The originator of intentional size non-standardization in the U.S. was Lane Bryant (which specializes in clothing for the larger-than-average woman). They discovered that by recalibrating the size numbers, women were happier to buy clothing whose size numbers were lower than they'd otherwise have to do.

It would surprise me if this hasn't been widely copied by now, and is yet another reason for the lack of size standarization.

Alas, there will always be nasty mean-spirited hateful racists, sexists, you-name-it-ists.

Why waste even a nanosecond giving them any more publicity than they already have?

Broadsheet's Lynn Harris describes the Jerusalem Post article by Greer Fay Cashman (which gently gives some justification for trying polygamy in Israel) found at this URL . . .

http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1143498786957&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FShowFull

. . . as a "another side-splittingly laughable defense of polygamy".

The quote cited in Broadsheet from the article, however, is the slightest of the reasons proposed (and may have been added tongue-in-cheek, anyway).

The fundamental reason proposed for trying polygamy is that there is a very low ratio of men to women, leaving many woman unable to find a mate.

(Ms. Cashman also mentions how in biblical times, polygamy was apparently not uncommon -- to show that it may not be as unnatural as it may seem today.)

To me, polygamy, assuming it involves only consenting adults, seems like a potentially reasonable accommodation to a disproportionate ratio of men to women. (In India there is currently a very high ratio of men to women, causing great distress to many men there.)

I ask you, Ms. Harris: What is your basic problem with polygamy when practiced by consenting adults? And just why should you be concerned with how others live voluntarily?

I have an open mind: if you have a good reason, I'd really like to know what it is. (But once you start feeling justified in opposing others' voluntary lifestyles, please be aware that it can come back to bite you on the ass the next time someone doesn't approve of *your* voluntary lifestyle.)

Irony of ironies!

The author points out that that news on the Drudge report is 48 hours old!!!!!!!!

But how many years did it take the author to discover the news that the Drudge report is not worth reading? (For the rest of us this news is over 10 years old.)

I found myself heartily agreeing with the first part of Page Rockwell's piece (not that I know for sure anything about the guilt or innocence of those charged with rape).

It is indeed outrageous that the lawyer for those accused should imply that someone who committed rape could not possibly follow it up with such a misogynistic e-mail message as the one quoted.

But then for Ms. Rockwell to end with a cheer for the Duke women's basketball team??????

Isn't discussing these rape charges, and then jumping to the sports pages for the end of the article exactly what a Broadsheet writer slammed the NY Times for doing the other day? (I tended to agree with that opinion.)

But at least the Times didn't change the subject from rape to something frivolous in the same article.

Let's see, some things are true regardless of whether we wish they were:

fact: Venture capitalists are risking millions of bucks in the hopes of making a profit, and so they prefer to invest in ventures with less chance of failure.

fact: Women tend to get pregnant sometimes, especially married women.

fact: Pregnancy tends to take you out of action for at least several months, and not infrequently occurs despite plans to avoid it.

fact: A start-up run by two people could be severely hobbled if one of them can't put in a full effort for several months.

Okay, the venture capitalist who asked what they would do when the married one became pregnant was being tactlessly blunt. But he would have been stupid not to find out the answer.

Um, so what was the point of this article again? Oh, I forgot -- facts don't matter in Broadsheet.

First off, having read The Da Vinci Code but not Holy Blood, Holy Grail, I'm pretty sure I agree with the British trial judge both in his assessment of Brown's (and his publisher's) innocence of copyright infringement . . . and in his reprimanding Brown for being disingenuous about the extent he relied on ideas he and/or his wife found in HBHG.

Plus, it is hard for me to comprehend why Brown felt it was appropriate for TDVC to begin with an assertion of fact that was, in fact, a lie.

But I think that's the end of the story. I especially cannot understand why Laura Miller, in this article and a previous one found here: , is so upset that Brown's piece of fiction is fiction.

Nevertheless, I must say that having read and thoroughly enjoyed TDVC shortly after it came out, I find Laura Miller's radiant prose, unmistakably based on her immense knowledge of the subject matter to be incredibly fascinating.

(I never even read one page of the plethora of books that TDVC spawned, each supposedly the last word on what parts of the back story are true and which false: each one seemed to have its own axe to grind. Other than her being imo inexplicably indignant over Brown's factual lapses, Laura Miller's two articles do indeed seem to be the last word on what's the truth about TDVC's back story.)