Friday, July 29, 2005

Breasts, Not Bombs

I struggled with whether I should post this or not, but finally decided to in an attempt to learn something.

Follow this link and you see pictures of nekkid people in Berkeley (where else?) protesting something, probably the war in Iraq or President Bush or greedy capitalist pigs or something like that.

This is what I don't understand: how does getting naked strengthen your political message? What exactly is meant by "breasts not bombs"--that federal money should go to breasts? How, augmentation? I admit to being a little slow on the uptake here.

And then there's the "smaller" (hehe) component of this protest, "D**ks not draft". Again, what does this mean? Who, besides Democrats in the Congress, are talking about a draft? What is the point here?

I think the point is to get naked and walk through the streets of Berkeley in order to see what we can get away with. If I'm wrong, educate me.


Walter E. Wallis said...

Sure a lot of boobs, all right.

Octavo Dia said...

I would assume that it is a reference to some 1960's protests. I believe the argument runs as follows: Why should we cover our bodies? The body is beautiful. War is what is ugly and shameful.

And from the looks of it, most of them were protesting in the 1960's too.

Darren said...

I'll be blunt. I didn't see any beauty in those bodies, male or female.

Anonymous said...

Is this appropriate material for your students?

Do I need to report you to the CTA?

Darren said...

Any student who comes here comes of their own volition. Same with any non-student, for that matter.

CTA probably wouldn't have any objection to the post, especially since the nekkid people were protesting the war.

Please tell me you were being sarcastic, Sandy Smith.

Anonymous said...

I find your remarks rather crass.

We'll see what the CTA has to say about one of it's members posting lewd material.

Darren said...

Wow, I'm being threatened. I love it!

Anonymous said...

Hey, Sandy, I think the CTA might have something like this to say:

"Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press..." (Amendment I -- US Constitution)

Or perhaps like this:

"Every person may freely speak, write and publish his or
her sentiments on all subjects, being responsible for the abuse of
this right. A law may not restrain or abridge liberty of speech or
press." (Aticle I, Section 2 -- California Constitution)

Now I realize that constitutional guarantees don't matter much to little fascists like yourself, but they do to most Americans. So go ahead and goose-step to the CTA, if you want, because I doubt you will get anywhere trying to censor the off-work, non-curricular freedom of expression of a teacher.

A Proud Texas Teacher

James said...


Wow ... lewd? How? Personally I don't find anyone in the pictures particularly lewd. I should think your definition of lewd is a bit skewed, if you'd forgive the pun (actually, somehow I doubt you have much of a sense of humor.)

The person blogging here happens to be a teacher, and if he's not directing his students to come to this blog as part of a homework assignment or as a regular classroom ritual then he's entitled to write about what he wants, in accordance with the dictates of wonderful Constitution, which Proud Texas Teacher reminds us of.

I hope you do go to the CTA, and from there goes to the local newspapers and you can appreciate how off on the right somewhere you are. A teacher, last time I checked, can pretty much say and write whatever they want when they're not in the classroom, just like non-teachers. That's why you can't keep people from religious or non-religious persuasions from teaching your children in a public shool - how they address faith and religion outside the classroom is THEIR, not YOUR or your children's business, and the same goes for the practice of free speech.

Darren said...

There is a "morals" clause in my contract, but I wonder how that would stand up in the courts, especially here in California. And I doubt whether any court anywhere (outside of shari'a law) would rule that it was immoral of me to link to the site I did and question the motives of the people shown.

So I wait, wondering if the imfamous "jackbooted thugs" will be waiting on my doorstep when I return from Canada....

Anonymous said...

Speaking as a liberal, whatever that really means, and as someone who will be teaching in another year ...

Sandy needs to get over herself. You've done nothing wrong.

Darren said...

I'm curious about how people are getting to this site, since I'm seeing so many new commenters on this post and its follow-on Sandy Smith post. Are you linking here from somewhere? Lurkers who've decided to speak up?

If I had a counter
I'd count 'em in the mo-orning
I'd count 'em in the evening
All over this bloggggggggg....

Anonymous said...

Off on the right? James, you don't get much further right than I do. She's somewhere out near Alpha Centauri in her raving-moonbatism.

Anonymous said...

Oh, Darren -- The Education Wonks linked to you --

tim maguire said...

Well, you know, and I think this is important, they were really ugly people.

Anonymous said...

OMG, I came to this post via Jenny D who I think was a bit miffed with Sandie Smith, or shall I say "Sandie Dee". WTF???!!!!

I think some mealy-mouthed mom needs to stop wasting tax dollars with threats of meaningless CTA phone calls. Really, the 20 dollars of administrative time that might be consumed while dealing with Sandie Dee's complaint is too much. Get a f'ing life! And I'm a teacher myslef, and in my free time I use such language occasionally. I hope Sandy Dee doesn't see me on the street and try and report me for flipping the bird to some horrific SUV trying to run over a blind man crossing the street. Really, talk about OVER REGULATING. Again, get a life Sandra Dee.

Old Guy said...

I agree with the first posting - a lot of boobs. Many naked breasts too.

Author said...

The purpose of such protests is to offend and not to persuade. They are inherently coercive and anti-rational. I suppose they would respond that walking around naked is less offensive than the President's policies. This may be true but it doesn't justify their actions.

They should simply have been arrested and spent a couple of nights in jail.

Their behavior shows that these aging flower children, developmentally arrested in late adolescence, have no understanding of the role the virtue of modesty plays in the social order.

Sandy, I think your frustration is misplaced. Any child with access to the Internet will unintentionally encounter much worse material than this. Darren holds their behavior up to contempt. I think adolescents in general find nudity in old people (like me) distasteful, certainly not erotic.

You would do better to try to get some kind of decent dress code in the classroom. Good luck with that!

In fact, the distaste of adolescents for naked old people might be a launch pad to discuss the distaste old people have for the raunchy, low-cut styles that high school girls wear.

The same principle should apply in both cases. There are standards of public decency which everyone ought to respect.

Anonymous said...

Darren wrote:
Who, besides Democrats in Congress, is even talking about a draft?

Sorry, but I can't join the dog pile on the Democrats on this one. No one wanted to be the first one to say the D-word, so they bit their lips until the Selective Service Board issued a memo to all of their offices telling them to start gearing up for changes. Do a Google for Selective Service February 2003 Draft and you should be able to find a copy.

Given that the administration is analyzing ways to implement a skill set specific draft and other possible course of action, I guess you have to ask, why aren't the Republicans talking about it?

SemiMBA said...

It's Berkeley - enough said...

(I grew up next to the campus- great area)

Anonymous said...

This is all fine and good for the naked idiots, but what about Ms. glasser's 10 year old little girl and her friend walking topless.i mean really, take a pic and its child porn, but its better in person!?!?! let's have a little intelectual honesty here.i know my 10 year old step child won't be doing that no matter how much i protest over something. two wrongs don't make a right!

Anonymous said...

I came here while researching whether teachers found to support controversial things in their own time can be fired.
"An elementary teacher becomes a national spokesman for a legalization of marijuana organization. Even though he has 25 years of exemplary evaluations, his employment is terminated after an investigative reporter writes an article on the teacher, exposing his association with this organization. The teacher files a suit claiming his rights were violated. How should the courts rule in this case? What legal considerations would be considered?" Any suggestions? Past cases?

Darren said...

Every state has its own rules, but my *personal* belief is that with very few exceptions, what happens on a teacher's own personal time is their own personal business. If a teacher is doing something legal--and *advocating* for marijuana legalization is certainly legal--then (again, with very few exceptions) it should have no bearing on their job.

Past cases? Click on the post label "teachers" and you'll see many posts on this topic. In many states the teachers are screwed.