Middle school orchestra performing the opening theme to 2001.

>
>>

Microsoft US:



Microsoft Poland:



Forgot the hand... via:

CDC may propose routine recommendation for circumsion:

Public health officials are considering promoting routine circumcision for all baby boys born in the United States to reduce the spread of H.I.V., the virus that causes AIDS.
-- NYTimes

I think the only person who should be allowed to consent to bits being chopped off is the person whose bits are going to be chopped. Cultural and religions traditions, or small percentage increments in medical studies be damned.

Wikipedia on mutilation:

The traditional Chinese practices of língchí and foot binding are forms of mutilation that have captured the imagination of Westerners, as well as the now tourist centered "long-neck" people, a sub-group of the Karen known as the Padaung where women wear brass rings around their neck.[1]

The act of tattooing is also considered a form of self-mutilation according to some cultural traditions, such as within the Muslim religion.[2][3]

A joint statement released by numerous United Nations and other international bodies oppose female genital cutting (female circumcision) as a form of mutilation.[4] Denniston et al. have argued that male circumcision is a form of mutilation;[5] their arguments have been criticised by Benatar and Benatar.[6]

Some tribes practice some ritual mutilation, e.g. scarification, as part of a rite of passage (e.g. initiation ritual).

Whether or not to have 50% of the surface area of your penis cut off is a serious decision. I am definitely NOT saying circumcision is in the same class of horror as female genital mutilation. I am saying that it's a choice I wish I was given, personally.

In 1972, the philosopher Peter Singer proposed a simple thought experiment: Imagine you're on your way to work and you come across a child drowning in a shallow pond. You're tall enough that you can run in and rescue him, but if you do so you'll ruin your new suit. Should you save the child?

Almost everyone says yes: the value of saving a child's life far outweighs the cost of losing your new suit. Indeed, someone who would let a child die to save their clothes seems like a monster.

But aha, Singer says. You - yes, you, the reader - probably spent several hundred dollars on new clothes recently, clothes you didn't really need. (Or if not clothes, perhaps a dinner out, or music, or books you could've gotten from the library.) And instead of spending that money on luxuries, you could have sent it to Partners in Health, and they could have used it to save a child's life in the developing world. (GiveWell estimates that you can save a life for between $150-$750.) How are you not a monster? [...]

-- Aaron Swartz

Read the whole post here:

"Such is life"