I used to think that science would be safe from the political correctness that has totally buggerized the humanities.  Not so.  Even disciplines like medicine are becoming "culturally sensitive".

Soon, haematology exam questions will look something like this:

"Consider the use of the word 'blood' as a colloquial expression ('bloody hell', 'blood oath').  How has this Anglo-centric, exclu sionary term -- and its utilization in various racist discourses -- grown in usage and influence since the invasion of Australia?  Discuss, with particular reference to its deleterious effect on career paths for women and minorities in the biomedical sciences and subsequently its implications for diversity."

And there'll be buggerall about how to conduct a blood test.   

Whenever a new Tom Cruise blockbuster comes out, the trailer almost invariably includes shots of "hero" Tom running for his life.  This is such a regular occurrence that I suspect it's written into his contract.  I can only guess at the reason, but I suspect it's because he thinks that sprinting shows off his athletic prowess or something. 

But it begs the question: if Cruise is such a hero, why is he always running away?

Tom should take a leaf out of Sylvester Stallone's book, I reckon.  At least he stood and fought. 

There's alot of chatter in the blogosphere about how "ballsy" the fluffy wuffy satirist Stephen Colbert is.  Recently, at a press bash for Bush he indulged in some Bush-bashing only metres from the man himself.

I'll agree, that does take some courage.  But no matter how much his target loathes him Colbert knows he's safe from any kind of violent reprisal.  And his performance can only benefit his career. 

I can think of one scenario in which the two certainties above would have been reversed: if Colbert had openly derided Mohammed.

Those Danish cartoonists (all probably in hiding now) may not have been as talented as Colbert, but they were far more courageous than he is. 

So, where are the liberals saluting their "cohones"?