Can You Spot Yourself in This Picture?

Vatican dress code: Do’s and don’ts for presidential, pilgrim attire

Deciding what to wear to an evening wedding is challenging enough; imagine how daunting it is to choose proper attire for a papal audience.

Even the most seasoned president, prime minister and ambassador must struggle with deciphering proper protocol. But women, whether they are government leaders or the first lady, have to grapple with a lot more when they meet the pope.

While the men can usually do no wrong donning a dark suit and tie, women are more vulnerable to sartorial snafus.

The most famous fashion failure among first ladies was in December 1989 when Raisa Gorbachev showed up wearing “a bright red dress,” as more than one veteran Vatican reporter recalled.

She must have been aware of the uproar her red skirt and jacket with a black collar had caused because when she and her husband, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, returned 11 months later, her outfit was considerably toned down.

For her second visit, Gorbachev wore a bright crimson blouse and bow knotted tightly under her chin that peeked out from under a gray wool jacket and long skirt.

To avoid any gaffes, dignitaries preparing for a papal audience usually contact their embassy to the Vatican for some pointers.

The U.S. Embassy to the Holy See has a Vatican protocol primer that walks people through what is considered the proper dress code.

For men: black or dark suit, aka business attire, with a dark tie.

For women: black skirt or dress that reaches at least the knees, black top with mid- to long-sleeves, no pants, simple jewelry, dark closed-toe shoes, and a black hat or veil is optional.

Some blogs and news stories assumed U.S. first lady Michelle Obama wore a long black veil to her July 10 audience with the pope because she was required to do so.

But the Vatican does not mandate that women cover their heads. In fact, the pontifical household said there is no formal or specific dress protocol at all.

The household’s regent, Msgr. Paolo De Nicolo, told Catholic News Service that as long as a person’s outfit is “decent” and “in good taste,” anything goes. . . . (continue reading)

Vatican dress code: Do's and don'ts for presidential, pilgrim attire

Deciding what to wear to an evening wedding is challenging enough; imagine how daunting it is to choose proper attire for a papal audience.

Even the most seasoned president, prime minister and ambassador must struggle with deciphering proper protocol. But women, whether they are government leaders or the first lady, have to grapple with a lot more when they meet the pope.

While the men can usually do no wrong donning a dark suit and tie, women are more vulnerable to sartorial snafus.

The most famous fashion failure among first ladies was in December 1989 when Raisa Gorbachev showed up wearing “a bright red dress,” as more than one veteran Vatican reporter recalled.

She must have been aware of the uproar her red skirt and jacket with a black collar had caused because when she and her husband, Soviet President Mikhail Gorbachev, returned 11 months later, her outfit was considerably toned down.

For her second visit, Gorbachev wore a bright crimson blouse and bow knotted tightly under her chin that peeked out from under a gray wool jacket and long skirt.

To avoid any gaffes, dignitaries preparing for a papal audience usually contact their embassy to the Vatican for some pointers.

The U.S. Embassy to the Holy See has a Vatican protocol primer that walks people through what is considered the proper dress code.

For men: black or dark suit, aka business attire, with a dark tie.

For women: black skirt or dress that reaches at least the knees, black top with mid- to long-sleeves, no pants, simple jewelry, dark closed-toe shoes, and a black hat or veil is optional.

Some blogs and news stories assumed U.S. first lady Michelle Obama wore a long black veil to her July 10 audience with the pope because she was required to do so.

But the Vatican does not mandate that women cover their heads. In fact, the pontifical household said there is no formal or specific dress protocol at all.

The household’s regent, Msgr. Paolo De Nicolo, told Catholic News Service that as long as a person’s outfit is “decent” and “in good taste,” anything goes. . . . (continue reading)

Rush-Hour Traffic in Hell

The Weirdness Deepens: Ireland Passes New "Anti-Blasphemy" Law

Check out this blog entry by Stacks Rosch, an outspoken atheist who has caught wind of a new law passed by the Irish government that bans “blasphemy” against any religion whatsoever. Rather than try to explain it myself, I’ll let you read his take on it. Keep in mind that he’s commenting on this strange new law from the standpoint of atheism (“Atheists are not the only ones being targeted here”) — N.B. actually, I don’t think atheist are at all the target here. I’ll give you one guess against whom I think this law is ultimately targeted (hint: it ain’t atheism). Read on:

On Friday July 11th, 2009, Ireland passed the Defamation Bill by one vote. One of the aspects of this bill would make it illegal to criticize religion… any religion under penalty of fines up to 25,000 Euros. That is the equivalent to nearly $35,000.

When I first heard this story on the internets, I was certain that it was a false story. I read the story, googled it, checked out legitimate Ireland news sites, and double checked more Ireland news sites. The story checks out. It seems that the Blasphemy Clause of the Defamation Bill was challenged in the legislature by an amendment which would delete such a clause. The amendment to delete the clause initially passed by one vote, but a request was made for a “walk-through vote.” During that time two more Senators came in and voted against the amendment to delete the clause. This meant that the clause would stay in the bill. The bill then passed by the same margin.

Here is an excerpt from the Blasphemy Clause:

Section 36

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

This part of the bill makes it illegal to criticize any religion either verbally or in writing. Saying anything in which a “substantial number” of followers might find offensive would now be a crime in the Ireland. But the bill goes even further. Here is another excerpt:

Section 37

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

The Garda Siochana is the Irish police who can now (under this law) break into people’s homes and confiscate copies of any book which might be critical of any religion. I keep trying to point out that any religious criticism is a crime, because many Christians are critical of differing religions. Atheists are not the only ones being targeted here.

Simply claiming that the Pope is not infallible might be considered blasphemous to many Catholics. Claiming that the prophet Joseph Smith was not really visited by angels and given magic golden plates would be blasphemous to Mormons. Mentioning the prophet Mohammad without adding the phrase “peace be upon him” would be considered blasphemous to Muslims. And claiming that Scientology is a sham and that Tom Cruise is crazy would obviously be blasphemous to Scientologists.

What if a Christian claimed that if someone was not saved through Jesus Christ, he or she would spend eternity in Hell? An argument could be made that such a statement and even the Bible itself might be considered blasphemous to other religions. In fact, most religious are blasphemous to other religions. Maybe the Irish police will fine everyone.

(continue reading)

The Weirdness Deepens: Ireland Passes New "Anti-Blasphemy" Law

Check out this blog entry by Stacks Rosch, an outspoken atheist who has caught wind of a new law passed by the Irish government that bans “blasphemy” against any religion whatsoever. Rather than try to explain it myself, I’ll let you read his take on it. Keep in mind that he’s commenting on this strange new law from the standpoint of atheism (“Atheists are not the only ones being targeted here”) — N.B. actually, I don’t think atheist are at all the target here. I’ll give you one guess against whom I think this law is ultimately targeted (hint: it ain’t atheism). Read on:

On Friday July 11th, 2009, Ireland passed the Defamation Bill by one vote. One of the aspects of this bill would make it illegal to criticize religion… any religion under penalty of fines up to 25,000 Euros. That is the equivalent to nearly $35,000.

When I first heard this story on the internets, I was certain that it was a false story. I read the story, googled it, checked out legitimate Ireland news sites, and double checked more Ireland news sites. The story checks out. It seems that the Blasphemy Clause of the Defamation Bill was challenged in the legislature by an amendment which would delete such a clause. The amendment to delete the clause initially passed by one vote, but a request was made for a “walk-through vote.” During that time two more Senators came in and voted against the amendment to delete the clause. This meant that the clause would stay in the bill. The bill then passed by the same margin.

Here is an excerpt from the Blasphemy Clause:

Section 36

(1) A person who publishes or utters blasphemous matter shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable upon conviction on indictment to a fine not exceeding €100,000. [Amended to €25,000]

(2) For the purposes of this section, a person publishes or utters blasphemous matter if (a) he or she publishes or utters matter that is grossly abusive or insulting in relation to matters held sacred by any religion, thereby causing outrage among a substantial number of the adherents of that religion, and (b) he or she intends, by the publication or utterance of the matter concerned, to cause such outrage.

This part of the bill makes it illegal to criticize any religion either verbally or in writing. Saying anything in which a “substantial number” of followers might find offensive would now be a crime in the Ireland. But the bill goes even further. Here is another excerpt:

Section 37

(1) Where a person is convicted of an offence under section 36, the court may issue a warrant (a) authorising any member of the Garda Siochana to enter (if necessary by the use of reasonable force) at all reasonable times any premises (including a dwelling) at which he or she has reasonable grounds for believing that copies of the statement to which the offence related are to be found, and to search those premises and seize and remove all copies of the statement found therein, (b) directing the seizure and removal by any member of the Garda Siochana of all copies of the statement to which the offence related that are in the possession of any person, specifying the manner in which copies so seized and removed shall be detained and stored by the Garda Siochana.

The Garda Siochana is the Irish police who can now (under this law) break into people’s homes and confiscate copies of any book which might be critical of any religion. I keep trying to point out that any religious criticism is a crime, because many Christians are critical of differing religions. Atheists are not the only ones being targeted here.

Simply claiming that the Pope is not infallible might be considered blasphemous to many Catholics. Claiming that the prophet Joseph Smith was not really visited by angels and given magic golden plates would be blasphemous to Mormons. Mentioning the prophet Mohammad without adding the phrase “peace be upon him” would be considered blasphemous to Muslims. And claiming that Scientology is a sham and that Tom Cruise is crazy would obviously be blasphemous to Scientologists.

What if a Christian claimed that if someone was not saved through Jesus Christ, he or she would spend eternity in Hell? An argument could be made that such a statement and even the Bible itself might be considered blasphemous to other religions. In fact, most religious are blasphemous to other religions. Maybe the Irish police will fine everyone.

(continue reading)

4msxwziuy3

4msxwziuy3

"Welcome to the World of Consenting Adults"

"Welcome to the World of Consenting Adults"

Is Your City Prepared for a Home-Made Nuke?

As US president Barack Obama visits Moscow this week to discuss nuclear arms reduction with his Russian opposite number Dmitry Medvedev, a different nuclear threat is preoccupying emergency planners back home.

A panel of medical experts has just released its assessmentof the technologies and therapies that could be rolled out if a home-made nuclear bomb was ever detonated in the heart of an American city.

A device of this kind — now judged by Obama to pose “the most immediate and extreme threat to global security” — would kill hundreds of thousands of people. But as catastrophic as such an attack would be, it would not level an entire city, and a timely response could save many lives. Recent advances in techniques for mapping the path of radioactive fallout after an attack, combined with novel therapies for treating radiation victims, will improve survival chances, the report says.

“Clearly there would be loss of life, but it’s not hopeless,” says Georges Benjamin, head of the panel of doctors and public health officials that was convened by the National Academy of Sciences to assess the nation’s level of preparedness for such an attack. “We feel that there are things that one can do to mitigate it.”

So what would a city need to do? The panel explored the consequences of a nuclear explosion packing a punch equivalent to 10,000 tonnes of TNT. That’s tiny compared with the thermonuclear weapons deployed by the US and Russia — and smaller even than the 15-kiloton bomb dropped on Hiroshima in 1945 — but plausible for an improvised device.

The blast wave would destroy buildings and kill almost everyone within 1 kilometer (see map), so the panel focused its attention on people outside this zone, for whom the main danger would come from radioactive fallout. “That’s a place where you could get big gains if you plan right,” says panel member Fred Mettler of the New Mexico Veterans Administration Health Center in Albuquerque.

Highly radioactive rubble and dust thrown up by the explosion would . . . (continue reading)

« Previous Page — Next Page »