Nope, the invasion of Iraq had no role in Libya's decision to end its WMD program. None at all.
Libyan leader Muammar Gadhafi says he gave up his plans to develop weapons of mass destruction, because such weapons would have exposed Libya to danger, rather than protect it.Maybe he meant danger from alien attack. Yes, that's probably it.
It was his first public reference at an international gathering to Libya's surprise decision last December to renounce its arms of mass destruction program. Colonel Gadhafi told leaders from other African countries that individual nations should not try to develop such weapons.
"Any national state that will adopt this policy cannot protect itself. On the contrary, it would expose itself to danger," he said.
Zombyboy, the nicest conservative Christian (shhhh, ignore the oxymoron - look away!) you'll ever meet, is celebrating his first blogiversary. Go give him a big, wet kiss.
It wasn't President Bush who established marriage as a union between a man and a woman.Thanks for clearing that up, Congressman. Now I feel bad for calling my mother a lying whore when she said she married in 1952 when President Bush wasn’t elected (well, sort of) until 2000.
Gimme gimme more more more »
Marriage is a sacred institution established by God.I’m assuming that Gingrey is referring to the god of Genesis, though there are certainly many others worshipped in Georgia and the rest of the nation and the beliefs of all are protected just as much as Gingrey’s. Going with this assumption, it’s certainly odd that the Bible never even mentions marriage until either the 29th or 34th chapter of Genesis (depending upon the translation) by which time the world’s been created, populated, depopulated, and repopulated at least once. In the 29th chapter of Genesis it refers to a union that ends in deception and polygamy while in the 34th it refers to a union that ends when the bride’s brothers kill the groom and all the men in his village during the honeymoon.
However, let’s assume that those people joined in holy opposite-sex unions in the Bible before these chapters were truly partners in marriage as created by God (not, repeat not, George Bush).
The first “marriage” was between Adam & Eve (unless you count legends of Adam’s earlier wives, but we’ll ignore those and go strictly with the ancient texts that are available in Wal-Mart). That “holy union” resulted in the Fall of Man, the expulsion from Paradise, original sin and an excellent novella (with a beautiful epilogue) by Mark Twain.
Skipping ahead many generations we come to Abraham, the man 3/4 of the world’s population claim as founder of whichever of the several one true religions they follow. Abraham was married to his half-sister, a fact which evidently bothered God not in the slightest as He chose the couple to be the direct ancestors of his Chosen people and of the Messiah (now a major motion picture). When Sarah grew impatient for a child, Abraham, at her request, impregnated Hagar, her Egyptian maid (domestics from Second World countries have always been fortune's plaything), whose willingness to the union is not mentioned. Later Sarah thought better of the idea and drove both maid and son into the desert. (That God wasn’t terribly upset by the first recorded surrogate mother is evidenced by the consolation gifts he gave them, which included a supernatural spring for Hagar & Ishmael and the world’s richest petroleum reserves for their descendants.) After Sarah died Abraham married again, going Tony Randall four better by siring six children when he was well over 100 and then driving them into the desert as well like a good father-uncle would do for his sort-of firstborn.
Abraham’s son and nephew Isaac married his cousin and begat twins, the younger of who was so loved by God that he became the patriarch and namesake of the nation of Israel. This son felt marriage was so holy that he married two women the same week, both of them his first cousins, and went his grandfather/granduncle one better by impregnating two household servants (with the blessings of his cousins-wives). Centuries later Moses led the children/nephews of Abraham out of bondage in Egypt and finally, at Sinai, for the first time in the Bible, God Himself delivered a few words on the institution of marriage.
For starters, in the centuries since Abraham God had evidently come to regard the marriage between half-siblings thing as icky and forbade it among future couples (Leviticus 18:9). Most other forms of incestuous union were also disallowed, including aunt-nephew marriage , a ban that couldn’t have done much for Moses’ self esteem since he was born of one, but as a consolation prize uncle-niece marriage was still permissible and marriage among cousins was recommended. After condemning homosexuality (along with multiple crops in the same garden, multiple fabrics in the same outfit, etc.) and giving more regulations on mildew riddance than one would think possible, the Lord amends the rules of the Holy Institution of marriage that He (and not, repeat not, George Bush) created by saying it is perfectly alright for a man to force a beautiful P.O.W. to marry you, so long, of course, as said P.O.W. is a woman (and so long as she shaves her head, trims her nails, and you let her mourn for a month, but all that goes without saying). In the same chapter, God gives some invaluable advice on how to figure inheritances when you have children by each of your multiple wives which, along with advice on what animals to sacrifice to get rid of mildew reminds us of just how relevant, sage and eternal the Bible’s advice still is in our everyday lives.
Much more of the same, but I’m sure by now Congressman Gingrey has already uttered the old standard of the “our society is based on biblical teachings even when it isn't” crowd: “BUT THAT’S THE OLD TESTAMENT! IT DOESN’T COUNT! JESUS FULFILLED IT!” (never mind that there go your divine condemnations of homosexuality as well). So let’s see what Jesus says about marriage:
“At the resurrection people will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Matthew 22:30)Hmm. Well, that’s just one Gospel’s version. In others it’s probably different.
“When the dead rise, they will neither marry nor be given in marriage; they will be like the angels in heaven.” (Mark 12:24)Well, that was rather similar.
Jesus replied, "The people of this age marry and are given in marriage. But those who are considered worthy of taking part in that age and in the resurrection from the dead will neither marry nor be given in marriage, and they can no longer die; for they are like the angels. (Luke 20:34-36)And that was even more detailed. It’s almost as if Jesus saw marriage as an Earthly institution that didn’t even exist in heaven. But then again, Jesus never had to worry about re-election in Georgia and I’m sure Congressman Gingrey knows better (an M.D. is much better educated than a carpenter, after all):
Gingrey: This won't fly in Georgia.Too bad the same can’t be said of the Confederate flag:
Gingrey: Even in liberal Massachusetts, polls show that the majority of the population opposes marriage for same-sex couples…[Same sex marriage] would defy the will of the majority of Americans and the intent of the nation's elected lawmakers.To borrow a rhetorical question of Robert Heinlein’s character Lazarus Long, “Does history record any case in which the majority was right?” Polls taken in Georgia not very long ago showed that most of the state was against miscegenation, integration and black suffrage. Too bad the Klan didn’t have good Christians like Gingrey around back then to make the government “give the folks what they want”:
Gingrey: The Defense of Marriage Act cannot prevent activist groups from undermining marriage laws through lawsuits brought in state court in states such as Vermont and Massachusetts.And that is a crying shame. Just when we’d finally licked a poor economy and solved the problems of affordable healthcare, quality education, drug abuse, disastrous environmental pollution, illegal immigrants, terrorism, homelessness, sexually transmitted diseases and the highest national debt since Weimar, this had to come along and screw up everything.
Gingrey: An amendment will be difficult to pass, but once done, it will set in stone that marriage in this country is a union between one man and one woman.Speaking of the Old Testament, Gingrey evidently didn’t notice that the only marital related law God Himself set in stone was that adultery is a sin. Surely, since marriage is divine and God Himself set in stone that adultery is a sin, he must also be for jailing adulterers (or at least Barr[R-GA]ing them from public office) since it’s apparently even more important to God than the right to marry a captured slave. (After all, God Himself put in on His short list.) But so long as there are more adulterers registered to vote in Georgia than there are queers, I doubt we’ll ever hear Gingrey’s reply to this one.
Gingrey: The laws of man did not create marriageOdd then that laws directly affecting marriage and marital practices (polygyny, polyandry, suttee, arranged marriages, divorce, alimony, brideprice, etc.) differ in almost every culture (including different Christian cultures) and that even God changed His mind repeatedly on the subject.
Gingrey: the laws of man should not alter marriage.But isn’t that just what you’re proposing to do- alter the constitution to freeze marriage for all time? How 'bout criminalizing divorce while you're at it to really save marriage? (Oh, wait, I forgot- there are a helluva lot more divorced people registered to vote in GA than there are queers as well.)
Oh well, look not for logic in the state with the nation’s lowest SAT scores. Gays- quit your bitchin’ and stop trying to marry as that’s for decent folk. The rest of you, do as the Lord instructs regarding marriage and don’t marry that slave until she’s been bald and crying for 30 days (and if the marriage isn’t happy, don’t worry; you won’t be married to her in heaven anyhow).
« That's plenty, thanks!
There's a new controversy in Denver over the sign that a local pastor put up on his church marquee:
The marquee of the Lovingway United Pentecostal Church on Colorado Boulevard and Mississippi Avenue reads, “Jews killed the Lord Jesus..."Well, surely, that's because the line is being taken out of context, and clearly goes against the Biblical message of love. So, with that in mind, let's look at the line in its proper context:
The Anti-Defamation League said it received several calls Wednesday morning from people who drove by the sign and were upset by its message.
1 Thess 2Hmmm, nope, that pesky Paul pretty much says the Jews killed Jesus and that they all around suck, and God kicked their asses because of it.
14 For ye, brethren, became followers of the churches of God which in Judaea are in Christ Jesus: for ye also have suffered like things of your own countrymen, even as they have of the Jews:
15 Who both killed the Lord Jesus, and their own prophets, and have persecuted us; and they please not God, and are contrary to all men:
16 Forbidding us to speak to the Gentiles that they might be saved, to fill up their sins alway: for the wrath is come upon them to the uttermost.
Ah well, so much for the Bible and Jesus and love and forgiveness, huh?
You probably remember seeing my absolutely exciting results from the Match.com Physical Attraction Test. If you don't, you can click on the pretty link there and go catch up while the rest of us wander off to make a cup of tea.
Back? Good. Because I just took the Match.com Personality Test, and now, because I think you should know more about me than probably interests you, here are my results, judiciously edited to portray me in a positive light (actually, I just cut out the truly dull crap and left in the moderately dull)...
Gimme gimme more more more »
You're a pillar of strengthIndeed it does. Yes, indeed.
You're smart, insightful, and successful in your career. People can rely on you to get the job done. You have a vision for the future and always are searching to find love and a sense of "balance" in your life. Because you're an independent guy and a little shy, making deep connections with other people can be a challenge. You're not someone who "wears his heart on his sleeve" so even those closest to you don't always know how you feel. But your masculine and stable presence in life makes you worth the investment to get to know.
Who You're Looking ForOnce again, I hope you've found yourself thoroughly enriched, and that maybe - just maybe - we're a little closer than we were before you gave up two minutes of your life reading this post.
She'll be an enigma
You're looking for a woman who's smart, insightful, and has an insatiable curiosity about life. The two of you could share a very interesting and exciting intellectual connection. Getting closer emotionally takes time, since she's an independent and sometimes shy person by nature. But she's worth the effort to get to know! Your best strategy is to see her "in action" when you go out with friends but still find quiet time with her to talk. You'll discover she's a good conversationalist, especially if you get her talking about books, current events, or any of her many interests and hobbies.
You seem ready to adapt to the good and frustrating qualities of the women you're looking for, but there are types of women you clearly do NOT like. Women's habits and attitudes you'd have a hard time putting up with include:
Women who need frequent reminders that you care about them and would be upset if they thought you found another woman physically attractive.
As you probably know, you have a higher sex drive than most! Behind your serious and professional exterior you have a very sensual side. You know how to make even the "basics" especially erotic.
You're looking for someone who really enjoys the "basics" sexually. You value the quality of sex, even if it means the quantity or frequency of sex is lower than you'd like.
No, you can't get them back.
« That's plenty, thanks!
Today's the big day, the day on which Jesus - King of Kings, Lord of Lord, Highest of the Most High, and "Peter, I can see your house from up here!" - comes back to reign supreme over the box office (as predicted in the Book of Revelation), courtesy of Mr. Braveheart and his envangelical vehicle, "The Passion of the Christ."
With a title like that, and with Monica Bellucci in a starring role, I was hoping for something a bit sexy and wild, but apparently that's simply not the case. Apparently this displeases someone at the Hollywood Reporter as well:
The Reporter also says that the movie's violence is so intense and more important than character development that audiences may have trouble with that.Character development? How, precisely, does the critic expect there to be character development, when the source material is positively devoid of any? Violence is easy - the Bible is chock full of it (smite this, smote that, fire and brimstone on the lot of ya - and get off my porch, you kids!).
Character development... good luck with that.
I suppose Mel could have shown us how Jesus felt guilt upon reading Penthouse Papyrus. Or how Judas was the product of a violent home which confused him sexually and emotionally. Or how Monica Bellucci looks good even when not wearing much makeup and caked in dirt, and I realize that's not character development, but that's ok, as Monica's a hottie.
However, none of that is to be found in the New Testament. It's an archetypal myth, a fairly standard interpretation of the hero's journey. The purpose of the myth is to explain something to members of a culture - origins, morals, the number of licks to get to the center of a Tootsie Pop - not to develop complicated characters with whom we connect on a deep emotional level, for whom we have complex feelings and a sense of real association beyond "good guy" and "bad guy."
Which, in a roundabout way, brings me to the point that hit me last night: Why is it that many Christians (particularly of the Protestant, evangelical variety) claim to have a "personal relationship with my Lord and Savior, Jesus Christ?"
How is this possible, given that the source material is rather bland, and assuming for the sake of argument that they've never had an interpersonal exchange with Jesus (except, perhaps, for their Mexican yardboy of the same name, but who only speaks Spanish, and so the end result is about the same)?
When I think of my own personal relationships, there are certain elements that are required. At the minimum, a general knowledge of personality and behaviors - at the maximum, an intimate understanding of psyche, likes, dislikes, hopes, dreams, and more. From acquaintance to friend to spouse, they're all defined by a spectrum of the above - and for those for whom I can't offer any meaningful knowledge of the above, well, those are the everyday people on the street. The ones I pass without a second thought. The ones who pass me with same.
So, tell me something meaningful about Jesus' personality. Tell me his favorite song, his favorite food, his dreams for himself and others. I mean, aside from the superficial information provided in the Bible, which amounts to a willingness to sacrifice for a greater good, no different than even the most basic of childhood stories.
Tell me something that makes him leap from the page and become a flesh and blood human being with depth of character and emotion. And then tell me how you know this, and why I should not think you crazy for claiming such knowledge. Because I doubt you got it from the New Testament - which means you've picked it up from your church (who have no more grounds to assert such knowledge than you), from Hollywood (ditto), from books (ditto), or from the voices in your head (which may or may not be Jesus talking - and either way, you're probably nuts).
Personal relationship with Jesus? I doubt it.
(this rather lengthy, rambling post was inspired by a comment I left here)
The Pope, speaking on the topic of in-vitro fertilization, said:
"The act during which a married couple become father and mother through a mutual act of giving brings them close to the creator, by bringing into the world a new human being. Such an act cannot be replaced by technological intervention."Errr, um, yes, it can. It's called "in-vitro fertilization." Granted, there's a lot less sweat, squeaking springs, and utterances to the divine (by believers and atheists alike), but indeed it does make babies.
Do try to keep up, JP, old boy.
Courtesy of Colby Cosh:
Even granting that religious belief is a form of lunacy rather than error, you have to treat lunatics who outnumber you with a certain modicum of respect.Hey, I'm not saying you're a lunatic (although, with statistics as my guide, I'm willing to bet at least one of you is), I just liked the quote.
It's been 896 days since this. Never forget. I fear too many of us already have.
(brought to mind by this post, not that we should need a reminder)
1. If you've got a music jukebox (i.e., an iPod, or iTunes or WinAmp or even Microsoft Media Player on your computer), fire it up, open up your entire musical library.OK, here they are:
2. Put the library on "random shuffle."
3. List the first 10 songs that pop up. No cheating to delete the uncool, embarrassing or guilty pleasure tracks.
I trust you all feel a little enriched by this experience.
Update: Fine, fine, since everyone else is doing it, here's ten more:
Why on earth does the new Martha Stewart Collection television commercial slaughter Jesus Jones' "Right Here, Right Now" by turning it into a cross between Gloria Gaynor's "I Will Survive" and what probably resembles the theme song to "The View?" Egads, it's 'orrible!
Also, why is there an ad for a collection of love songs that includes "Right Here, Right Now" as well? If I remember correctly, it's a song about being alive in a time of what, we thought anyway, was massive change in the world - the Berlin wall coming down, the collapse of the Soviet empire, the end of the Cold War. A time when all things good seemed possible.
Not a time for gettin' your freak on (although that's good, and possible, but not the context of the song).
Is Arnold Schwarzenegger eyeing the Oval Office?
The Republican governor said anyone who has been a U.S. citizen for at least 20 years -- as he has -- should "absolutely" be able to seek the presidency. A constitutional amendment proposed by Sen. Orrin Hatch, R-Utah, would make that possible.Sorry, Arnie, but I think allowing foreigners to run would destroy the sanctity of the institution of the Presidency.
We can't have that.
C'mon, if you can type with one hand, surely you can drive with one too.
Police said the 35-year old man from Clifton Park, New York, was watching a adult movie called "Chocolate Foam" on Tuesday night while driving his Mercedes Benz in the town of Schenectady when he was spotted by an officer at a stop light.I hope he has leather seats.
For your amusement:
I know what Andy wants. At least that's what Match.com says they can figure out with this test. So, here's what they say I would like, across a spectrum I guess, based solely on my answers to the insanely long quiz.
Link courtesy of bloghotty Michele.
Americans are, by and large, crap when it comes to making a proper cup of tea. At least that's what the British cultural marketing juggernaut would have us believe. So let's run with it.
It no longer has to be like that!
The winning bidder of this auction will have, in their own home, a perfect cup of tea made by myself, along with tuition on how to perform this arcane art by themselves. I will bring all the necessary makings and as an additional bonus, supply the lucky winner with a bone china tea set for their future tea consumption.C'mon, fellow septics, get a-biddin'!
Found via Sarcasmo.
Denver's very own atypical Christian conservative, Zombyboy, is getting his fifteen minutes. At least among those who listen to AM talk radio on the weekend. It's a start, and is more than I'm doing, so you ought to check it ought.
You know what sucks? I'll tell you what sucks.
When you hear a song on the radio that you don't like. But they keep playing it. Every morning. At almost the same time. And on the drive home. Until one day you realize the song has grown on you. So you Google the lyrics to find out who sings it. And you find out that it's Linkin Park.
And, suddenly, the world makes a lot less sense.
That's what sucks.
How do we make the world a safer place? Adil Najam, associate professor of international negotiation and diplomacy at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, has the answer:
We must insist on a nuclear-free world. We must make a sincere commitment to it at home and demand it abroad. Rather than better mousetraps for proliferating nations, we need an approach to eliminate nuclear weapons.So, let's say we get rid of our nuclear weapons - you know, leading by example. And then it comes time to demand that, oh, China, join the nuclear-free club. How exactly do we threaten them to get rid of their nukes when we no longer have any?
Some may argue this is unrealistic.No argument about it. It's right up there with thinking wars would end if we were all just hugged more as children.
Acidman is looking for some help. I don't know the full circumstances around his present situation, but I do know a number of men who have been thoroughly screwed in divorce court, without deserving it (although, I'm sure some do deserve a hot poker right up the bottom).
Anyway, sounds like Rob is getting the hot poker and then some. Good luck, man.
No, no, not really heartbroken about it - after all, 'twas only a commercial and I never knew the woman personally - but it gave me a chance to whip up a semi-clever title for a post. Hey, you get what you pay for.
The Denver Post alerts us to this bit of breaking news:
Maybe soon. Maybe soon.
While watching the news over the weekend, I was pleased to see Denver Mayor John Hickenlooper speaking out against a proposed constitutional amendment to ban gay marriage in the United States.
This amendment would threaten the rights of cities, such as Denver, to provide basic protections to its citizens including domestic partnerships, partnership benefits to its employees and a domestic partnership registry for all, all of which Denver currently offers,” said Hickenlooper.On the flip side, Hickenlooper's position could also be reversed to imply that localities and states should be able to deny same-sex marriage as they see fit, but I suppose that would be better than a blanket, institutionalized condemnation courtesy of Dubya and the friends of JesusTM.
Stranger still is that the party of "personal responsibility," "states' rights," and "small government" seems to be positively spooging in their political jeans over the prospect of using the power of the Federal government to deny a group of citizens something.
Republican State Senator Wayne Allard, showing a rather weak grasp of world history and reality, had this to say:
“I personally feel that we need to protect the institution of marriage, I think that it is a building block for democracy,” he said.Uh, ok, Wayne. Now we know what is really bringing change to China, Afghanistan, Iraq, North Korea - we know why the Soviet Union collapsed - we know what liberated the states of Eastern Europe. Yep, just the fact that a man and woman can say "I do!"
Let two men or two women do it, and it will be GLOBAL COMMUNISM LIKE NEVER BEFORE!*
I bet the Bolsheviks were, truth be told, flamboyant homosexuals with exceptional taste in home accessories!
* Little known fact: instituting global communism is tenet seven of the Homosexual Agenda.
Yeah, I'll be back soon. I may have decided to take a break, but the world didn't, and the stupid people kept on being stupid. It would be unlike me to let all of that go without comment.
Going to spend the day recuperating from last night's dinner party (an early variant on our annual Pancake Day celebration). Had some friends over, enjoyed good food (quiche, salad, steak), and good wine and beer. Slept for 11 hours. Craving a few more, but it's nothing a little hair of the dog won't remedy.
Correction: is currently remedying.
Back soonish, boys and girls and transgendered and others of which I've not thought.
I'm taking a break. No, no, it's nothing to do with any of you wonderful people who stop by here on a daily basis looking to be enriched by the sage wisdom that pours forth from my mighty keyboard.
The real world has proved to be rather emotionally draining. I've spent too much time and energy caring about things over which I have no control, and not enough time caring about myself. I don't have it in me right now to be sarcastic or cynical. And, without that, what would the World Wide Rant be, you know?
Anyway, back at some point - I might have to turn a few posts into my personal exercise in catharsis. Be good to one another.
Andy's Law, which reads:
A conservative Christian debating any moral issue will inevitably invoke the non-consensual abuse of children or animals and think they've won the debate....has been fulfilled! To the surprise of virtually no one in the studio audience, Mark Shea has invoked its mighty power:
What a useful word "taboo" isNow, I didn't see the new "gladiator" twist coming, so I'm awarding an extra 10 points to Mark for originality, and I'll also be having the furry gnomes who word the Law come up with a corollary to address this new angle.
Perfect for smashing any previous barriers between civilization and savagery.
Someday we'll be reading about "taboos" concerning sex with children and animals, as well as "taboos" about gladiatorial combat between consenting adults.
Presidential hopeful Wesley Clark said Monday it is a "moral outrage" that Americans are struggling financially and contended he is a Democrat uniquely qualified to right the nation's economy.Hmm, I think it's a bit of an outrage that someone who wants to be President of the United States of America doesn't realize that a capitalist system entails some portion of the population struggling financially at one time or another, if only because of unavoidable issues like structural unemployment. The only other solution is to create a system in which we all struggle equally - or, more accurately, suffer equally.
I think history has shown just how well that one works (even if the far left slept through the lesson).
"I'm strong enough and I'm tough enough to make things happen, and I've proved it on the battlefield," Clark told about 50 activists.Unfortunately forgetting that in politics, at least modern American politics, you're not allowed to shoot people who get in your way (or even make them disappear).
Nope, no real point to this post - busy day, and figured Clark was an easy target. I'd have written something about Kucinich but I wouldn't want to hurt the feelings of the fluffy bunnies and fairy godmothers with whom he keeps company.
The Return of PaganismAnyone willing to prove how Christianity differs from superstition is welcome to it.
As Christianity Declines, Superstitions Gain Force
Oh no, only 15% of Canadians would vote for Bush!
Even before we know whom he will be running against this fall, Canadians have made their decision. Only 15 per cent, according to an exclusive new Maclean's poll, would definitely cast a ballot for Bush if they had the opportunity.Um, right, but you see - stay with me here - they don't have the opportunity!
I wish those Canadians and their magazines would quit trying to unilaterally influence American politics!
I've not been posting as much of late, so here's some filler just to create the illusion that I've been going blog-happy, when in reality I've been occupied by various work activities.
For the curious, here's a little blurb all about the wine we had last night at WWR Global Domination and Full-Body Massage HQ. 'Twas a nice bottle, at least to my for-the-most-part undiscerning taste. I've been reading The Wine Bible the last couple of weeks, and am slowly learning enough to give me reasons to buy wine other than "ooh, pretty bottle - and a nice price!"
At some point I need to get around to installing wine racks in the basement so I can begin to age some wines, all the while impressing visitors with my obvious cultural superiority.
OK, chat amongst yourselves while I look for something else to write about.
It inspires dangerous creativity:
British surgeons are endangering patients by using paper clips to close wounds and tongue depressors as splints for babies, a government agency said Tuesday.Is this a case of necessity (that is: scarcity) being the mother of invention, lack of a proper profit motive resulting in less competent doctors, both, or something else?
The Medicines and Healthcare Products Regulatory Agency said it had uncovered an increasing trend for doctors to use medical devices in ways they were not meant to be used, and also "adapt nonmedical products for clinical purposes."
I think I'll try to avoid any trips to the hospital the next time I'm in England, just so I don't have to be the one to find out.
Tomorrow is the day that science once again tries to repair the mistakes of God / mother nature / insert name of your supernatural bogey-man:
A Dominican infant born with a second head will undergo a risky operation Friday to remove the appendage, which has a partially formed brain, ears, eyes and lipsSo, pardon me, but where is the outrage over this from the "no abortion anytime" brigade? The every sperm is sacred crowd?
The surgery is complicated because the two heads share arteries.
Led by a Los Angles-based neurosurgeon who successfully separated Guatemalan twins (search), the medical team will spend about 13 hours removing Rebeca Martinez's (search) second head.
Rebeca shares blood vessels and arteries with her second head. Although only partially developed, the mouth on her second head moves when Rebeca is being breast-fed. Tests indicate some activity in her second brain.Surely, removing this second head, which even has a partially active brain, must be wrong if it's murder to abort even an undifferentiated blastocyst. C'mon, we can't let this one little girl's desire for an easier life let her or her parents slaughter her half-formed sister!
Update: No matter, the little girl has died after surgery. Sigh.
Or something like that, obviously, as the esteemed Larry Taylor tells us in the Atlanta Journal-Constitution:
Darwinists eager to avoid debateYes, but only with uneducated, illogical, radical, right-wing extremists.
I was shocked as Cobb County public school teachers stood at the podium and made the absurd claim that evolution is an absolute proven fact that is no longer disputed by reasonable, educated people.Sorry, they meant to say that evolution is an absolute proven fact that is no longer disputed by reasonable, educated people who don't suddenly stop being reasonable and educated all because something conflicts with what the big daddy-o in the sky said in a book. We apologize for the confusion.
Further, these teachers went on to denigrate anyone who held an opposing viewpoint as "uneducated," "illogical," "radical" and my all time favorite, "right-wing extremists."And immediately took them to church where all opinions and theories on human origins and behavior are welcome - nay - encouraged!
I left that meeting vowing to protect my children from the obvious bias and open hostility that was exhibited by the teachers in attendance.
Far from settled science, there is a growing debate within the science community about the ability of evolution to fully explain the diversity of life on Earth. More than 300 scientists from major universities nationwide, including dozens from Georgia, have signed a document expressing doubts about the claims of evolution.Which scientists? Are they experts in biology, genetics, or some other field that is among those that have solidifed evolution's place as happily explaining the diversity of life on Earth? Or are they experts in physics, the operation of an Easy-Bake Oven, or *snicker* creation science?
Modern science instruction includes an undisclosed bias that artificially eliminates any possibilities other than evolution to explain life. It prevents the students from expanding their scientific knowledge and learning skills by forbidding the opportunity to investigate alternative theories scientifically.No, modern science instruction teaches our current understanding of science on the topics it covers. When you have any real science to back up claims of design, feel free to get the scientific community to buy into it and then it will become modern science instruction.
Much of the "evidence" cited in science textbooks in support of evolution is dubious at best, and in many cases outright fraudulent.Indeed, scientists have made discoveries and formed ideas, only to have to refine them or refute them later on. Such is the beauty of science - it weeds out the false. Religion, on the other hand, embraces whatever with no intent of ever debunking it. Amen and kill the infidel. You tell me which is more intellectually honest, Mr. Kook.
Scientific evidence that might cast doubt about the claims of Darwinian evolution has been censored from Georgia classrooms, as are the views of scientists who dissent from the established evolutionary doctrine.Just because you're a scientist, doesn't mean you necessarily do science. Get thee to a peer-reviewed journal! Creationist, peer thyself!
In an attempt to cloud the issue, the Darwinists will always try to interject "creationism" and "separation of church and state" into the debate. Knowing that they cannot win the debate on the merits of the evidence, they will always resort to this tactic.No, it's a way of taking the shortcut to keeping your IDiocy out of the classroom rather than rehashing your same, tired arguments over and over again.
The Darwinists are always quick to label someone like me a religious extremist who just wants to interject my own personal faith into the science classroom.I notice he doesn't deny the label. Guilty as charged!
Yet it is they who seek, through the power of the state, to insulate their own beliefs about life's origins from critical examination, to propagate those beliefs on an unwitting student population, and who defend their beliefs with the fervency of the most radical fundamentalist.Science and reason must be fervently protected from ignorance and superstition. You can probably guess what we called the last period when it wasn't.
We'll keep the light on for ya.
You know, the written Welsh language looks remarkably like what I get when the World Wide Runt gets her 9-month old hands on my laptop keyboard.
Cymru dan ddwrYou don't say!
Cafwyd problemau gyda llifogydd drwy Gymru gan gau ffyrdd, rheilffyrdd ac ysgolion gyda thrigolion Llanrwst ac Ynys Meudwy yn cael trafferthion difrifol.
I'm sure it's a lovely language though.
To date, there have only been two movies that I've actually had some trouble following. The first was "The Usual Suspects" - alas, I watched it years ago with friends, while rather intoxicated and becoming more so, and movies don't tend to make a lot of sense when you watch for ten minutes, talk for ten minutes, watch for ten minutes, talk for ten minutes. Technically, I could claim I've seen the movie, but it almost seems like a lie. Maybe I'll add it to the Netflix queue and give it another go.
However, last night I was sober and sitting peacefully on the sofa with the World Wide Family as we watched "The Mothman Prophecies." Wow, what a discombobulated disaster that was. I'm still not sure what I witnessed on the wide-screen in Dolby 5.1 digital theater sound. Here's my plot summary: Hey look, it's Grace! Ack, a flying mothmannish creature just flew through their car and gave her cancer and now she's dead. Richard Gere is lost, how did he get here? Wait, the Mothman apparently looks like Richard, and maybe not so mothlike. People hear voices. The Mothman talks to people on the phone through a cheap voice disguiser. He gives them prophecies. And cancer, but only that one time - sometimes he just drives people to wander off and die in the woods. Laura Linney's pretty good looking, I think. Wait, the Mothman isn't just prophetic, he can see your every move. And maybe he's an alien! Or something! And then a bridge collapses, decent effects too, and Richard saves Laura from drowning. The end.
Yup, absolute blockbuster that one.
On the other hand, we then watched "Little Big Man," which was terrific, at turns delightful and tragic, and well-worth the slightly-over-two-hours running time (and I wonder if that made it any kind of cinematic oddity way back in 1970). Yes, I'd seen it before - but I wanted to see it again (such are the benefits of paying $20 a month for all I can rent).
Everyone knows, or should know, Godwin's Law (even if they have it wrong):
1. What is Godwin's Law?Experience seems to show that it's a pretty valid statement, although on sites like Indymedia or Democratic Underground the probability defies all known laws of the universe and is equal to a constant value of 101000. New models of space-time are actually beginning to show that such sheer stupidity is crucial to the fabric of reality, so let's not complain.
Godwin's Law is a natural law of Usenet named after Mike Godwin concerning Usenet "discussions". It reads, according to the Jargon File:
As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one.
Anyway, rather than having my forehead rubbed on a cheese grater via a 10-ton hydraulic press, I undertook an experience of similar sensory delights in the land of Mark Shea. This one entailed the macabre, morbid, and strangely fascinating topic of plastination, a la Bodyworlds, during which a new (to me) law bubbled and formed in the squishy regions of my brain.
So, without further ado, here is Andy's Law:
A conservative Christian debating any moral issue will inevitably invoke the non-consensual abuse of children or animals and think they've won the debate.Go on, test it out, report back. It's enough to make one want to give up the good fight, isn't it?
...and the award goes to...
(some elderly man in the back of the audience farts)
(a bit of snickering)
(the presenter, a jaded comedian, makes a funny about it)
...seriously, though - the award goes to...
I thought it was clever anyway.
There's something to be said for being laid off, quickly finding a new job, having a child, and being on the receiving end of President Bush's tax cuts (you know, the ones that only benefit the wealthiest Americans - nevermind that I'm not one of them). Went out and bought my copy of TurboTax, imported my W-2s and mortgage information through the magic of the internet, plugged in some investment income info, charitable contributions, and the like, and - voila! - my refund turns out to be a big ol' chunk of change.
I realize, of course, that what this comes down to is that I gave Uncle Sam a hefty (by my account, anyway) loan for the year, and I'm getting it all back sans interest. Partially true, except for the unplanned life changes which proved beneficial for my tax status.
Regardless, it's money money money money money which will make my credit card company happy, the wife happy when she gets her piano, and me happy when the deck is added to the house.
Easter Bunny President Bush!
What else could explain this and the fact that a virulent virus of nasty proportions is winding its way through the WWR Global HQ as we speak. First, the World Wide Runt fell victim, forced into a 24-hour slave-like requirement of coming up with creative diaper loads. Then Mrs. WWR was struck down, and now yours truly is suffering, off-and-on, more off than on, which is a good thing, but it all really does quite suck.
Perhaps 'tis the wrath of Yahweh for the "killing Jews" jokes found below... nah, I'm sure that if he existed he, unlike Chuck, would have sense enough to read all the supporting material and realize the true point of the post. Deities are smart like that. Some blog readers aren't.
However, fellow blogger Faithiepoo had this to say in the comments:
May I just say, as a reader of this site and an occasional corresponder with Andy and as a Jew, that Chuck can go fuck himself? I may? Thank you.Of course you may! After all, such a popular sentiment should be shared!
And now back to having my insides twisted about like so much Play-Doh as I pray for death.