Ah, the Double Standard

From a letter to the editor about the 'theory' of of Evolution:

Is this fact, fiction, or scientific conjecture? If it is fact, who was there when this occurred? Perhaps a reporter could make an interview.

Does the public prefer to be lied to on these matters rather than be confronted with the truth that it is theory and not fact.

Well, I would like to see this person's indisputable evidence that there is a Creator. Ah, but to accept IDC one is allowed to use a certain degree of faith to fill in the gaps. I see how their game works.

Another Puzzle Piece

Seattle Post Intelligencer:

Writing in the journal Nature, researchers from Ohio and Harvard universities report that rather than reptilian lungs, dinosaurs sported a much bigger and more complex system of air sacs similar to that found in today's birds.

...

The exact function of the skeletal modifications is not understood, but scientists think the gaps in the bones evolved to lighten bone structure, allowing dinosaurs to walk upright and made it easier for birds to fly

Booyah!

The Clogosphere

Finally, bloggers are getting the recognition we deserve.

The Best Page in the Universe:

If these words were people, I would embrace their genocide.

Blogger: Term used to describe anyone with enough time or narcissism to document every tedious bit of minutia filling their uneventful lives. Possibly the most annoying thing about bloggers is the sense of self-importance they get after even the most modest of publicity. Sometimes it takes as little as a referral on a more popular blogger's website to set the lesser blogger's ego into orbit.

...

Blogging: If minds had anuses, blogging would be what your mind would do when it had to take a dump.

...

In observation of all these shitty phrases and acronyms, I've decided to coin another phrase that can be used for "blog" called: comment-log or CLOG for short. What users do is labor over documenting their inconsequential lives, trivializing man's greatest invention, the microprocessor, until the Internet is so CLOGGED that commerce comes to a screeching halt. Anyone contributing to the congestion would be known as a CLOGGER. I hate blogs.

Goddamn, that man cracks me up.

You're either with it or you're against it

I've always felt that the rape/incest exemption adopted by anti-choicers burns a hole their arguments and is, above all, a telltale sign of their true intentions: They are not concerned with the right to life and protection of 32cell embryos, they are merely trying to maintain pregnancy as punishment.

Beyond the frailty of their argument, there are severe logistical problems with trying to uphold a law that outlaws abortion except in certain cases. Here is an excellent discussion on the topic by Dadahead (posted at The liberal Avenger). Just a taste:

Those who hold this position should be asked one important question: how, exactly, would you discriminate between those pregnancies which are, and those which aren't, the result of rape? That is, how would the state go about determining which cases are legitimate exceptions?

None of the options seem plausible. One possibility is to simply ask each woman how she got pregnant. If she says it was because of a sexual assault, then she's allowed to abort; if not, then she can't. For obvious reasons, this is not a very good policy; an abortion ban under these circumstances would be utterly toothless, requiring only that a woman say she was raped. While this would be an odious indignity to impose upon women, it wouldn't do much to prevent the abortions it was supposed to. Years ago, the state of Pennsylvania would pay for abortions if they resulted from rape, requiring only that the woman claim that she had been raped. This apparently resulted in a 'wink-wink' kind of practice among clinic workers who knew that an affirmative answer to the rape question was necessary to get state funding. There's no reason not to expect that this phenomenon would become even more common if the rape claim was necessary not only for funding but to procure the abortion itself.

And speaking of feeble arguments, here is a perfect example of how anti-choicers don't base their opinions on logic and reason and in fact don't really think their arguments through. Watch the video on Goddess Musings (via feministe).

Call the FDA

Feminists want to supersize you.

[Mark] Klein's basic argument is that Heinz is a company going nowhere. Like other food companies, it's in a bind over what he says is an epidemic of obesity and diabetes, diseases more Americans are inflicted with because their moms aren't home to prepare and serve home-cooked meals.

There is an ill-health epidemic and both parents are responsible for keeping their children well-nourished. But no excuses, adults shouldn't be relying on their mommies to cook for them. Doesn't Klein know how to operate a stove? (By the way, both my parents worked full time and both my parents helped cook dinner every night. I don't think the decline in healthy eating is a by-product of 'feminist careerism'.) Doesn't matter, he's headed for higher ground:

Klein says he's considering entering the Republican presidential primaries in 20 08 because "the collapse of the American family is such a catastrophe that we in this country need new leadership, and I'm prepared to do that."

Hilarious. Watch out Femerica, Klein's gonna lay the old fashioned smack down on y'all.