kimmy

There are species of plants that are dependent on certain insects for pollination and would fail without those insects, too. Those insects are part of the environment that the plants are adapted to. We're also part of the environment, and if we vanished the environment would change and many species would have to adapt to the change or die. The distinction you're trying to make between natural and artificial selection seems completely arbitrary to me. Natural selection isn't a theory, it's an observable process. It's an unavoidable consequence of the rules of heredity and the laws of probability. To try and make more of it than that is to attach meaning to it that isn't part of it's definition. Questions about gaps in the fossil record or about the origin of the species aren't actually questions about natural selection. -k

Well, telling them swarthy fellers and them lefty types to GTFO might play well in redneck country... but there aren't enough rednecks in America to make Rick the President. There aren't even enough rednecks in America to make Rick the GOP nominee, as we saw tonight. -k

Domestication is really just natural selection. You might argue that it's not natural selection because humans have decided which traits are most desirable, rather than survival/reproduction ratios... but I think that's a pretty artificial distinction. Cows, cats, and dogs have found themselves in an environment where their odds of passing on their genes to a new generation depend on being cuter or growing more meat than their peers, rather than on their ability to survive and procreate. I recently read something about "self-domestication". When humans began developing permanent settlements, these places became great sources of food as well as safety from predators, and some animals (cats and dogs...) adopted an unaggressive posture in regard to humans in order to obtain access to the food and safety provided by human settlements. It became a successful symbiotic relationship, and obviously an unaggressive temperment was a key trait that was vital for animals that wanted to adopt this strategy. Unaggressive animals had access to a rich supply of food, plus safety from larger predators. Aggressive animals, of course, got killed or driven out. Unaggressive tendancies became a survival trait, whereas in the wild they probably weren't. Domestic dogs and cats are incredibly successful species in terms of doing what organisms do to continue to exist. -k

So... by my math that's 95%. Thanks for that information, which puts the issue into better perspective. It's no longer an issue of whimsy by this point... "I no longer feel I can handle the responsibility..." I'm not exactly sure how I feel about the idea of choosing to abort a child based on the diagnosis of a defect, but it depends on the nature of a defect. But anencephaly? I can't imagine telling a woman that her baby has a horrifically deformed head and no brain... then telling her that she has to bring it to term anyway. That's utterly inhumane. That might be why states like Kansas and Arizona are working to give doctors the right to withhold information like that from women. -k

By the way, did you hear about Rick's new buddy? Pastor Dennis Terry to non-Christians: GTFO!!! This was an event organized by the Family Research Council, apparently, and Rick was the guest of honor as he clearly needs more Jesus Juice if he's going to beat Romney. So this hollering idiot, Pastor Dennis Terry comes out to introduce Santorum. He's one of those guys who pronounces "Jesus" like it has four syllables-- Jee-eee-eee-ZUSS." The video can be found on youtube, if you're interested in watching idiots hollering. Santorum, asked why he was applauding the speech, contends that he didn't applaud that part, then concedes that he actually really wasn't paying a lot of attention to what Dennis Terry was actually saying. Rick insists that he's all about tolerance and doesn't agree that non-Christians should GTFO of America. Still, considering the trouble that Jeremiah Wright caused for Barack Obama, I would think that Rick would want to be a little more careful about being caught hanging out with religious fruit-cakes. -k

The converse of that is... if Rick is such a great candidate, how come he can't raise money? If he's such a great candidate, why can't his organization even get him on the ballot in all the districts? -k

Gingrich to Perry, 2012: "Ok. I'm President. You only say what I tell you to. Better yet, don't say anything at all. Just stand there and look pretty." Obama to Biden, 2008: "Ok. I'm President. You only say what I tell you to. Better yet, don't say anything at all. Just stand there and look ... uh, greasy." It's a noot point anyway; getting just 8% in Illinois and finishing behind even Ron Paul, even Newt himself has to get the picture now. I don't feel the least bit sorry for him. What a dick. -k

Well, that's debatable. If somebody created an African-American character as dumb as Brittany on Glee, I bet you'd hear a lot of indignation. No, that not all of the people on the show are "bitches". I assume you're referring to some prior thread. If you could provide a link to the conversation you're thinking of, I could see the context. If I recall, my point was that people don't object to insulting and degrading humor... they just object to insulting and degrading humor when it's directed at certain groups. Blondes are the most obvious example I know of where you can direct degrading comments at a group without about people seeing anything objectionable about it. I don't think I've ever claimed that my rights are being violated or that there's a "war against blondes" going on, but a lot of Christians do. It's a claim that deserves to be challenged. I think the claim that Christians are persecuted in America is hilarious. Why did I choose "Persecuted Christians" as the title of this thread? Because they keep telling us that they're being persecuted. They tell us that a war is being waged against them by the liberal-secularoid forces, led by "that atheist Muslim Barack Obama, who did not even thank Jesus during his Thanksgiving address." The phrase "war on religion" has been used continuously by Christians and Christian politicians. Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry in particular made this a feature of their campaigns and made vowed to "end Obama's war on religion." And although they refer to it as "the war on religion" the only examples they ever seem to find are We heard how Christianity was being oppressed when the US armed forces took down the cross at Camp Pendleton, and when they took the cross off the interfaith chapel at the base in Kandahar, and when they took down the prayer banner from a public school in Rhode Island, and many more. Whenever some atheist group puts up a billboard, we hear Christians crying that it is an attack on their faith. We've heard religious leaders try to present anti-bulling laws as assaults on religion. We heard the Catholic Bishop of Chicago compare the gay rights movement to the KKK. And now we hear that GCB is an attack on Christianity. Shady seemed serious when he said that GCB shows that I have "stumbled onto the truth" about persecution of Christians, and he seemed serious in saying that this thread is once again relevant thanks to "GCB". Yes, these people seem quite convinced that they are being persecuted for their religion. wait, is GCB about Jesus, or about Christians? If you're going to claim that there's a double-standard because nobody will make fun of Islam's prophet, shouldn't you include examples of making fun of Christianity's prophet? South Park has committed blasphemy against Jesus... but they've blasphemed Muhammad as well. I keep hearing about how the media is so mean to Christians... but no actual evidence of it. -k

Exciting news for Newt supporters! Get ready, Newt Nation, because rumours have been swirling that Rick Perry may be named as Newt's running mate! RICK PERRY! How awesome is that?? As I recall, one of the most effective arguments against John McCain was that considering his age and his history of heart problems, Sarah Palin could be just one heartbeat away from becoming President. Well, Newt is old, he's fat and out of shape, and he's got a thing for young women. The idea that Rick Perry could be just one mistress away from the Oval Office should probably spell the end of Newt's campaign. People figured that Newt would probably have to drop out if he couldn't win Alabama and Mississippi. He's a regional candidate who got beat in his own region by Rick Santorum. But Newt says he is staying in. From his interview on CNN on Tuesday, I gather his argument is that when they get to the convention in Tampa, everybody will realize that he, Newt, is the only guy smart enough to go head-to-head with Obama. That's 5 months away. I wonder what he thinks is going to change in that time. He says that in August people will realize that he's the only guy who can beat Obama... but people clearly don't think so right now. Is he hoping (or dare I say praying...) for Santorum and Romney to make campaign-killing blunders between now and then? -k

Remember back in October when Rush Limbaugh tried to portray Kony and the Lord's Resistance Army as Christian freedom-fighters fighting Muslim oppression, and howled that Obama was sending US troops to Africa to kill Christians? -k

She's an example of a widely used and very well-recognized stereotype that has been a fixture on television for a very long time without any notable complaint. Neither is GCB, as far as I can tell. Sure, there's been dumb redheads and dumb brunettes on TV as well, but it's never become a stereotype. Either you misread something, or you're trying to put words in my mouth. I never said blondes are the only targets of this sort of thing. I mentioned blondes as an obvious counter-example to Shady's claim that Christians are the only acceptable targets for this sort of thing. The point is not that blondes *are* the only targets, but rather that Christians *are not* the only targets. That should have been obvious. The point is not arguing that blondes are persecuted, but rather disputing Shady's claim that Christians are persecuted. Do we "walk on eggshells" around other religions? I agree that people walk on eggshells around the Jews... one misstep and you get called a Nazi or the KKK. But other religions, I'm not seeing it. And Newt can certainly use this to try and portray himself as a defender of Christians... anything to revive his failing campaign. And the "One Million Moms" can certainly try and create a boycott. And I'll laugh at them for it. Media portrayals of Christians are generally very positive... but along comes GCB and suddenly they think they're martyrs. It's funny, that's what it is. -k

I don't think natural selection is arguable. It's an unavoidable consequence of heredity. The best known direct observations of evolution-- the peppered moth and drug-resistant bacteria-- are examples of natural selection in action. -k

Ah, Shady, you're always in such a rush to be a failure. The claim that this demonstrates a double standard is dependent on the two ads being equivalent, which is highly debatable. The Pam Geller ad features a cartoon dismissing Muslim anger over the Quran burning incident, which remains highly volatile issue in areas of the world where US troops are stationed. The Times claim that they rejected Geller's ad because they believe it might have put US troops in danger. That's questionable, and their decision to not run the ad is questionable, but the idea that the two ads are directly comparable is false. Just the fact that the ad came from Pam Geller strains the comparison: an ad from Pam Geller directed at a Muslim audience would be viewed with as much skepticism as an ad from David Duke directed at blacks. And the claim that the FFRF ad is persecution is laughable. And the fact that people like Bill Donahue are crying about it really drives home what a pampered group Christians really are in the US. There's an argument to be made that the HHS contraception mandate might be real actual persecution. This stuff? A TV show where some of the Christian characters are portrayed negatively? An ad challenging liberal Catholics to leave the church? Retailers who wish people "Happy Holidays" instead of "Merry Christmas"? President Obama neglects to thank Baby Jesus during his Thanksgiving speech? They removed the twelve-foot tall crucifix that some dumb-ass soldiers bolted to the multi-faith chapel at Camp Pendleton? This stuff isn't persecution. This stuff is laughable. It is flat out hilarious that some people are arguing with a straight face that these things constitute an "assault on religion". I can hardly wait to see what's next. Looking forward to the day Bill Donahue calls for a boycott of PetSmart after a chihuahua bites a priest in San Antonio; I'm sure it's not far off. -k

Yep. I can't recall Newt Gingrich and One Million Moms and American Family Association denouncing Kelly Bundy though. So overall I gather you agree that Shady's claim that GCB is "persecution" is pretty weak. -k

Johnny Cash's cover of Soundgarden's Rusty Cage Did anybody get this one yet? -k

Grrr! I was going to post Ace of Spades and you beat me to it! Instead, I offer some Black Sabbath http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kz_6jagv_D4 and some CCR Many of CCR's biggest hits are under 3 minutes... Fortunate Son is one of my favorites. is just a few seconds too long; the intro puts chills up my spine. -k

Update!! Justin Vacula, the guy who attempted to run these shocking ads, provided a couple of updates on his blog. The first: Presumably the people at COLTS came to the realization that they sounded like imbeciles trying to claim impartiality in matters of religion while their buses were bumping around flying "God Bless America!" on the banner. OH, those poor Christians! They have been deprived of their daily bus-blessing by the godless atheists! Darn it!! Oh, the persecution! Second update: COLTS driver and local fat-ass Daniel Wittenbreder has been disciplined by COLTS for contacting Justin on Facebook to say: Poor Daniel! This poor God-fearing Christian has been deprived of his right of religious expression by the fascist bus company! Darn it!! Oh, the persecution! Hopefully his union rep can show him where to find the caps-lock key. -k

His comments undermine confidence in the judiciary. As you saw, real actual legal experts are critical of Magistrate Martin because his comments invite speculation as to whether the ruling was influenced by inappropriate political correctness. The six minute lecture about how bad it is to insult Islam because Muslims take religion very seriously and it's not just insulting their religion it's insulting their culture, etc etc, was ridiculous. He gave that whole fiery sermon essentially advocating self-censorship-- "I don't think the founding fathers intended for people to use the first amendment to piss people off", explain how finally said 4 words acknowledging the alleged victim's right to do what he did-- "you have that right" --and immediately add "but you're way out of bounds on First Amendment rights." So, a six minute lecture to a guy who everybody knows was completely within his rights. And not a word of explanation for the accused, who (by his own account) didn't understand the law, and was infuriated enough by this exercise of free speech that he (again by his own account) ran into the street to confront Perce. The judges' comments give the appearance that his primary concern was sensitivity. And the judge's explanation of his remarks... ...does little to dispel the idea. He does emphasize that his ruling was based on lack of evidence, then goes right back to shooting himself in the foot. He says one of his aims in lecturing Perce was to make sure the incident doesn't happen again. It sounds like he believes the way to prevent an incident like this is to deter people from using their First Amendment rights in ways that might be insensitive. I would think that most people, and certainly most legal professionals, would agree that the more appropriate way to prevent an incident like this is to make sure that Mr Elbayomy is familiar with the laws of the United States. And here is Mr Martin again in an interview with CNN: Again no affirmation of free speech, just the idea that free speech is being abused. I don't think people exercising their rights will cause people to lose them. I think the real threat to peoples' rights is the idea that Martin is advocating: your rights come second to religious and cultural sensitivity. And Mark Martin has done a disservice to the very cause of sensitivity he supports, because the appearance that his ruling was influenced by misguided cultural sensitivity has generated a lot of anger and backlash. It has even been cited by some on the fringe as proof that anti-Sharia laws like the one in Oklahoma are necessary. I can't imagine who, other than Muslims, would threaten somebody for blaspheming Mohammed. That might be speculation, but I'm pretty comfortable with it. On the other hand, the only concrete knowledge I have about threats against Magistrate Mark Martin is a threat from Ernest Perce himself; Mr Perce said he was thinking about putting a picture of Martin on a billboard along with quotations from the ruling. Mr Perce really likes billboards, I gather. The only other piece of information I have is that I heard the comments section of The Daily Caller had a lot of deleted comments in response to articles about this issue. The Daily Caller is a conservative website; it was Daily Caller and other conservative websites like National Review that made this story a news item. Given that, and the amount of "Sharia is coming to America" rhetoric that this case kicked up among conservatives, if I were speculating I would say that's where the threats against Mark Martin came from. If by "both sides" you mean "Muslims" and "non-Muslims", that's... uh, tremendously insightful. -k

I feel terrible for the poor Christians... imagine how awful it would be to turn on the TV and find negative stereotypes about people like you. Bitch, please. I'm a natural blonde. Been there, done that. Continuously. So this show, as I understand it, is like a Bible Belt version of a soap opera. I also read it described as a scripted version of "The Real Housewives of Orange County". I hear that some of the characters are *gasp!* negative portrayals of Christians. How horrible is that? Imagine the outrage if you could turn on your TV and see Muslim dudes who were actually sleeper cell terrorists that Jack Bauer or NCIS have to track down. Imagine if you could turn on your TV and see Italian mobsters or black gangsters. Imagine the outrage! But no, only Christians face this sort of bigotry. My heart goes out to the poor persecuted Christians, as always. Consider it payback for "Touched By An Angel", I guess. -k

Tell me when the transistor was invented. -k

As I pointed out, his discussion of Elbayomy's intentions was *part* of the decision. The judge has a right to free speech, but things that he says on the job may not be appropriate (consider an on-duty cop telling racist jokes, a teacher teaching students that are completely wrong, a waiter calling customers fat, etc). The stuff you say when you're on the job may leave people wondering if you're competent to do your job at all, and that's what Mr Martin did. When he's behind the bench he's acting as a representative of the law, and his comments reveal a very questionable grasp of the laws he's supposed to be enforcing. However, that may not be too surprising. From what I'm reading here one needn't be a lawyer to become a magistrate in Pennsylvania, all you need to do is take a four-week course. It is apparently common for this level of judge to not have a law background at all; these guys normally handle small claims, traffic, and summary conviction offenses-- jaywalking etc. Perhaps Mr Martin was an MP when he was serving with the armed forces. Since both the judge and the defense attorney focused on the question of the defendant's intent, it seems to me that a charge relating to physical contact, as opposed to intent to harass, would have been more likely to result in conviction. I'm not a lawyer, so I really can't say what would be most appropriate. However, UCLA law professor Eugene Volokh says something similar: And GWU law professor Jonathan Turley says "While it looks like an assault, he was only charged with harassment." You're the one who was saying that what people were writing about the case wasn't any better than what the judge said. Which gave the impression that you somehow thought there was a comparison. As for how solid the judge's ruling is... Jonathan Turley again: Volokh again: Well, Perce said that he was threatened for blaspheming Mohammed, so if he is telling the truth it's clear who is threatening him. The threats against the judge, on the other hand, I have seen no information and could only speculate. You, on the other hand, sound like you have solid information, so I'm hoping you'll share with us. -k

What, exactly, are "religious institutions"? I keep asking... if a hospital or a college are religious institutions, can Chick-Fil-A be a religious institution too? (I gather that according to the Blunt amendment, the answer to that question is "yes", any employer can get whatever exemptions they want, as long as they cite a religious reason. Employees of Kimmy-World Enterprises will be disappointed to learn that their insurance plans now cover only prayer and bandages, as I've just converted to Christian Science. Sorry, lol!) Another thing that has me a little puzzled is how it keeps changing from "the government paying for your contraception" to "religious institutions paying for your contraceptives" depending on which claim is more convenient for the argument you're trying to make that day. -k

Yes, clearly it is the editorializing that has angered people. And that is because the judge's editorializing reflects a view that they find highly objectionable. If you listened to the trial, you know that both the defendant's attorney and the judge focused almost entirely on the question of what's alleged to have occurred met the legal definition of harassment, so perhaps a different charge would have been more appropriate. The idea that the defendant's confession to the officer should be disregarded because he speaks poor english is wrong. The defendant speaks english quite well. He has an accent, but no difficulty communicating. Both the defendant's attorney and the judge skip right past the issue of whether the defendant contradicted himself and go right to the question of whether it meets the legal definition of harassment. This is where they talk about intent-- that in Mr Elbayomy's homeland it's a crime to insult the prophet; that Muslims take religion very seriously, and so on. In short, the defendant's religious beliefs and his alleged ignorance of American law both played a role in the judge's decision. That shouldn't sit well with people. If you listened to the audio, you know where people got the impression that the judge is a Muslim. It sounds for all the world like he says "I'm a Muslim, that offends me." Apparently he was saying "If I'm a Muslim, that offends me" or "I'm not a Muslim, (and) that offends me" but that's not what it sounds like. I don't think anybody has continued to pursue the "Muslim judge" theory since he offered his clarification. As for whether bloggers and message-board writers aren't any better than the judge: so? If we're holding a judge to the standards of bloggers and message-board writers, we've got a very serious problem. So by "both sides of this issue", you meant Muslims and ... who, exactly? -k

So... apparently some guys aren't exactly clear on how "the pill" works: Rush Limbaugh, of course, started it. "She’s having so much sex she can’t afford the contraceptives" was among the many, many comments he made about Sandra Fluke. Others have echoed the idea, although without Limbaugh's choice selection of adjectives. They all sound like morons. Here's the thing, guys: if you're "on the pill", you're "on the pill". You don't take one each time you have sex. You take one a day, every day. It doesn't matter if you have sex once a week or 10 times a day, the dose is the same and the cost is the same. I hope that this clears up some misconceptions. If not, get Mrs Sharkwoman to explain it to you. -k

It reminded me of the B-17 sequence from Heavy Metal, for a couple of reasons. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=La_7KO1tn9o These are video games? -k