Now, there are a few ethical quandaries here:
1) Cute though this uniform may be, shouldn't the monkey be allowed to wear what he wants to work?
2) What if American employers think this idea is great, and start outsourcing all service industry jobs to monkeys?
3) Worse still, what if this happens at Hooters?
4) And finally, should monkeys receive the same percentage of tips as humans? And guess what? That's the topic of this Tuesday's BLOGTOWN POLL!

SHOULD MONKEY WAITERS BE TIPPED THE SAME AS HUMAN WAITERS?

Absolutely no thanks to Gizmodo.

Thanks for nothing, assholes.

So then why do we keep seeing such delicately thin young girls model clothes meant to be sold to women with mature figures? One little addressed reason may have to do with the manufacturing process: it's cheaper and easier to mass manufacture clothes that have less built-in shape. Garments with less shaping hang more attractively on linear bodies. Bust darts, waist darts and curved seams are all more difficult to both fit and sew than straight seams. These are the elements of tailored garments that enable clothing to sit smoothly over shapely curves. But-- it takes time and expertise to perfect these elements and this can cost a lot of money. Additionally from a financial perspective, garment pattern pieces with straighter seams can produce better yield from a bolt of fabric. Think about it like this: if you have two cookie cutters, one square and one round that you apply to equally sized sheets of dough, which will give you more cookies with less wasted dough in between?

Fashion cycles keep whirling faster as stores both encourage and cater to consumer demand for a constant influx of new merchandise. Designers are being pushed to their limits to keep up. In today's global market place, having a fashion business is all about dealing with economy of scale- if you can't produce quickly and in large volume, it is very, very difficult to stay in business.

It's definitely worth a read if the issue troubles you at all, and it rightly doesn't let anyone, including consumers, off the hook.

Yesterday, news was released that 115 campus administrators from around the country (including the presidents of Lewis & Clark and Willamette Universities) wanted to take a look at the national drinking age. These administrators released a statement, called the Amethyst Initiative, in hopes that it would spark a discussion on underage drinking. It has certainly done that.

But it's strange to me that reporting on the the issue suggests that the amethyst initiative supporters are asking for the drinking age be rolled back to 18. It ain't necessarily so. What they do ask is that we have:

...an informed and dispassionate public debate over the effects of the 21 year-old drinking age.

Plain and simple. Though, the statement does point out a double standard: while people under twenty-one are allowed to vote, serve on a jury, and kill America's enemies, they're not allowed the sweet satisfaction of a cold beer when said duties are done. Of course, all of those responsibilities are given at age 18. So, I could see why one might jump straight to the whole age rollback thing.

Never-the-less, I think the initiative needs to be seriously considered. If anyone knows the scourge of underage binge drinking, it's campus administrators. I'm sure all it takes is one 18 year old frat boy dying of alcohol poisoning to get your attention. If they're telling me the current drinking age isn't working, then I'm inclined to believe them.

So Tropic Thunder made $26 million over the weekend, finally putting a dent in The Dark Knight's iron-fisted rule of the box office. And this despite protests by disability advocacy groups--who not only picketed at the premiere, but threatened to protest at theaters this weekend. (Entertainment Weekly has a good story on the premiere's protest, while FilmDrunk has a great write-up about the, um, questionable tactics advocated by the protesters.)

I saw Tropic Thunder over the weekend, and I thought it was pretty great. Sure, it was muddled and confused and rambly, but that's kind of what I really liked about it (especially since, as a big budget studio flick about a big budget studio flick, all that overblown clusterfuckiness felt pretty appropriate). Plus! At one point there's a little kid who's clinging to the back of a terrified Ben Stiller and repeatedly and viciously stabbing him--and that's something I'll always, always approve of. But mostly the movie was just funny, and I like funny things.

Actually, I like funny things a lot, to the extent where if they're funny enough, I'll forgive them for being other things, like stupid or mean or bad. And maybe that's what's getting people so riled up about Tropic Thunder: They seem to think it's stupid or mean or bad, or that it uses the word "retard" for a cheap laugh--which it isn't, and it doesn't. The jokes in Tropic Thunder that these protesters seem to think are targeted at the developmentally disabled are, in fact, targeted at a whole different group of developmentally disabled people: movie stars.

In other words: Just like Robert Downey Jr.'s character in the film is funny not because he's in blackface but because Downey Jr.'s playing a white Australian in blackface, Stiller's character is funny not because he mimics someone who's developmentally disabled but because he's a dumbshit action star who's trying to get an Oscar by going "full retard"--in other words, using the I Am Sam tactic. Which is funny.

After the jump: Riding the Bus With My Sister!

It's the website for a film called Orgasmic Birth, a documentary (propaganda-mentary?) that shows women how to achieve orgasm while giving birth to a baby. I mean, the g-spot is right there, people.

Watch the preview if you dare. I guess this is NSFW.

Ew ew ew ew ew ew!!!!

The number of questions this raises in my mind is staggering. And I could use some enlightenment, surely. I am male, I have never given birth, and the very idea of busting nut while my child emerges into the world just seems wholly wrong. Is this a sexist attitude? Is it possible for a birthing mother to achieve a non-sexual orgasm? Is there such a thing for women as a non-sexual orgasm? (I do know that in the case of men, the answer is no how, no way.)

Sorry to ruin the start of your week, but I could really use some help with this one.

Policeman: Uh, hello. Sorry to bother you so early.

Me: How can I help you?

Policeman: Is that your Mercedes out front?

Me: Uh... yeah.

Policeman: Well, we picked up a couple of kids in the neighborhood this morning. They'd been going around taking faceplates from car stereos. A couple of neighbors caught them and called it in. We picked them up pretty quickly. Is this your faceplate?

Me: Yeah, it is.

Policeman: Alright. These kids were pretty apologetic and they've been telling me where they got everything... So here, let me give this back to you...

Me: Thanks

Policeman: Yeah. So. I guess they were just going around and trying to find unlocked cars. I guess yours was unlocked.

Me: Really?

Policeman: Yeah. The question now is if you want to press charges or not. I mean, you'll have to go to court and everything if you do... but...

Me: Well, I don't know. How old is this kid?

Policeman: Sixteen

Me: Is he scared?

Policeman: Well, I gave him a good talking-to and he's really shook up. His friend is worse off—he had four faceplates and a stolen laptop. We've tracked down most of the owners though...

At this point in the conversation, I carefully weighed the fate of the sixteen year old hooligan and made my decision. But I'm curious, Blogtownies. What would you have done?

Big ups to Fark.com for the video.

You see, when you're walking through your local grocery store, you may think that the fear of rising food costs is overblown. After all, the price for that jar of mayonnaise hasn't changed. Look closer. What has changed is the amount you are getting for the price.

So, that box of Cheerios looks the same size from the front, but it's a whole lot thinner than it was before. Products in the grocery store have been shrinking by 2-3oz per package.

The trend of companies giving consumers less for the same price will not likely end soon. But now, at least, when that post-shopping "used" feeling hits you, you know exactly where to place the blame.

Here's a report from NBC, just to bring the point home in all it's television newsy glory

Lucky Charms to add new marshmallow charm to their cereal; a magical hourglass.

OH, HELL NO!

From WebWire:

For the first time in more than 10 years, Lucky the Leprechaun is adding a new permanent charm to his delicious Lucky Charms® cereal, a magical hourglass. The hourglass charm will join seven other signature charms and be just as powerful, giving Lucky the power to control time.

Mmm… excuse me, but aren't leprechauns already imbued with magical powers? And isn't it our job to steal Lucky's marshmallow treats? Therefore, isn't General Mills kind of giving us the "FUCK YOU" by giving Lucky the unfair advantage of controlling time? This way, we can steal Lucky's charms, but he can travel back in time to stop us from stealing them in the first place. IT'S SCREWING WITH THE WHOLE SPACE-TIME CONTINUUM, MAN!!

My second "Oh HELL No!" after the jump.

Now, to me, the two are practically interchangeable. Both are good actors and exude a dorky charm. And so far, the results are split right down the middle! So it's up to you, Blogtownies! (And guys, you're especially included on this one! I can still hear Erik and Ezra arguing over whether Cusack or the LaBeef is the best tongue wrestler.)

ANSWER THE FOLLOWING POLL:

WHO WOULD YOU RATHER MAKE OUT WITH…

Polling closes at 2 pm tomorrow! (Oh, and feel free to discuss the merits of both in your comments below.)