Still the best series on TV or now a dumb Iraq allegory?
I lean towards the former but can see hints of the latter.
I thought the parts with Starbuck were a bit boring compared to the rest (though maybe not boring on their own right), but otherwise… wow.
SPOILER WARNING
Continue reading ‘Battlestar Gallatica Season Priemere Talkback’ »
Michelle Malkin, my favorite little Firecracker blogger, has a story that has me so upset I’ve put away my Top Ten lists of Mark Foley and the clues we should have seen. Yes, it’s THAT BAD! I’m disgusted by what I see these days — or more accurately, what I don’t see. The faces of Muslim women. Why? Veils.
Michelle posted a piece where some people, or as they are called in journalistic circles, youths — have become offended that Mr. Jack Straw, a British something or other, has asked Muslim women to stop wearing their veils because it’s ‘demeaning.’
Many women in Iran for example wear the burqua. A long one piece sheet that covers Middle Eastern Women from head to toe and makes them look like big purple or blue versions of Cousin It from the Addams Family.
Normally, I’m very sensitive to the needs of others and very respectful of opinions that differ from my own. Just the other day I answered my front door to see the weirdest of all religions standing on my porch — Scientologists. It was a hot day so I said “Can I get you anything for your head? A hat? Some fresh tin foil?” Because that’s the kind of duck I am.
However, in this case, I have to call on the resignation of all Muslim Imams for making women wear these stupid Human Slipcovers. If we don’t put a stop to this soon, one day we’ll see these women covering their forearms with little doilies. Who knows where this will end.
Muslim woman: Man of mine. You are balancing a mug of hot tea upon my head!
Muslim man: Woman, it is my right!
Muslim woman: How many times have I told you — use a coaster!!
Then it would get worse…
Door bell rings
Muslim Man: Woman, there are Scientologists at our front door.
Muslim woman: No – don’t let them jump on me!!!
Humiliating.
You might be asking yourself, “Ducky, you’re not Muslim. What say do you have in this?”
Well, by the same logic that had Muslims demanding the resignation of the Pope when he concluded, for some amazing reason, that Muslims had a propensity for violence. Or rather, somebody he quoted was quoting somebody who said that. I don’t know, I couldn’t make out what he said over all that rioting.
Normally, I would call for the death of all Imams, however, Imams who call Muslims to wage Jihad and kill all non believers are still an interesting source of entertainment.
So I’ll just say this: Mr. Imams — Tear Down That Veil.
Thank you. I have to go, There are a couple of slipcovers knocking on my front door.
Dallas Cowboys wide receiver Terrell Owens is writing a series of childrens books…
The books, written with co-author Courtney Parker, are being published by Dallas-based publisher Ben Bella.
The first one, Little T Learns to Share, will be on shelves Nov. 15.
“It teaches life lessons on discipline,” Parker said. “The irony is him being one of the most controversial players and the public perception of him lacking discipline.”
Suggested titles:
This is only a partial list. If you hear of more, feel free to share them in the comments.
Just to throw into the mix, here’s the Wikipedia entry for Y-Chromosomal Adam, who is consistent with Noah (every male is descended from him, but there were other men back when he existed) – unless you go by a Bible-based timeline.
Moving off of the previous discussion, I thought I’d have a look at Genesis Chapter 1 from a scientific perspective. There are no jokes in this, just as a warning.
Put your captions in the comments!
“You’re the macaca!”
UPDATE:
Whoops. Forgot to give props to Darth Monkeybone from Cold Fury for pointing me to the picture.
I get lots of offers for free conservative books, but I now usually turn them down since I barely ever even crack them open. I then got an e-mail for the book The Politically Incorrect Guide to Darwinism and Intelligent Design (from Regency like every conservative targeted book). Now, I’ve always been of the attitude that evolution is science (the book uses the word “Darwinism” for what most people would just call “evolution”) and everything else so far presented to explain the origin of the species is not. So, I was curious exactly what are the arguments are against evolution and what justification one could have for another view, and thus I asked for a copy.
I haven’t finished it yet, but I’ve read most of it as I’ve been more interested in this book as I find looking at scientific problems from other angles (even if I think they are ultimately incorrect) to be more interesting than looking at political issues from different angles.
QUICK DIGRESSION: I should point out that there is a big element of faith in science; we don’t all have the time to prove scientifically everything, so we have to assume the experts in the fields know what they’re talking about. When I fill my SUV with an explosive liquid, I have to assume who made it knew what he was doing so that when I push the pedal down that the SUV won’t explode but instead it will move forward (sometimes it doesn’t, but that’s because I accidentally left the parking break on). Where I can’t have faith in science is when ideology seems to be driving it. This happens with environmentalism, conspiracy theories, and people trying to make science conform with religion (such as Muslims who think there is a scientific reason they are forbidden from pork). When ideology gets involved, there is no proof so great as to dissuade someone (the human mind is able to logically wrap itself around anything). Also, I should mention I find the idea of being able to prove scientifically the existence of God profane; I have no Bible verse to back that up, but, since God doesn’t’ constantly appear in the sky saying, “Booga booga booga! Look at me! I’m God!”, I don’t see why He’d hide Himself to be found in scientific research. People have free will, and thus it seems to me that God is only able to be known by faith (see the Babel Fish).
Anyway, I don’t want to be long-winded, so I’ll just jump into my main points and maybe expand on other things in the comments if a discussion starts. Apparently, Intelligent Design is based on trying to show that it is too improbable that the way species designed today all happened by chance. I just think that’s a problem because you never can actually figure out the scientific odds of anything, especially since we don’t know how large the universe is or how many universes there are. The book finally did reach that topic by stating in one sentence that multiple universes can’t be proven… and then doesn’t expand on that.
So, I find the argument unpersuasive and un-provable – which doesn’t mean its wrong, but I don’t see much science to it. Also, the proponents definitely seem religiously motivated (this is one area, due to the history, I’d more trust an atheist arguing for Intelligent Design… and, for the same reason, I’m less trust atheist who asserts evolution is true and unquestionable).
But, the book did raise many valid problems with evolution (with others points I found to be reaching). Also, it did seem to show that much of those who are so vehemently for evolution are just as ideologically motivated as those for Creationism (which I do lump in with IDers despite objections otherwise). Many proponents seem oversensitive to any criticism– even when much of it is valid. Much of the fossil record doesn’t fit their model (such as the “Cambrian Explosion”), and then there is the missing link problem. For instance, can someone point to any two species which definitively evolved from each other beyond Darwin’s finches? With humans, though the chimp is closest to us genetically, we didn’t evolve from it but instead all the apes and the humans evolved in separate paths off a single relative of which I’m ignorant. Plus, despite assertions otherwise, they haven’t shown speciation in a lab. They’ve only shown extreme variation (“Look how different this fruit fly acts from that other fruit fly!”). If one were able to observe a single-celled organism evolve into a multi-cellular organism, that would be much more convincing. Also, all in all, it’s still a tough sell that a rodent became a human through minor mutations over 70 million years.
Also, evolution proponents have only fed fuel to the fire by often trying to set evolution against religion (like those Darwin fishes some cars sport; are those to say that Darwin is opposed to Jesus?). There’s a hostility there that doesn’t speak well for science which one hopes to be more even-tempered. Even though I think evolution is the only valid scientific theory out there, I often find myself siding with Creationists as attacks against them seem to be more attacks against religion.
But these are all side issues. Here’s what I think is the big secret about the evolution/Creationism debate is…
Since it’s Friday, I thought I’d spread the joy of humor-free, apolitical Friday Catblogging to IMAO (aka “I-MEOW”).
The rest of IMAO is busy looking for filters for their IM clients. Apparently, Mark Foley likes the IMAO Podcast. Really likes the IMAO podcast.
Anyway, it’s time for Nardo, Prisoner of Pants:
You can find more examples of Friday catblogging by searching a blog search engine such as Technorati for “catblogging.”
You can also find a roundup of catblogging posts at The Friday Ark, located at The Modulator blog.
Then, when the weekend is nearly over, head over to The Carnival of the Cats for more kitty goodness.
There’s also Flickr Groups called Furry Friday and Friday Catblogging.
Anybody I miss?
Apparently, not that many people are left who remember the purpose of that old panda post (it has nothing to do with the subject and you won’t be able to decode it’s purpose unless you already knew what it was).
Anyway, I need more people for this special mission/psychological experiment/performance art. If you want to be a part of this, e-mail me (frankj -at- imao.us) with the subject “Mission.” If I have a record of you commenting or e-mailing or you have a blog that’s been around a while, then I’ll let you in and explain what was done two years ago. For new readers and lurkers, sorry, but I have to be careful because one person leaking this could ruin the fun.
What is the fun? It’s secret, but it will involve secret decoder rings (like this) and hidden signals to activate sleep cells. I’ll keep it simple, though (but not too simple or it won’t be as fun).
So, sign up and be a part of a special internet secret. Muh ha ha ha…
1) What famous musician writes Marge and tells her that in England, French fries are called chips?
2) Who wants to create a film called “Get Your Hands Off My Jerky, Turkey”?
3) In “Principal Charming”, where does Skinner buy an engagement ring for Patty?
4) In “Bart’s Dog Gets an F”, who is the neighbor that calls to complain about Santa’s Little Helper?
Official Trivia Card answers in the comments tomorrow.
