i'm sure he wants that, but i'm not sure he ever actually had it...

Midwest Values PAC | An Evening with Ann Coulter: Al Franken's Opening Statement:

I was just talking to Newt Gingrich the other day. And I said to him, “Don’t you want for a gay couple what you had with your first wife? Don’t you want that bond that comes with the pledge of fidelity that you had with your second wife? Don’t you want what comes with that lifelong bond that you may or may not have with your third wife – I have no idea what’s going on there.” - Al Franken on the whole gay marriage hurts traditional marriages crapola.

what is and isn't funny...

There's Ann Coulter's insulting stereotype: It was fascinating being here for the demonstrations this weekend;  I guess that's why I didn't get clean towels in my hotel room this morning. I haven't seen so many agitated Mexicans since the World Cup Soccer Games were in L.A.

Then there's funny (Al Franken): I hadn't seen so many agitated Mexicans since 1846 when James K. Polk invaded Mexico because he thought Santa Ana had weapons of mass destruction.

movie photo meme

(filched from hthottie...)

Think of your favorite underrated film, type the name into Google and do an image search. Find the best pic and then post it in your journal, but don't say what the name of the movie is! Once you post the picture, it's up to your friends to figure out what the movie is from the pic you posted. No cheating by looking at the image filename! Responses are screened so that everyone can play. :)

Anger Management Music...

Boss: Something wrong?

Me: Oh, nothing a good dose of Stravinsky wouldn't cure...

you know, I put the segments of Rite of Spring on "random", and it still makes sense to me...

well, that's one way to look at it

"That aside, the big news for this week is the discovery of two brand new gaps in the fossil record." :)

(Matt @ pooflingers anonymous)

Ok, they've sent their clarifications, and are still sounding like idiots...

but not quite the same type of idiots..McGill challenges denial of funding for evolution research:

"I just want to underline that it is not correct to suggest that the funding proposal was not accepted because the council or the committee had doubts about evolution," [Schacherl, spokesperson for the SSHRC] said.

"We understand the way the committee's comments were transcribed or written down or summarized could have misled him and we really regret that the note sent to him gave the impression that the committee had doubts about evolution. That was really not what the committee intended."

I'm sorry if your people can't write English, but "Nor did the committee consider that there was adequate justification for the assumption in the proposal that the theory of Evolution, and not Intelligent Design theory, was correct." is still what was written and no amount of clarifications is quite going to erase that.

Now, if you had clarified what you meant by assumption, as in if you meant that assumption from a social sciences perspective (where in America, supposedly 50% of the population doesn't accept evolution through natural selection as the means by which the current (and many past) species exist on this planet), then perhaps you are right in simply pointing out (politely, perhaps) that 50% of the population are a bunch of idiots and one can't assume that they accept as true what you [Alters] assert to be scientificly factual.

In other words, from a social sciences point of view, you can't look at "evolution is an accepted fact" as a constant, as a control, for basing a scientific experiment around ID.

In this, they are perhaps correct. If that is what they meant.

Although I had thought the Canadian population as a whole was better than that.  And thought better of themselves, too...