Tuesday, November 24, 2009

Taking a stand against

I keep seeing their ads online and being annoyed. Turns out I'm not the only one:

Cameron Moll runs a design blog and he's boycotting them.

I've got a similar problem with Abercrombie & Fitch, although I haven't seen ads from them online.

An excerpt from Wikipedia:

"Conservative and religious groups banned the original American publication of A&F Quarterly (published from 1997 to 2003) for its sexually explicit nature. The magazine contained nude photography by Bruce Weber, articles about sex, and recipes for alcoholic beverages. Also acting as a catalog, the Quarterly displayed the brand's merchandise with information and prices. Advertisements for the A&F Quarterly appeared in Interview, Out, Rolling Stone and Vanity Fair.

Despite a company policy restricting sale of the publication to minors, critics charged that the publication was readily sold to minors. In 2003, an array of religious organizations, women's rights activists, and Asian American groups organized boycotts and protests over the publication, and the "Christmas Edition" of the catalog was removed from stores. However, Jeffries said he chose to discontinue the catalog, because 'Frankly, [he] was getting sick of the old one; it was getting boring.'"

They've racked up a number of other offenses as well. Among them: selling t-shirts with racially discriminatory slogans and selling racy underwear to pre-teens. Check the rest of the Wikipedia article for more info.

I don't shop with either of those companies. I do recognize the 1st Amendment, which to me means legal action is unnecessary, but vocal objection is justified. Many, if not most, fashion retailers now advertise in ways that sexualize their merchandise, but these two seem to be especially offensive. The online ads are hard to avoid, and I bring up the Abercrombie issue because I know a lot of people who would probably not wear the label if they were aware of the connotations it carries.

Wednesday, September 16, 2009

Was I always this way?

I have been pretty interested in words lately. While working on a paper in one of my philosophy classes, I found this:

Check it out, I think it's a great idea.

P.S. It's 12:37am, and I'm working on a short paper responding to this: (1) Is there a moral obligation to obey the law? (2) Compare Rawls and Singer regarding justification for civil disobedience.

I'm not the only one struggling, though. Ben is across the room at the kitchen table trying to do calculus. A couple days ago I woke up at 5am, and he was doing homework and still hadn't slept that night. Poor kid.

Monday, July 27, 2009

Today I began reading A Dictionary of Modern American Usage by Bryan Garner, and learned this:

"Acronyms and Initialisms
An acronym is made from the first letters or parts of a compound term. It's usually read or spoken as a single word, not letter by letter (e.g. radar = radio detection and ranging). An initialism is also made from the first letters or parts of a compound term, but it's usually sounded letter by letter, not as one word (e.g., r.p.m. = revolutions per minute)"

To summarize: if you usually say all the letters (e.g MTC, IRS, GPA) then you are using an initialism, and if it is pronounced as a word (e.g. GAAP, FAFSA, NASA) then it is an acronym.

I am a little wary because I don't remember hearing anyone use the word initialism in normal conversation, (I'm fairly confident that acronym is generally understood to mean both things) but I'll be listening for it now.

I'm planning to eventually read this entire book, which could mean similar posts in the future.

Thursday, July 23, 2009

I wrote this article last week, and I think it came out pretty well.

For BYU Law School.
Larry Echohawk

our only hope

I saw this bumper sticker in the parking lot the other day.

Life in Summer

I have not driven a car for about a month. I'll try and get a picture of my bicycle up here soon.