There's and easy way around this-- just buy vinyl records. They do still make them, you know.

Hmmm. . . a 5-inch cd cut at 45rpm, you get how much time? A minute? A minute and a half? I know some record players won't even get to the end before the tone arm picks up and shuts off.

Wait-- at 500-1000 words a day, and even taking into account newly made-up words and deliberate misspellings, how long before ALL words in the English language are banned?

I imagine adults hearing kid's slang words, not knowing what they mean, and assume it's something dirty.

From an old Funky Winkerbean comic:
"That kid has 'Lynyrd Skynyrd' on his t-shirt. . . is that something dirty?"

There is definitely a problem among some aficionados to favor the most obscure artists (I have witnessed record collector nerds suddenly hating a long-cherished favorite when it gets reissued on cd), but so what. If you like the music, you like the music; who cares if pretentious hipsters like it or not.

A lot of obscure collectibles from that era really are sub-par, and a lot are great-- it's a crap shoot, and ultimately all a matter of taste. My first taste of truly obscure 60's rock as a teenager left me mostly unimpressed, but hearing the same record years later knocked me out; I can't explain why.

Craftsman gets no respect from most tool nerds, but they have a lifetime warranty (or at least they used to, I believe they modified that warranty in recent years) -- I had a friend whose Craftsman tools were literally fused into a mass of molten crap when his car caught on fire. There was enough recognizable as Craftsman product that he got a new set from them for free.

Define "real human being."

"Damn yo, dat dress is dah SHIT!"

"This coat is so warm, but I just can't afford to keep feeding it."

Wait. . . they didn't arrest them?!!! That's IT, the terrorists have WON!!

I think perhaps there is a paranoia now, a fear that "I might be the one that lets the next 9/11 happen if I don't follow up on every lead." Of course, how far does one go with that kind of thinking?

I really wonder if they had been blond-haired and blue-eyed if they would have been treated with the same suspicion, taking photos in odd places or not.

"We have come for your children . . . can they come out and play?"

I bet I know what ANTINOUS' link goes to without even clicking. Hopefully it's not the video I'm (shudder) thinking of.

Oh well, the truth will set you free, I guess.

So Ben Stein thinks morals are better than science, is that it?

As others have pointed out here-- science is amoral (not Immoral, but Amoral, as in "outside the realm of morals"), so he really is comparing apples and oranges.

Evolution is no more immoral than quantum physics, another branch of science-- is Ben Stein making movies or statements about how evil quantum physics is? No. (Perhaps someone should pore through the Bible looking for a passage that can be used to question quantum physics, and see if Ben Stein or his fundamentalist friends take the bait.)

Fundamentalist Christians are bending-over-backwards to find ways to discredit evolution, and since they are so out-gunned when it comes to actual science, they try to paint it as "evil"-- maybe so we can all say "well, it might be true, but it's bad for humanity, so let's ban it anyway."

What better way to prepare the children of the Motherland for a lifetime of Kafka-esque bureaucratic nightmares?

Was it scientists, or Doctors? (So I guess Ben Stein doesn't go to the doctor anymore?) Ben Stein could use that same argument to insist we don't "support the troops"-- the last soldiers some of his relatives saw were forcing them into cattle cars or having them dig mass graves. Of course you could extrapolate that even further-- it was Jews themselves who released the gas on their fellow Jews in Auschwitz (the so-called "sondercommando"), so I guess Ben Stein shouldn't trust Jews either.

The bottom line, it is MEN in general who commit evil acts, not some particular occupational subset like scientists or doctors or soldiers or circus clowns.

I used to think Ben Stein was a reasonably intelligent man, but if he's going to use such faulty and self-serving logic as this, how can I show him any respect?

TAKUAN, your comment "gives me a pain in me gulliver."

Are you guys still at it? Why?-- if you look back at all the posts here, EVIDENCE's arguments have ALL been addressed, often in very clear and convincing language, and yet he comes back to variations on those same points again and again. Go back to the beginning of the thread and read all his posts and the various replies-- everything he says shows a profound lack of understanding of evolution in particular and science in general (I paraphrase a little here: "microevolution does not lead to macroevolution" or "dogs will evolve into cats" or "my backyard should be full of fossils" or "there are no transitionary forms").

Then look at how soon in the thread he is citing the Bible and quoting scripture -- he is here to preach Christianity, not argue science, and he has tricked many of us into arguing about particulars of scripture (the proper definition of "chewing cud" for example) instead of science. As per his own admission, if it doesn't prove the Bible, then it's not valid science. SO, if you don't trust the Bible as completely factual, then the argument cannot progress; it is a wall between the two sides that cannot be breached. Period.

And this is not even considering the mental gymnastics he does in order to justify the various contradictions in the Bible. When a man can pick and choose which parts of his holy book to follow there's no way any of us can hope to argue rationally with him. Science makes mistake, but it learns from those mistakes, corrects itself, and moves on. EVIDENCE can look at the mistakes and say "Ah HA! Science is imperfect!!" and ignore the fact that it corrected itself. His Bible is (by his definition) perfect, and therefore cannot make mistakes, so when we find a contradiction he can say "But the Bible is perfect, so it must be YOU who are imperfect and cannot see the truth. Why are you so afraid of the TRUTH?"

"Faith" is like an intellectual "magic bullet"-- it can be used to wipe out any answer the faithful doesn't approve of, following no logical pattern.

Let it be. No amount of debate will convince him he is wrong. The argument is at a de facto stalemate.

#2 PAUL567

"I'd like to know how these 'aliens' are created."

GOD created them on the 8th day, but this was suppressed by the 1st Council of Nicaea in 325 AD.

Duh.

If only there were a way to create energy out of irony, the US could give up it's dependence on foreign oil.

Yeah, they sure look nice . . . but don't let the robots get their claws on the rayguns, or we're all doomed.

#58 ANTINOUS

Unfortunately it's true that most Southern accents just shout "inbred hick" to the rest of America (I would probably exempt some more high-toned accents like parts of Georgia for example, which tend to sound more aristocratic).

Me and a buddy had a bad habit of speaking in a Southern accent whenever we were joking amongst ourselves about something stupid somebody had done: "Whuddaya MEAN I caint pork mah car inna middul o thisa field? It sez 'PARK' rot theyar own thet sign!"

That stopped when we caught ourselves doing it around a southerner who had a very similar accent.

Although I know plenty of idjuts with New England accents, New England doesn't have the stigma of barefoot toothless inbreds brewing 'shine up in the hills that the Southern accent seems to invoke (thank you very much "Deliverance" and "Beverly Hillbillies"). People hear a New England accent and they think of JFK or some whizzened old lobsterman, not the sloped-cranium "ya-dude" from Somerville in a Bruins jersey, who keeps saying "Ay Mahkie -- let's hit the spa and get some beeyahs!"

So I guess all the guitarists who have spent their lives trying to cop his licks now have some more, errr. . . "licks" to cop.

When will it stop? Every year another Hendrix bootleg comes out.

(You guys can vote on which of those puns is worse.)

I bet he's glad he didn't dress up as Osama Bin Laden for that costume party.

Well, thank god they removed him from his parents, put him in foster care, and scarred him for life, rather than just taking away the beverage and issuing the father a citation of some kind. Otherwise our poor public servants wouldn't have anything to do all day except shuffle papers and surf the internet.

There's more than one type of NSFW,

Not Safe For Work (when it's perhaps offensive)

and

Not Safe For WORKING (when it's a time stealer).

(Actually everything about Boingboing is covered by the 2nd definition).

Wow, NYC is such a conservative city!

(Snark alert-- I know it's really just the nature of cops to be conservative, and is not a reflection on NYC or any other city. Reminds me: we should actually be concerned about how the US Armed Forces is mostly conservative-- that many like-minded people in control of firepower is screaming for a coup attempt.)

Well, that proves it. . . CORY is a terrorist!

Great, let's send a million reports of people taking photographs to the FBI, that'll sure make them operate more efficiently.

#52 SLABRAT-- woa-- careful of the ol' Godwin's law there fella! It would be wiser to compare it to the USSR where people ratted on each other nearly everyday, mostly out of revenge, or so an apartment would open up and they could move in. (and that way you avoid Godwin's law too).

Really-- I can sort of understand why a Sheriff would think this way (if I really try to put myself into that mind-state), but it's just so simple-minded; Al Quaeda would use road maps to find their targets, why not arrest any stranger buying road maps? Is there something about cameras that is so special that it screams "terrorism" or is it all just complete paranoia? He obviously wouldn't arrest somebody he knows photographing bridges, only an outsider-- it really plays into the whole stereotype of southern Sheriffs as ignorant and xenophobic.

This is a case where hundreds of like-minded folks should descend on the area and spend hours photographing (or even just pretending to photograph) bridges and public buildings-- and see what the Sheriff does.

HA! I saw them filming some of this last weekend in Jamaica Plain (Boston)-- that guy telling her to leave works at the Greek pizza place near Hyde Square (good gyros there BTW).

I think I've said all I have to say on this, perhaps more than I really had to say.

I should have noted on my last post that I'm done with this-- EVIDENCE can post his Bible quotes and you guys can rip him to shreds all you want. He is not interested in debating science, but religion.

I had a friend who worked on (the American PBS version of) Antiques Roadshow, and she used to be amazed at how often people would bring in obvious prints of famous paintings (framed) and want an appraisal: "NO! This is a REAL Picasso-- SEE? it says 'Picasso' right on it! It was handed down by my grandmother, she wouldn't lie to me about that!!" That's EVIDENCE in a nutshell; no matter what we tell him, he's convinced he has the real masterpiece in his hands, despite all the obvious flaws. To consider the alternative would be too upsetting; suddenly there's no safety net below his trapeze act.

I think one of Brian Eno's 'oblique strategies' said "giving up in disgust is not the same as admitting defeat."

And so I say "farewell" to this long tangled thread.

Peace.

EVIDENCE--

You know, all of this is just going around in circles, and here's why:

You believe the Bible absolutely (or as Theresa pointed out, you conveniently get to pick and choose what is valid, what is metaphorical, etc.).

We do not believe the Bible absolutely.

Never the twain shall meet.

So all your "debating" is really just disguised prosthelitizing .

When I was told of the Genesis story of creation, even as a very small boy I saw it was probably a metaphor. I didn't believe folk tales about Rumplestiltskin or Rapunzel or Baba Yaga. I'm not even sure I really believed in Santa Claus (I mean really-- I went to Santa's Village in NH and sat on his lap and asked for an airplane, and got clothes instead. He could have at least given me coal!)

So you can provide all the Bible quotes you want.
But if I don't accept the Bible as absolute truth we can't really debate.

I'm not "scared" of the Bible, any more than I'm scared of Dracula or Werewolves or the Mummy. I just don't think any of those things are true, so what's there to be scared of?

Like I've said before-- it is proving a pointless debate because of a profound misunderstanding of evolution on the part of you, EVIDENCE. I only continue because it is good mental stimulation, and confirms my ideas about evolution even more (perhaps having the opposite effect to what you would prefer.)

"Can you name a good mutation for me?"

Well-- I'm wondering if you are using the word "mutation" with a negative connotation, thus your question is perhaps intended to be a loaded question.

A "mutation" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Consider the mutation that would have brought about sickle-cell anemia in Africans. Although sickle-cell causes some health problems, it provides resistance to malaria; sickle-cell is the mutation, malaria is the environmental stress that would have favored the mutation. Thus, because of all the malaria in Africa, the sickle cell gene spread, as a child with sickle cell would survive malaria to adulthood and pass on the gene.

Evolution just extrapolates this out to include the cumulative effect of these changes over time, a long time, longer than your young Earth theory allows. In fact some stalagmites and stalactites take more time than your young Earth theory allows.

In dogs, it is human breeding techniques that are the environmental stress-- humans desire a trait, and only allow dogs with that trait to reproduce. I see your loaded question warning, you are trying to equate humans with god I assume? Humans create a dog breed, so therefore god must have created all creatures? In humans it is a conscious act, in nature it is unconscious (unless you are saying that god acts through evolution.) Whether conscious or unconscious doesn't matter, only the end result of speciation.

In the end I know that, like all my other posts this goes right over your head. Your answer to my aborigine problem proves that to me-- the Bible comes first, so no matter WHAT science proves, if it ain't in the Bible it's untrue. What do they say? "Fossils were put there by Satan to test our faith in God!"

How convenient.

@EVIDENCE

Yes, your answer for perpetual motion allows me to continue this debate, though I am finding it tiring still. If you had believed a perpetual motion device possible I would say this thread had officially "jumped the shark" and move on.

If you want to give us some Bible versus, go ahead (hasn't stopped you before), but first please answer my question about how you would react to an Australian aborigine providing scientific proof of his culture's creation myth.

EVIDENCE: That understanding of evolution is simple enough, but I don't think that is really the problem with understanding evolution, it is the details you don't seem to get-- the proper definition of entropy for example (which is one reason I asked about a perpetual motion device); a lot of creationist attempts at debunking evolution show a profound misunderstanding of the science involved. It's like we're discussing how to build a crystal radio set, and I say "we need a magnet" and they want to debate the existence of magnets.

And then this: "you don't know where it came from and don't care to know." Well, no, certainly scientists want to know where it came from, and there are plenty of theories as to where it came from as well (you apparently are not aware of them, like a lot of other science). Neither you nor I were there, nor are there any witnesses we know of, although you contend God witnessed it and you use the Bible as proof. We find that proof severely lacking, just like all the other creation myths of non-Judeao-Christian cultures. We will never agree on that point, at least until we build a time machine and head back there to watch. Scientists are not interested in debating the existence of god from a scientific point of view, be it Yahweh, Allah, Vishnu, or Quetzalcoatl; that is the bastion of philosophers, and there is just no way to prove a philosophy-- it's a matter of taste.

Imagine Australian aboriginal scientists offering you proof of their own creation myth, would you even for a second consider it as valid, even if they had "evidence" as convincing as you think you have for Genesis?

"Occam's razor = All other things being equal, the simplest solution is the best."

EVIDENCE's razor = "All other things being equal, the simple-minded solution is the best."

(relax, it's good-natured ribbing.)

There are a lot of questions EVIDENCE hasn't answered here, and even when he does answer questions his answers are poorly-written and disjointed. He claims that we are "talking past each other" because the two camps have their own world-view. Fine-- EVIDENCE, here you are debating a majority of evolution-believers, so perhaps in order to more forcefully argue your points you would be wise to learn science as we see it, and use that knowledge and terminology. You are the odd-man-out here, not us.

I mentioned earlier that I didn't know why I was debating this anymore, so please just answer me one question EVIDENCE: Do you believe a perpetual-motion device is possible?

I ask this because I have known other creationists to deny the laws of thermodynamics. Your answer will decide whether I continue in this debate or not.

Thanks, and seeing as how yesterday was Easter (for my relatives anyway, if not for me as an agnostic) I'll offer you a respectful Христос Воскресе!

The next president, whoever it may be, would be very wise to create some kind of Apollo-program-styled emergency group to fix this: electric cars, better public transport, natural gas vehicles, etc.

One hundred new oil wells aren't going to fix the problem, especially now that China is drinking from the same straw as the rest of us.

Clearly Bush, even if he weren't a lame duck, would prefer to just twiddle his thumbs a la Herbert Hoover, either because he WANTS his oil industry buddies to be able to buy private islands, or because he thinks "the market will eventually correct itself."

Al Gore where are you?

@ERA

"science has become the new religion?" You are treading dangerously close to IVA BIGGRUDGE territory here.

Science is self regulating; it makes mistakes, and corrects those mistakes. If you are a creationist however, "God makes no mistakes."

On the Origin of Species was not a perfect book, and nobody claims it is; Darwin didn't rule out Lamarck's idea of "acquired-inherited traits" or even know about genetics. The Bible on the other hand is widely considered "perfect" by creationists, and not allowed to be edited or corrected. Therein lies the problem. Scientists don't burn other scientists at the stake for "scientific heresy." They may have economic self-interest in mind, and denigrate another theory, but in the end if their research doesn't pan out then they get no more money for research and their "propaganda" was for naught-- investment goes where it is profitable, the money doesn't care about egos or ideas, only making more money. In other words, don't worry about egotistical hard-headed scientists, they get their comeuppance in the end. Those kinds of arguments between scientific schools are just bumps in the road, and eventually the bumps get smoothed out.

I am curious: the bacteria experiments you speak of-- are these findings being suppressed/ignored, or are the findings just not reproducible? (see: cold fusion.)

#344 TAKUAN

Your ideas intrigue me, and I wish to subscribe to your newsletter.

Now if only I hadn't pledged all my money to Pastor Melissa Scott, the sexy, former-porn-star widow of the late great Dr. Gene Scott.

Or to quote a Raymond Pettibon cartoon: the fat hippie guru says "I have more (teenage female) disciples than Jesus did!"

Why am I debating EVIDENCE again? I spent time trying to explain entropy to him (admittedly long-winded and maybe not perfect), and he replies with a bunch of disjointed sentences about how the sun "destroys my shingles" and "bakes our skin to cause cancer"--???!! Is he saying the sun is the cause of entropy?!!

wow.

It's like trying to explain baseball to a European: "No, that wasn't a strike. Well, yes, he struck the ball, but that's called a hit in this case. Yes, he hit the ball that time, but because he fouled it off. . . errr. . . hit it out of bounds off to the side, that makes it a strike. No that time it wasn't a strike. . . yes, I know he fouled it off, but that only counts as a strike the first two times he does it. . . oh, and THAT was a dropped 3rd strike, ya see, well . . . ." etc.

But how can I expect a creationist to understand science when they get all their info from other creationists hell-bent on debunking science and then calling that "the real science?"

You know, EVIDENCE, you might want to look into inventing a perpetual-motion device; something like that could solve all our energy needs and make you very very rich.

Is is us that are afraid, EVIDENCE, or you?

If evolution is true, then the Bible creation myth is untrue, and if one book of the Bible is untrue, how many others? And suddenly your reassuring cosmological security blanket is gone.

Yes, the unknown is very scary, especially the "great unknown" of death. We don't really know what happens when the lights go out; religion is a convenient way of making it more comfortable. We convince ourselves that if we follow some basic rules and say some incantations then everything will be alright and we will be rewarded at death; it's something to look forward to rather than be afraid.

I'm afraid of death too, EVIDENCE, but I won't stoop to believing in superstitions in order to make it more palatable.

EVIDENCE:

Unfortunately your constant references to "sin" don't help your arguments, as science has no way to test for sin.

In other words, matters of faith and matters of science do not mix. Your constant attempt at forcing them to fit is like mixing oil and water: shake that Italian dressing bottle all you want but in the end they separate out.

As I see it, the basic equation here is like this: IF the Bible is completely true, THEN evolution is a lie.

Seems fair enough, but even if you scientifically or archeologically prove one portion of the Bible, that does not prove the entire book, because the Bible did not magically appear in its current form all at once, but was compiled from various scriptures and accounts over centuries (Moses did not have a book of Revelation, let alone a book of Exodus to cite), so one part could be accurate, the others inaccurate.

You are apparently satisfied that the Bible is 100% accurate, and have removed the IF/THEN from the equation. Fine, but we cannot make that leap of faith, no matter how much you preach at us. I was raised Christian, but even as a small child I saw through the facade, everything was built on too many shaky assumptions and unquestioned traditions; that does not make me an evil person.

If I get on an airplane and the pilot tells me "God is my co-pilot" (and he's completely serious, there is no human co-pilot), I would request another flight with a human co-pilot, because if the main pilot falls ill, hoping God will land the plane is a real crap-shoot. If you want to take that flight, go ahead.

EVIDENCE:

You know, all of the things you bring up are answered on the Scientific American website under the title "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense", it's been mentioned in the comments here already a few times (see #153 IVA BIGGRUDGE's comment for the link).

Regarding entropy-- like a lot of other things you bring up about evolution, it seems you don't understand entropy either, this is answered in the Scientific American article also. You really should read it and UNDERSTAND it before you argue your points, because you are making yourself look ignorant (I'm just saying. . . .)

Entropy takes over in a closed system, and the Earth is NOT a closed system as long as the sun is adding energy to our planet. If the sun suddenly stops, entropy will take over, and life will run down like a clock that needs to be wound, or a battery with no charge. If an exact replica of the early Earth (and I don't mean the Genesis version of early Earth, but rather as scientists see it), complete with moon and oceans, and pools of chemicals waiting to be turned into amino acids, were floating in space nowhere near the heat of a star, with no energy being added, and no thermal energy in the planet's core, there would be no chance of life appearing. At some point our sun WILL run out of fuel and burn out (it is like a battery with vast amounts of energy stored in it), and then entropy will take over; we are actually living on borrowed time, although science extrapolates many millions of years before we get to the end.

Think of it like this-- you are pedaling your bike, and I say to you "God must be making the bike move, because otherwise entropy would make you fall over" but of course you are adding energy to the bike by pedaling, as soon as you STOP pedaling, and are not adding energy, entropy (friction) makes the bike slow down and stop. You are like the sun, you can pedal and pedal, but at some point you will get too tired to keep it up and you will eventually stop; your store of energy is depleted. IF you were moving along on a level surface without pedaling, without a motor or wind at your back, without any energy being added to the bike at all, and without slowing down, then we can discuss god coming into play in the equation.

Or better yet, consider those mini-biospheres that you can buy or make (I believe there was a recent post here on boingboing about how to make one), usually water, a little air, sand, some plants, and prawns. It appears as a closed system (and indeed it is sealed-- you never have to physically add anything to it, not food nor water), but is is NOT a closed system-- it needs energy from the sun to feed the plants, which in turn feed the prawns. If you place it in a dark closet for a few weeks entropy takes over and everything dies (and I think even with the sun those biospheres eventually run down anyway after several years).

Do you get it now?

#15 CERONOMUS

No. It isn't nice at all. I'm sure it doesn't comfort political prisoners in China to know that there are political prisoners in Zimbabwe/Belarus/Venezuela.

(Relax. I know you were just being snarky.)

This is essentially thought crime. He was suspected of impure thoughts with the children, even if he didn't act on those thoughts.

If I photograph a bank it is not a crime. If I fantasize about robbing the bank, that is not a crime. If I rob the bank, that IS (obviously) a crime, and THAT is the line that must be crossed.

I'm not defending pedophilia, I don't like it, the very idea of it makes me feel queasy and sad for humanity, and I don't think the photographer in this story is a pedophile, but as far as I'm concerned a potential pedophile can have all the impure thoughts he wants as long as he never acts on them, just like any other potential crime.

RE: The earth, moon, sun are all the perfect size and/or distance from each other.

This is basically circular reasoning. If we had two moons they would be saying how perfect it was that we had two moons. Similarly, the human body, or the bodies of other animals are not necessarily "perfect"-- there are plenty of physiological quirks that point straight to accidental evolution rather than wise design: giraffes have nerves that travel the entire length of their neck, from the brain down to the torso, loop around a bone, and then back up the neck to the head; how is this an intelligent design? But of course, you can't question the designer-- if God made it, it must be perfect-- circular reasoning again.

(I apologize for continuing to post on this. I promised I would stop arguing with EVIDENCE, but I have become fixated. I have better things to do tonight, and instead I am arguing with someone who clearly does not understand evolution, either by choice or ignorance.)

I was going to say that the original "assassins" were heavy hash smokers, as assassin and hashish share the same root, but it appears the sect in question (Hashshashin) were labeled with the "hash-smoker" epithet by their enemies, and may not have actually indulged.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hashshashin

The brother of one of my college professors was a Vietnam vet, and insisted that there was nothing cooler than firing automatic weapons when extremely high (I recall he mentioned something about "blood spurting" too-- no joke.)

"Penis snatchers"?? Finally a new name for my band! (Unfortunately I predict problems in convincing the other members to use this name).

#22 WAREQ-- why do I hear those words spoken in the voice of William Burroughs?

#232 Evidence:

"...I am simple minded, as many of you have noted, so could one of you give me the one thing that absolutely proved to you that evolution was rock solid?"

Hey, I'm not 100% sure of anything: my shoe size, my height, what time it is, whether or not I enjoy the taste of V-8 juice, etc.

Seems to me, if Vegas were offering odds on evolution being closer to the truth than the Bible story of creation, the sure money would be on evolution (of course, the odds on the creation myth would pay out far higher if you won.)

I'm sure you have reasons you believe the Bible is the absolute truth, we probably don't need to hear them though. I imagine parts of the Bible are true, and a good amount of it is either completely made up, totally misinterpreted, the writer's opinion presented as fact, or very obscured through years of oral tradition and bad translations. I can't put much faith in a book that contradicts itself so blatantly (do I "turn the other cheek" or take "an eye for an eye"?) The creation myth to me seems every bit as fanciful as telling children "the stork brought them."

Ultimately if I look at everything science has produced, versus everything religion has produced, science wins by a landslide. Religion promises eternal life, great! -- but you won't know if it's true until you die (it's like being on a game show, and the host offers for you to trade all the prizes you've already won for "whatever is in this box"-- no thanks.)

"When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things."
Corinthians 1, 13:11

Interesting: Iva Biggruge provides a link to the "15 Answers to Creationist Nonsense" article at Scientific American (which pretty thoroughly trounces all creationist arguments). This leads me to believe his posts are humor.

But then I read his diatribes at that link, and it's more of the same Christian-anti-Darwin-paranoia-conspiracy-theory-weirdness.
Pages and pages of posts, all of which stink of willful ignorance and creationist talking-points.
Now I suspect he believes all the stuff he posts.

"I ain't no joke." --Rakim Allah

It's kind of difficult sometimes to tell someones tone on a post, whether they are being tongue-in-cheek or snarky, or truly just idiotic; I can't tell if they are mentally speaking in a silly clown voice as they type.

I never underestimate the stupidity of anyone (after all, I see the same stupid face in the mirror every morning: "Oh, it's YOU again."))

Reading Iva Biggruge's comments again I STILL can't tell if he/she is joking or not. As someone else pointed out here, some of the stuff on display at the "Creation Museum" doesn't need a punchline attached to get laughs. I'll admit some of his anti-catholic stuff is pretty over-the-top, and sure seems like a joke, but then I always got laughs out of Jack Chick comics and I'm sure those are dead-serious.

If you are trying to consider whether Iva broke a rule of posting here (hateful speech, i.e. "troll"), it's not my call, but I'd err on the side of caution and let his post stand as is without the disemvowelling (although that might set a bad precedent).

At the very least I appreciate the "Church of Darwin" concept . . . and to think all this time I've been praying to Jimi Hendrix.

Word!

Let us examine EVIDENCE's last post (not that I really want to engage in this pointless game anymore, but . . . )

#194 For as Jesus said, "Let he who lives in a glass house throw the first stone."

Jesus did not say that.

**[OK-- fair enough. I suspect that was a joke on the part of JAKETHESNAKE, but of course, right over the head of goode pastor Evidence.]

I am a creationist.

**[no kidding]

ID is a step in the right direction for scientists who actually do science. ID is a trail that will lead you to creationism. That is what most of you just do not want to allow.

**[OK-- here we go. "Scientists who actually do science", so he gets to deny professional scientists are real scientists, men who have spent years earning their doctorates, men who make their living looking for clues and trying to figure out how things work, men who when they make a mistake admit error and modify their thesis (something an IDer will never do-- you can't redact the Bible). Then the phrase "... you just do not want to allow"-- EVIDENCE needs to take a long hard look hard in the mirror. Science for centuries allowed for the creation myth to be viewed as truth, and only questioned it when Darwin saw the pattern that pointed to evolution. As it stands now, it is the IDers do NOT allow ANY evidence of evolution to be considered valid, whereas real scientists will allow anything if it has evidence to back it up. Too often creationist "evidence" consists of Bible quotes and "magic"-- for example see the Noah's Ark section below.]

How does evolution explain things that are irreducibly complex?

**[If you perhaps read the Scientific American article cited by Iva Biggruge above you would know how evolution does this. Basically "irreducibly complex" is a lazy man saying "I can't figure this out, so therefore it can't be figured out by anybody, ever." In the 1930's most people insisted man would never walk on the moon, obviously it was tough to figure out HOW it could ever be done, but it WAS done (or does EVIDENCE deny that too, after all it wasn't in the Bible?) The flagellum that IDers point to as "irreducibly complex" HAS been shown to have a predecessor in another organism. It is almost exactly the same, minus one molecule. This follows evolutionary theory perfectly.]

Creationism fears no science but encourages it.

**[Sure, but only when it proves the Bible correct. Evolution IS science and you do not encourage that, just like Copernican theory was denied by the church for years.]

Science by definition is having knowledge not theory. Work with theories, say they are theories

**[The word "science" comes from the Latin for "knowledge", but science is defined more correctly as " a system of acquiring knowledge based on scientific method." "Science" is not strictly "knowledge" any more than any other modern word based on an ancient root is strictly defined as that root, like "idiot" is derived from the Greek "individual" or "citizen"-- if I referred to EVIDENCE as an idiot he wouldn't say "Thank you very much, I AM indeed an citizen." (Or maybe I assume too much there.) As for "theories", well. . . the theory of relativity is "just a theory" too, perhaps EVIDENCE will allow us to store a nuclear device in his basement; sure, in theory he might get vaporized, but hey, it's just a theory.]

The Earth is about 6,000 years old, is that young? Young or old is comparative. Compared to millions of years it is young, compared to us it is ancient.

**[There doesn't seem to be any point to this except to play with words. Whatever turns you on EVIDENCE.]

I believe Noah's Ark is true. Why do you deny a global flood on a world that is covered with water yet insist on a flood on Mars that has no water?

**[OK, the Noah's Ark myth: the number and size of the animals involved vs. the size of the ark, the food needed to sustain them for 40 days, the fact that there is not enough water on Earth to completely submerge all the continents, let alone the various mountain ranges, etc.-- creationists use GOD (a.k.a. "magic") not science to explain that away. How convenient. As for Mars, strictly speaking he is correct, Mars has no water, it does have quite a lot of ice though, which if I am not mistaken, can easily be turned into water (without the use of magic, I might add.) ]

**I am done arguing with the likes of EVIDENCE. I'm sure he will reply with more arguments, but like I mentioned before, what point is there in arguing-- I know all his arguments already, I dissected every one in this last post. I'm not ignorant of his ideas, I honestly considered them years ago, they didn't stand up to scrutiny. I don't see any reason to believe his theories any more than I see any reason to believe the ancient "phlogiston theory" of matter.

I note how "Iva Biggrudge" says evolution supporters "have no science . . . and fell to insulting me", when he does exactly that (calls Stephen Gould "pseudo scientist" and a "failed plumber", essentially calls all Darwin supporters anti-Semites, plus a lot of his "science" is little more than creationist talking-points, all of which ARE disproven at the very same Scientific American website he provides a link to). I also note the slow descent into hysteria: he's a long way from thoughtfully debating evolution when he's laying Hitler's crimes at the feet of Darwin, or suddenly complaining about AIDS research, NAMBLA, and abortion.

The bottom line with "Iva Bigggrudge" and "Evidence" is that if an honest person with no religious agenda looks at both sides of the argument and makes a decision in favor of evolution they will not accept that, and will browbeat that person into submission. If this were an actual public town-hall-meeting debate they would probably hog the mic and drown out all dissent (perhaps I'm wrong about them, BUT I've seen this before; when you've got GOD on your side you are beyond reproach, you are doing the most important work known, nothing else matters), they are not interested in debate, they are interested in forcing their ideas down your throat. Scientists change their theories all the time when solid evidence shows them they were wrong, but a creationist will never change his tune, instead they bend-over-backwards to deny the evidence. I listened to their ideas and decided they weren't convincing, so apparently I've been brainwashed by Darwin and need to hear their same ideas again and again-- do they really think that repeating the same lines over and over is going to suddenly change my mind? I've heard their arguments, I'm not convinced. Period.

So ultimately trying to debate them is pointless. Eventually you will realize that both sides are just repeating the same arguments over and over, and you will give up in disgust, at which point the creationist claims victory (at least for his ego).

Here's one last grenade for Iva Biggruge and Evidence: GOD is all powerful, I don't think he really needs you to defend his creation (if he did then he wouldn't be so all-powerful, would he?) Don't worry about us evil non-believers, we'll be going to hell and suffering in burning lakes of fire for all eternity-- isn't that enough for you? Or do you really need to to torture us in this life too? Think of how much fun you will have in heaven knowing you were right all along, and those of us who wouldn't listen are suffering unimaginable tortures. Good times.

"If it's not too loud, you're too old."

@141 JSG "I could become an ID'er and say that God had a hand in the evolution of this species of lizard."

The notion of God (or as I usually prefer 'god'-- more on that later) is not necessarily divorced from evolution. I think people have too simple or too literal a notion of god, perhaps from the belief that god created us in his image, therefore he must be a huge man with a white beard and flowing robes, as Michelangelo and Matt Groening have drawn him, or maybe like Zeus he can appear as a swan in order to have sex with a lithe young woman (why didn't I think of that come-on?). Let's say instead that god created everything in his image: rocks, trees, fish, pencils, rutebegas, 1964 Ford Falcons, language, scientific concepts, and so on. It is said god is everywhere in all things, how does one jibe that with god being human shaped?

One of the infamous anti-evolution "facts" I hear repeated is that the odds for life evolving are "one in in ten to the 32 power" or a one with 32 zeros after it. Sure seems like a big number, right? I guarantee you infinity is unimaginably larger. If you want to understand god, first understand infinity. Of course, like Zaphod Beeblebrox, it is impossible for a human to truly know infinity except maybe at death. Thus we arrive at god not as a sentient being, but as a philosophical concept (which is why I prefer not to capitalize 'god', it's not a proper name like Ted or Juanita or Dmitri, even if I sometimes refer to god as 'he' as is common.) In 'god' all things are possible, even evolution.

"Do I contradict myself? Then I contradict myself. . . I contain multitudes." -Walt Whitman

"Now there's more things in Tennessee. Than's a dreamed of in your philosophy." --The Cramps

"This is not evolution. This is adaptation."

Right-- like when I was trapped on a desert island and couldn't digest the plants there, I adapted a second stomach and a larger jaw so I could chew my cud all day and ferment the plants in order to digest them. Adaptation. . . sure, makes perfect sense to me.

I wish my parents had placed all my baby food on 7-foot high shelves, so I could've adapted the height needed to compete in the NBA.

"Natural" meaning "exists in the universe"-- in other words none of these additives are "supernatural" from some other dimension.

(At least that's what I thought when I was a child and people talked about "all natural" foods).

So OGC stands for Onanist Gratification Commission?

Negativland.

Skip James ripped off Cream!?? Man! EVERYBODY Ripped of Cream, Willie Dixon with "Spoonful", Robert Johnson with "Crossroads", Albert King with "Born Under a Bad Sign"-- those guys should sue!!

To be fair,

1. the guy filming is a jerk (or maybe I should refer to him as a "c*nt").

2. I don't think cops should be allowed to break laws for no reason, but a parking violation is OK with me if the cop is on duty (EVEN if they're just eating lunch)-- fireplug laws exist so the FD can access the water, if the cop is right there I don't see a problem with them getting at the water. (And I don't particularly like the police, but they are a 'necessary evil' in our society, like speed limits or income taxes).

3. "because of the terrorism" is a ridiculous excuse. 9/11 did NOT "change everything" like Rudy loves to say. Making it illegal to film police is pointless- IF a terrorist wants to film the police for some reason he will find a way to do it with a hidden camera; the "law" she cites (if it exists) only hurts law abiding citizens and protects dirty cops.

4. for a PARKING cop, I don't think her weight matters much. Her suspects aren't going to be running down the street and jumping fences. Filling that position with someone overweight saves the more able-bodied cops for more important duties.

As much as I like art, I HATE hearing art experts like these people TALK about what it means; it's like listening to sociologists using made-up words to describe some phenomenon. If I like a painting, I LIKE it. Period. I don't need to be told about its special "whatever." It sometimes seems like they are trying to find ways to justify how much importance they have placed on a piece, salesmen justifying the price. This is why I ignored all my teachers suggestions that I go to art school. I love my flea-market abstract paintings by unknown nobodies-- I enjoy looking at them, they mean whatever I want them to mean.

That said, the experiment is somewhat unfair-- it is placed in such a way that it resembles a billboard, and I guess I applaud people for ignoring billboards. It's a huge painting, placed very close to the sidewalk, with not much room to step back and view it, plus it's on a semi-busy sidewalk-- people are walking from A to B, and in their own world. Place it somewhere where people will actually face it for a short amount of time, perpendicular to the line of travel.

A lifetime of watching public officials insist they have "caught their man", even when Morley Safer of 60 Minutes is showing them evidence to the contrary, has convinced me that public officials are more beholden unto their own egos than unto the public good. THAT'S why they are considering an appeal-- bruised ego. They will probably insist that they need to set a precedent of some kind, that the general public shouldnt be allowed to have dangerous bacteria in their homes. But of course the bacteria in this case wasn't dangerous.

Pffft!-- this has only a fraction of the magical regenerative power of the classic pyramid!

#6 -- before I read your comment I was thinking similarly-- I kept thinking the pilot was going to burst into laughter as the camera zoomed in on him (imagine trying to keep an extremely serious face like that for what seems like such a long time).

Of course I've seen the film before and KNOW he doesn't, but yet I still expect it.

I was having trouble with a painting, so I decided to use my artistic license. . . unfortunately I got the paint all over it and now it's unreadable; I should've stuck with paintbrushes.

"Honey, the robots have gotten into the fonts again!"

If he's "pleasuring himself" he sure as hell doesn't look like he's enjoying it.

Considering the answer for the Hippocamp (horse-fish) -- “Unfortunately, the horse part makes it treyf, and a little bit of treyf makes everything treyf. So if you had 99 percent fish and one percent horse it would still be treyf.”

AND considering that people are requesting a kosher hog. . .

It is not unreasonable to assume that geneticists may someday add a bit of swine DNA to a tomato (like they already have with fish DNA), for some reason-- I would assume that (according to the hippocamp decision) any tomato with added swine DNA is no longer kosher.

Is it a tomato or not? Is genetic code "part of a hog" or is it just information, like ones and zeros?

Also, how many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

And that reminds me-- how do vegetarians feel about tomatoes with fish (or other animal) DNA?

So many questions.

So. . . if the "mark" didn't actually "go insane" (and end up committed to an institution), does the winning ebay bidder get his/her money back?

I'm sure many of us already knew this, or at least suspected it, but the problem is that many Americans DON'T know it, and worse, many would DENY it or DEFEND it as "necessary in times of war", not realizing that it sets a dangerous precedent (for example-- ask your conservative friends/aquaintences if they approve of this, and if they say "yes" then ask them if they would approve of a Democrat-controlled controlled Pentagon [?!] doing the same.)

I'm getting pretty damn tired of bringing my insulation with me every time I move.

Wow-- they discovered a "new kind of light", and here I was satisfied with the visible spectrum; I feel like such a sucker. "Infused light"? -- did you install laser beams in your car or something? Oh sure, it's safer for YOU, but what about oncoming drivers?

I made a joke about their plight, and realized it was macabre, apologized, and yet still posted it.

I do feel for them, as I feel for all the poor of the Earth, but the politics of the world make me so disenfranchised that it sometimes seems like all I have left to cheer me up is jokes. Russians had a myriad of jokes decrying their lot under the Soviets, often told under penalty of imprisonment, but they still told them amongst themselves; whatever it takes to make life bearable, whether it's eating mud or dark humor.

Ultimately I know that if I live long enough, the plight of starving Haitians (or Brazilians, or Africans, or _____?) will be my own plight as well. The ship is sinking, the captain(s) won't listen, there are no lifeboats, and most of us (myself included) cannot swim, so instead I will crack jokes. "Cheer up, we probably won't drown, after all-- look at all those sharks!" (Please forgive me if that is an inappropriate metaphor.)

"HEY-- this mud you sold me tastes like shit! I specifically ordered the mud, not the shit that's on special today!"

Sorry-- yes it is pretty sad, and I can only think that in the future this is something we can all look forward to.

. . . and to think Ted Turner could be so "crazy" as to think we'd resort to cannibalism in dire circumstances.

entropy always wins.

That's what ten years of "Great Depression" will get you.

I hitched plenty when I was in college-- only one problem-- being picked up by a drunk driver. He got me there pretty quick though! (Mainly because I changed my destination to "that 7-11 at the junction of route 44" in order to get out before he crashed or got arrested).

Speaking of what "should or shouldn't be on there"-- HAL 9000 isn't really a "robot" but a computer. He may have an eye (or many eyes in various parts of the ship) but he has no body really.

Still, nice design . . . YOU NERDS!!!

I fixed it myself-- I just don't leave comments anymore. . . oh wait. . . darn it!

More useful than the Black Flag hairstyle chart, but somehow much more boring.

Reminds me of Russia's Наши ("Nashi" a.k.a. "Ours") youth movement, which organizes to counter protest pretty much any other political group, in particular Kasparaov's "Other Russia" party, although that is clearly orchestrated by the Putin regime, and this appears (so far) to be more spontaneous.

"One of the great attractions of patriotism -- it fulfills our worst wishes. In the person of our nation we are able, vicariously, to bully and cheat. Bully and cheat, what's more, with a feeling that we are profoundly virtuous." -- Aldous Huxley

"If this guy had one tit I'd marry him."

My dad used to put old glass gallon jugs filled with water around the garden to keep rabbits out of the vegetables (one jug at every corner)-- the logic was that the wind blowing across the top of the filled jug created a tone which scared the rabbits away. I believed it at the time (duh-- I was a kid), but it now seems even more suspect than the water-bag-bug-repellent idea. (

However, I am willing to believe this will work, if someone does a double-blind test and records some kind of effect.

Has Mythbusters explored this yet, and if not, why? (I guess because they don't get to blow anything up or drive a car really fast.)

I do not think it is wise to dismiss this without any testing first-- who would've ever thought that common mold could yield powerful antibiotics, or that cleaning your surgical tools would prevent infection ("tiny invisible creatures are causing the infection?! Hogwash!! SHOW me these magical creatures you speak of!!")

Wait until those weapons get into the hands of private citizens. . . does the 2nd Amendment apply to these new weapons?

Yeah, I just hope that new antibiotics aren't overused like the old ones, causing the rise of even more powerful, antibiotic resistant superbugs.

(I still hear people talk about taking a single antibiotic tablet when they have a cold-- idiots!)

The US government is screwed up on so many levels it makes my head spin, and I don't think I'm exaggerating.

Someone should tell the teacher "you can get high from farts!"-- next time somebody lets one rip he'll clear the room (which might be the safest thing anyway).

Is pornography becoming more hardcore because porn-aficionados demand it be more hardcore, or is it for some other hidden reason? I'm thinking of the recent post here on BB where starlings in the UK were ingesting contaminated worms and thus altering the pitch of their voices-- the chemical mimicked a hormone in the birds. We know that phthalates in common plastics mimic human hormones, and may pose dangers to infants (even causing genital abnormalities)-- what if there were other man-made chemicals in our food or water supplies that we assume are harmless but are actually making us more "sexed-up?" Maybe pornography isn't a multi-million dollar business because of loosening sexual attitudes, but rather both are tied to an increase in some substance we are exposed to.

Just a thought.

Clearly the cat is playing WITH the theremin ANTENNA, and is not necessarily interested in the tone it produces.

I wonder: does the antenna emit a frequency that the cat particularly sensitive to?

How long before a vigilante with a shotgun starts taking out those cameras?

I was thinking of the recent push by some conservatives for McCain to get Romney as a VP, "because he knows the economy." Well, whether Romney "knows the economy" or not won't matter, because the GOP is married to this romantic Reagan-era notion of "trickle-down economics" and tax-cuts for the rich-- if/when the sh!t really hits the fan, and McCain/Romney were in charge, what exactly would they do? Certainly not some massive New Deal-styled quasi-socialist plan a la FDR, I wouldn't be surprised if they claimed that "the real problem is that taxes are too high" and cut taxes some more.

If she keeps eating candy like this, she'll end up with "hillbilly teeth."

"I can't wait to eat that monkey!" --Abe "Grampa" Simpson

"The secret of life is to have no fear." --Doctor Kwame Nkrumah

I was never put in a situation like than when I was nine, I don;t know how well I would have coped, but the kid WANTED to do it, so clearly he was ready.

Jobs:

Jobs building the facility,

Jobs running the facility,

and eventually jobs incinerating millions of heads of cattle all around the USA.

It's a "win-win" situation!

Johnson replied with a grin: "That's not a monkey; that's my kid."

"Damn lady, you sure got one UGLY kid!" he mumbled under his breath as he walked away.

Considering all the germs that float freely in the air (remember those petri dish experiments in Jr. high, where you opened up a sterile petri dish for 10 seconds, then sealed it and watched colonies grow over the next few weeks), and the fact that scientists now suspect that the number (though not the mass) of microbes in the human body are greater than the number of human cells, germophobia is pretty ridiculous.

I need to contact someone at the Ministry of Silly walks, because I saw a Boeing employee using my very own patented gait.

God has been recalling REAL hillbilly teeth one (or more) at a time for many, many years.

But at least He makes up for it in extra fingers and toes.

It just occurred to me-- it would be easy for Greg Ginn to have a reunion with "all original members" as there were so many lineups of the band, some of which only lasted a few months (and in fact I've heard a lot of younger fans think Henry was the "original" singer -- HA).

Greg could cash in like the Sex Pistols did, if only so many of the other members of the band didn't hate him so much.

#1 MUSICMAN. I'm sure there are hidden kickbacks, like a brother or spouse of a state rep. works for Nestle, or something similar.

I'm also willing to bet that Nestle eventually sues locals who tap the same aquifer in their wells.

Great, so next year a "card tree" will sprout up? How come this didn't work with the "hot dog tree" I planted as a child on my daddy's farm?

It's funny that Chuck is originally referred to as "Gary" (his birth name). The two guitar lineup(s) with Dez were the best (circa "Damaged"), in my pointless opinion.

HA!! -- say what you will, but I get a kick out of comment #3 "KARSTEN"

But then some of us like to play intellectual/spiritual tug-of-war when the Jehovah's Waitresses come to the door.

I guess I bought into the whole media-circus aspect of the Plasmatics back then, that it wasn't a REAL punk band, but some Monkees-style joke created in a marketing meeting. I later came to appreciate that she was probably performing what she really felt; knowing her pre-Plasmatics history I'm sure she had a close relationship with nihilism long before she ever picked up a chainsaw.

But for me the weirdest thing about reading her obituary was that she died in my old nowheres-ville hometown in CT.

Just because the odds against it are astronomical, doesn't mean it can't happen. The infamous "odds that life on earth evolved are 1 in 10-to-the 32-power" claim, for example-- a 1 with 32 zeros after it sure seems like a huge number, but it's still tiny when compared to infinity.

Oh-- I think it's pretty clear that we CAN lay much of this at the feet of one George W. Bush, or if he is truly a puppet of others like Cheney, then at the hands of the puppet masters. Whatever happened to the good old days, when Republicans were pushing for a "balanced budget amendment"?

For years Republicans have pushed for de-regulation of industries, including banking, looking for some "pure" form of capitalism. Plus Republicans are always touting the benefit of having a businessman for president, someone who "knows how to run a company, and can balance our books", so they elect Bush, who failed at every business he ever ran. By their own admission conservative economic policy is aimed at making the rich richer under the belief that it will drive the economy, unfortunately it eventually drives the economy over a cliff, because (as Everett Sloane said in Citizen Kane) "Well, it's no trick to make a lot of money... if all you want to do is make a lot of money." And often the richest of men ONLY care about making money, not about how it effects anyone else.

This reminds me of an experiment I saw in an ancient copy of Popular Science, where they placed kittens on a glass table, with a checkerboard pattern on the floor below. Of course the kittens were petrified and wouldn't move, or perhaps back into a corner. Then when they instead placed the kittens on a table with two different sized checkerboard patterns printed on it instead of glass (an optical illusion made to look as if suddenly there was a drop off), they of course wouldn't walk on the smaller pattern for fear it was actually several feet below them.

It also reminds me of how difficult it is to piss your pants (if you're an adult anyway)-- early psychological training and years of habit make it difficult to do on command. (Go on-- try it.) ;)

So Universal wants to have their cake and eat it too, and we find it hard to believe?

As others have pointed out, ALL record companies insist that "unsolicited demos cannot be returned", which certainly implies ownership (although I do recall a Prince-wanna-be who pestered my old employer until we sent his crappy demo back).

FYI-- it is well known that employees at all record companies engage in "promo-trading"-- as in "I'll send you the new ____ cd if you send me the new____ cd", or they just add each others names to mailing lists. And I know from experience that nearly all the unwanted cds end up at used record stores, so I guess Universal might have to prosecute it's own employees.

The Appalachian Trail goes right through that area of MA/CT, and is notorious for mosquito problems when many of the Northbound thru-hikers hit that section of the trail in the summer(the trail winds through some very swampy areas for a good many miles near the Housatonic). I recall a few years ago many thru-hikers actually took a few weeks off or "flip-flopped" up to ME rather than deal with the mosquitoes.

They're gonna miss those bats for sure.

"All animals are created equal... but some are more equal than others" --George Orwell (Animal Farm)

Oh sure, he can "grok complex technologies", BUT, can he "smurf" them?

I've thought the same thing for years. Once all the pigeons and rats are gone, what's next?

I also think a pandemic might hit first and save us the horror of cannibalism, substituting the horror of billions of rotting corpses.

I'm sure it doesn't matter what Ted Turner or anyone else says. There were probably a few people on Easter Island saying "you know-- we should probably stop cutting down all these trees, they're not growing back fast enough", and who were then dismissed as crackpots. Most people are more concerned with paying their bills and watching TV and getting the newest, smallest cell phone. We can't picture that horrible future, it seems like some made-up sci-fi nonsense; reality is groceries and traffic and paperwork, not "Soylent Green" or "The Omega Man."

In the 1930's nobody thought a man could walk on the moon, reputable scientists dismissed the idea as impossible. But they probably couldn't imagine paying a dollar for a chocolate bar or $3.50 for a gallon of gas either. Maybe when the dystopian future comes we will have gotten incrementally used to it, and cannibalism won't seem like such a horror.

And anyway it won't technically be cannibalism when I (a Morlock) eat some sweet young Eloi flesh.

Wait-- WHY are we analyzing Sabbath lyrics? These are the guys who wrote such deep lyrics as "I want to reach out and touch the sky/ I want to touch the sun/ But I don't need to fly/ I'm gonna climb up every mountain of the moon/ And find the dish that ran away with the spoon" (from "Supernaut") or my own personal favorite : "So I went to the doctor/ See what he could give me/ He said "Son, son, you've gone too far./ 'Cause smokin' and trippin' is all that you do. . . .Yeaahhhhhhh!!" (from "Fairies Wear Boots")

I suspect it's an amalgam of ideas and influences that gave birth to "Iron Man." It's arguable WHO in the band wrote the lyrics-- Geezer claims at least some inspiration for "Iron Man", but I've also heard Ozzy claim he wrote all (or nearly all) the lyrics for Sabbath songs, so it's possible they both had something to do with "Iron Man." Considering all the drugs they were doing back then I'm sure images of the comic-hero intertwined with images of Birmingham steel-mills, and ecological destruction and invented images from their own minds to give birth to "Iron Man", plus a lot of the lyrics were probably just them trying to come up with stuff that rhymed: "we need something that rhymes with 'dread'. . . how about 'boots of lead'?"

Yes yes yes, a wonderful mental exercise for stoners and music-nerds everywhere.

All I can think is "This sets a dangerous precedent"-- consider all those 60's biker films like "The Wild Angels" coming true with monkeys this time-- I know in India they have problems with monkeys in some towns-- imagine that but with motorcycles added. I predict monkey biker gangs ("The Simian Samuri" or "The Rhesus Rebels") terrorizing towns someday, stealing food and hurling feces from tricked out mini-motocycles.

OW, BRAIN HURT.

WHAT is "The United States of America?" Is it just a large section of North America, or a population of a few hundred million, or maybe only one political section of "true Americans"?

I would postulate that the United States IS the US Constitution. In theory, if all of North America were destroyed, or the Earth were made uninhabitable, we could go to the Moon or Mars or Rigel-7 and recreate the USA from the Constitution.

The USA is not a flag or a picture of the Statue of Liberty or bald Eagle, anymore than you can eat the word "sandwich" and satisfy your hunger-- these things are just symbols. BUT the Constitution IS the embodiment of the USA, nullify the Constitution and you have nullified the USA.

Are we a "nation of laws" or not? The President is not above the law, and he/she cannot decide to follow only those laws he/she wants to follow, anymore than you or I can do that. If the President decides to break a law for some issue of national security, he must be damn sure of himself, and willing to face the consequences of breaking that law. Think of it like pleading "self defense" in a murder trial-- sure, the President can break the law, and a court will decide afterward if it was justified, NOT the perpetrator.

They're not "abandoned". . . they're "homeless shelters."

I haven't been to the Boston Public Library in years, but during the winter you couldn't use the bathrooms there (with the exception of the urinals) because when it was cold out the homeless would drop their pants and sit on the toilets, for hours. So the BPL removed the doors on all the stalls, but that still didn't stop them from sitting there all day.

Careful Donna, or that Big Blue Penis will knock some teeth out. . . oh. . . nevermind, sorry.

Oh man that's good. This was done similarly to great effect for years by audio-artisans Negativland (possibly most famously in the piece "Time Zones"), however these guys are working a different side of the street. I might be fooled into thinking this was real except for Mr. Biggs' ridiculous cartoon voice.

FYI #42 "justoneguy" -- the Boston reference is a poke at the police and mayor's office in Boston going ridiculously overboard with regard to anything that might be interpreted as a bomb.

(upon re-reading the article, I see that the dig at Boston was actually pretty much in-line with how I feel anyway-- it WAS pretty embarrassing, but then again too much of the time our authorities and elected officials ARE an embarrassment, aren't they? Some things never change.)

I bet they're having Rasputin-styled sexual orgies in there; I wouldn't want to leave either.

I understand the dig at Boston, but Boston isn't some weird parallel universe where paranoia reigns supreme and everyone walks around hunched over and their eyes darting back-and-forth, it's a normal American city like most any other. Your own article impugns London as being similar to Boston with regard to this paranoid stupidity, and yet I'm sure 6 months from now, when another city does something stupid you will bring up Boston, and forget London.

Hey-- don't get me wrong, I agree that the Boston Police over-reacted and the A.G. and Mayor's Offices only compounded the matter during the ATHF scare, so perhaps Boston is an ideal example, but you do your own city a disservice by thinking it's immune from this kind of thing. I've read plenty of news articles here on BB and the web that show this generalized kind of of paranoia is going on in lots of places, but just manifests itself in different ways and different magnitudes. (For the record, yes, I live in Boston, but I have no great allegiance to the city; I just think it's an OK place to live).

The problem is everybody in power wants to stop terrorism, but doesn't really know how to do it, so instead they come up with "security measures" that don't help matters, but sure seem like they might help. They may as well issue "magic beads" that protect the wearer against terrorists.

The color "daiquiri" gives me an idea. . . .

What are they gonna do, ban all private automobile traffic for the entire duration of the games? And when hundreds of marathon runners collapse in spasms before the 10-mile mark, what will the authorities do to protect China's public image?

Hartford CT., 1986 . . .

I never forget a face.

Wait. . . they just increased the cost of getting a passport earlier this year. Why? To increase their profits? Well, I guess we have to pay for the Bush tax cuts somehow.

Do you really want (even blank) passports printed in another country? It will still make it easier for forgers over there to make fakes-- it's like you've done half the work for them.

Wow-- automatic drum circ. . . uhhh. . . drum "square."

This could definitely encourage the forming of certain bad habits if you have kids and use it as a kitchen table.

Note how there are so few comments on this news story-- nobody is surprised at the ineptitude of Bush anymore. I'd like to make a snarkier comment, or perhaps some kind of jokey pun, but I just sigh and pour myself another glass of whatever liquor is available. But I'll give it a try.

George W. Bush: he got a straight C-average from high school through college, he spent most of the 70's drunk, he ran several failing companies, was part-owner of a losing ball club, and a one-term governor of TX. How are we supposed to tell our kids "if you study and work hard maybe someday YOU can become president" when we have a shining example of the exact opposite?

Yeah, but if you roll a "3", it's still just a "3", I don't care HOW big it is.

Yeah, I like stuff too sometimes.

Attachment to material possessions is the source of all man's unhappiness.

The Buddha placed that ad on CL, he was trying to do that man a favor.

#30 SUBTLESQUID :

"It is the skeptic, devoid of baseless explanations for the world, who can truly sit in awe of the great immensity of the unknown. While the believer denies the unknown, clouding much of it with assertions."

Wow.

The only way to catch a hypnotist is WITH a hypnotist, so I envision a hypnotist-detective finally cornering the hypnotist-thief, and they have a "hypno-showdown" each trying to put the other in a trance.

It's been years since I saw this video. I remember hearing about it from people before I got a VHS copy, and it lived up to the hype. Now I'm having weird nostalgia for the original nostalgia I got when I first saw the video.

How long (sorry) before I get spam selling me this stuff to enlarge my penis?

Ha-- It's funny because it's true.

I don't understand the economy except on the most basic levels, but "market fundamentalists" who insist on the market not being regulated at all, are (I suspect) just romantics. Sure, I'd love it if we could let the market run wild and free like a force of nature, but that doesn't mean it's going to work like a well-oiled machine, more like monsoon season: bigger booms and bigger busts.

"The ocean doesn't want me today."
--Tom Waits

Guilty until rendered imobile.

So. . . he can't come into the US because of moral turpitude, but those of us citizens in the US who've already developed an equal (or greater) level of moral turpitude are OK to stay here? Or are they gonna kick us out next?

Seems that's the big question. If moral turpitude is so evil as to keep an author out, how do we justify allowing US citizens of equal turpitude to stay.

Which reminds me-- how many drunks and drug users have we placed on postage stamps in the US? (Let's see. . . Elvis, Billie Holiday, Poe, Hemingway, Ulysses S. Grant . . . )

I get the impression from how he reads the ad-copy, that he is getting a snarky kick out of it.

I always love how they try to convince us that "dogs love this new flavor"-- really? How do you know? Because they EAT it? Dude-- dogs will eat their own feces if you don't stop them!!

Maybe Tom was thinking along those lines as he read the ad-copy.

mmmmmmm. . . delicious dog food. Sure beats the feces I was eating earlier.

Wait. . . where did they put the new prosthetic sphincter? I envision somewhere fun, like on her hand. Just think: you could open the window of your car and fart outside while driving, or hurl crap like Spiderman shoots web (how about a new superhero called "Monekyman"?)

I'm done with "Pastafarianism"-- stupid Flying Spaghetti Monster hasn't answered ANY of my prayers. How is he any better than Jebus or Allah or Xenu?

All I wanted was a Pepsi, and he wouldn't give it to me.

It all seems like they found ways to cash in, and leave the mess for someone else, even Greenspan the supposed economic genius was essentially betting that the house of cards he had (inadvertently maybe?) helped build would stay up long enough for it to stabilize itself.

There was a quote in a G.K. Chesterton novel that this reminds me of, about how (I paraphrase from memory) "the poor are always more patriotic than the rich, if things get rough the rich can just pack up and go abroad with their wealth, whereas the poor are tied to the land and so are more concerned about the well being of their country." When the market tanks the multimillionaires lose millions, but often STILL have millions in reserve, whereas the family buying its first home ends up living out of their car.

I give them credit for assuming that some kid is going to open up the thing to look at the guts, or is the fake circuit board visible from the outside without dismantling?

Although belt-drive systems (supposedly) insulate the platter from motor vibrations, the downside is that they wear out very quickly and tend to slip, thus adding to the wow-and-flutter of the recording.

(and face it #6 ZUZU-- you wouldn't be carting this thing off to any club gigs anyway, it won't even fit in a road-case, to say nothing of the cost of a hand-made turntable versus a stock Technics 1200).

All the better to eat your shorts with.

#4

YES, first thing I thought too.

. . . what nerds we are.

I think it was a cover up-- he didn't build the robot, the robot just planted that evidence after it killed him and stole his medicine.

http://www.robotmarketplace.com/oldglory1.html

I recall an interview with hip-hop group People Under the Stairs (I think it was them), where they described their record-hunting trip to South America, they came back with suitcases full of rare Chilean psych records, and the DEA agents at LAX confiscated them, and BROKE EVERY SINGLE ONE IN HALF convinced there was cocaine hidden inside ("Hey, who buys records anymore, there must be dope inside these!")

I get a kick out of going to the DEA website and checking out all the way people hide drugs in the most inane items (go to DEA.gov and look at the "microgram bulletins"-- very entertaining).

Parasites at no extra charge.

The kid did that as a public service, so after he punches you in the face he can say "Hey-- you wuz warned. . . or cain't you read?"

They pulled the straws off the shelf? Man that SUCKS.

It just occurred to me-- this was done before, check out this clip of Greg Ginn from 1984.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=u1doq56L37w

Somebody MUST have dubbed that in!

(wink wink)

I had a friend who claimed several abductions, a onetime "patient" of Harvard's John E. Mack, he would not at all be amused by this. It was very serious to him, he'd probably compare this festival to "black face minstrel shows."

I'm not saying I agree with him, but I guess I can understand his view, and seeing as I've never been abducted (to my knowledge), I would reserve judgment.

Surprise surprise, America is for sale. Welcome to "Exxon/Yellowstone Park" and "Hallmark presents: Mount Rushmore."

I'm sure this is not authorized, but that the guy is trying to pull a fast one.

This is just an odd "threat"-- it seems they should be directing it at the NJ officials, as they would be the ones breaking the "licensing agreement" by sending Felten the machine. And it's vague: what do they mean by "publication of Sequoia software?"-- if Felten just says "there is a bug in the software" does that constitute "publication of Sequoia software"?

It amazes me that they didn't see the writing on the wall with regard to lighter-than-air-vehicles, at least in war. Here we have airships and biplanes side by side-- couldn't they see that the airplane would become preeminent? The zeppelin was just a huge, slow target, and full of gas (and whether that gas was flammable or not was moot-- you can't armor plate the thing, so a few shots and bye-bye gas, hello earth).

#18

Actually New Jersey Fried Chicken is usually pigeon.

And not half bad either.

Ehh-- we all have our weird little inter-national stereotypes. If you want to hoodwink most Americans into thinking you're "cultured" just speak in a British accent (or Australian, or New Zealand, Or South African-- it all sounds the same to most Americans).

I always thought the Ozzy/Jake E Lee one was the best, Jake E. Lee has the most exaggerated guitar-god stage moves that are perfectly juxtaposed with the horrible playing, plus Ozzy's occasional "grunts" into the mic are priceless.

It's a testament to how well he put these together-- I showed them to a musician friend of mine and (not knowing who Jake E. Lee was) he just assumed it was a bunch of crappy musicians. "Jeez, that guy is horrible, how'd he get on stage in front of all those people?"

Hmmm. . .wonder if I could fit my penis in there? Of course that would guarantee nobody else would put their finger in afterwards. . . at least those who saw me put the "mighty midget" in the slot wouldn't put their fingers in there (or maybe they would if they were carrying "handi-wipes").

Of course then if I registered "lil' lich" as my finger when I bought the ticket I would have to put him in the slot for every ride, wouldn't I?

Or just bring a long a rubber finger, and if you want to lend someone your ticket you lend em the finger too.