the deleterious effects of laws restricting American’s 1st Amendment right to freedom of speech and expression can be taken into account by the Supreme Court, the government’s motives and intent should be the most important factor in their ruling. Ergo, Kagan believes that the government can limit we, the People’s constitutional rights if it’s in a good cause.

Kagan is, like Obama himself, Harvard educated so their shared belief that the ends justify the means is not in the least shocking, given their shared backgrounds.

It was a graduate and later professor at Harvard, Michael Wigglesworth who is attributed with first adding this sentiment to the body of American writings.

From the university’s founding consequentialism and subjectivism have been entrenched in Harvard’s curriculum and all or most of its graduates have been indoctrinated into these philosophies.

Yes, it makes perfect sense that a President such as Obama, who wants to “fundamentally change” America and has some serious issues with dissent would nominate Kagan, who believes that it’s OK to limit freedom of speech in a cause she or the Court approves of, to the SCOTUS.  However, this “the ends justify the means when the ends are just” mentality of Kagan’s is nothing but the misborn bastard hybrid of ignoratio elenchi and argumentum ad misericordiam, neither of which has any place in logical argument much less the highest court in America.

It does not matter whether it can be proven that the government had “the best of intentions” when enacting laws that impinge upon Americans’ unalienable rights, nor is their “noble” motives a cause to change or lessen the verdict against them. All that matters is whether or not the law or action in question violates the Constitution of the United States of America.

Elena Kagan has never had the chance to directly inflict the evils and stupidity of her views of the law upon Americans because she has never been a judge. It would be best for America if her lack of experience as a judge continued for the rest of her life.

Among the more disgusting and depraved parts of Spanish culture – more proof that all cultures were not created equal – is bullfighting, the systematic torturing to death of a bull by “men” in queer looking costumes for the entertainment and amusement of the crowds.

One of the current “luminaries” of this barbaric and disgusting form of entertainment is Julio Aparicio, who has taken many bulls’ ears – a quaint Spanish custom – during its career. Perhaps though one should say that this particular oily subhuman was one the “luminaries” of Spanish bullfighting; it came out on the losing end of a bull fight on May 22, 2010 during the Feria de San Isidor bullfighting event at the Plaza de Toros Las Ventas in Madrid, Spain.

Karma: Punishing Filthy Vermin Since The Dawn Of Time

The bull, a 1100lb beast named Opiparo, took Aparicio in the throat after the matador got clumsy and fell on his ass. Opiparo’s victorious strike pierced Apricio’s throat, went though its tongue and penetrated the roof of its mouth, fracturing the jawbone and cranium.

Julio Aparicio was rushed to the hospital where he is currently listed in critical condition but is sadly expected to survive.

Bravo, Opiparo! Ole! La próxima vez que matar a ese hijo de puta marica.

California and Texas are similar in many tangible respects, especially economically. So why is California broke and on the verge of bankruptcy whereas Texas is doing nominally well?

Vs.

The major difference is how California (Blue State) handles situations and spends tax-dollars as opposed to how Texas (Red State) does so. For example:

California

Governor of California is jogging with his dog along a nature trail. A coyote jumps out and attacks dog.

1. Governor starts to intervene, reflects upon the movie “Bambi” and then realizes he should stop; the coyote is only doing what is natural.
2. Governor calls animal control. Animal control captures coyote and spends $200 testing it for diseases and $500 upon relocating it.
3. Governor calls veterinarian. Vet collects dead dog and spends $200 testing it for diseases.
4. Governor goes to hospital and spends $3,500 getting checked for diseases from the coyote and on getting bite wound bandaged.
5. Running trail gets shut down for 6 months while wildlife services conduct a $100,000 survey to make sure the area is clear of dangerous animals.
6. Governor spends $50,000 of state funds implementing a “coyote awareness” program for residents of the area.
7. State legislature spends $2 million investigating how to better handle rabies and how to possibly eradicate the disease.
8. Governor’s security agent is fired for not stopping the attack and for letting the Governor intervene.
9. State pays $75,000 to train new security agent.
10. PETA protests the coyote relocation and files suit against the state.

Texas

1. Governor shoots coyote and keeps jogging. Governor has spent $0.50 on a .45 ACP hollow point cartridge. Buzzards eat dead coyote.

Are there still any questions as why California is broke and Texas isn’t? 😛

It seems many of the Liberals are outraged that President Obama included Professor Jonathon I. Katz in his “dream team” of scientists, mostly leading physicists and engineers, who’ve been charged with going  to the Gulf of Mexico to work with BP to stop the oil leak that’s contaminating the Gulf waters.

What is most telling is not that the Left is outraged but what specifically they’re outraged over in this matter.

What should be able to be considered strangely, the issue isn’t with Prof. Katz’s admitted lack of usefulness in dealing with the spill or its cleanup.

I was honored to be invited and enjoyed the experience. Did I have anything much to contribute? I think I have some ideas for how to prevent this kind of thing from happening in the future, but I don’t have anything very specific to offer on the present problems. It is very much in the hands of the real pros.

— Professor Jonathan I. Katz
St. Louis Beacon Interview

If Prof. Katz’ lack of qualifications to deal with British Petroleum’s catastrophic failure was the reason for the Liberal’s outrage I would take no issue with it. From the above quote I would guess that Prof. Katz himself would not gainsay their opinions. But the Liberals’ wrath and condemnation is not about Katz’s credentials or skills; it’s about his ideology and the fact that it doesn’t match their own.

Read the rest of this entry »