Previous - Next Page 02-13-2011
New Section: Abstract (Bold Letters) - Second paragraph of the article.(3 sentences)
(This number can be parsed) to mean
2 The paragraphs are sequentially numbered for ease of
The paragraphs are sequentially numbered for ease of reference.
3 sentences comprise paragraph 2.
3 sentences comprise paragraph 2.(Numbering of sentences added.)
A few general remarks:
A) Charting the existence of T&P, which will be shown, is not accomplished by citing three random examples from archaeology, nor does the history of T&P consist of (incorrectly) citing three Pacific Islands as continuously tattooing. Details follow.
claims that the technique of tattooing is to get the ink into the
epidermis without getting it in the dermis. This upside-down
understanding of something di Folco wrote shows Chalmers was writing
without understanding the process of tattoo. The exact opposite is the
case, and known by anyone familiar with tattoo. We all have enough
common knowledge about the structure and function of the skin,
especially the epidermis, to catch this error. It shows to me that she
was not prepared to write this article. This is the tip of the iceberg
to illustrate the errors that permeate the article.
C) The article misinterprets state regulation as a "trend," misrepresenting state regulation of T&P as a strategy of choice (!), whereas it is the opposite: Unwilling recalcitrant legislators were dragged into courts, forced by T&P practitioners to grant charter and constitutional rights to citizens, against the will of the legislators. Chalmers falsely states that for much of history governments did not manage or control tattoo. This conclusion comes from a lack of historical perspective - a lack of preparation. The opposite is the case. Details follow.
Chalmers' Part 1 is written as background to bring readers up to speed, to exhibit Chalmers' knowledge of the subject (credentials, right to speak), written and claimed as a summary of T&P history.
For example, though she cites Jane Caplan, either Jane Caplan was not read or misinterpreted. Chalmers' rationale, the importance she places on her functionalist (statist) view of the role of government to promote and maintain Western Christian civilization makes me wonder if she selected Professor Rush's Spiritual Tattoo thinking the title affirmed her spiritual view, whereas again, she must not have read his book, or only page 18, because it is no affirmation of her religious views.
The growing popularity is the problem being addressed, not health risk. The perception of risk, not reality, is being exploited. Her solution: new regulations based on an expanded definition of health-risk is offered as the only way to diminish incidence, therefore prevalence (popularity). Infection, admittedly, at its best, is only a "weak link" to infection.
Part 1 presents her arguments:
1) T&P are
The three parts argue that the T&P threat can be diminished by expanding the risk-to-health concept beyond the risk of infection, i.e., by re-interpreting health risk to include psycho-social risks, and then creating a complex set of rules and regulations to address those issues which will decrease the incidence, decrease the popularity of T&P, and only the state can do it.
She concludes the series by declaring her intention to conduct further studies to determine the best methods to accomplish these goals.