My country ’tis of thee, sweet land of liberty

Tsk, tsk TSA. Shame shame, know your name. Sweet bastards of assholiness. This is what the TSA finds reasonable, strip searching a little boy.


Via The Daily

Sunday School: Noah’s Ark Videos

I visited Phil Ferguson’s Skeptic Money blog this morning and he had two separate posts of videos about Noah’s Ark. One is from Richard Dawkins and the other is from comedian Joe Rogan.

I strongly recommend watching both.

In the Rogan video, a member of the audience heard his bit about Noah’s Ark sounding ridiculous to a mentally challenged kid. The audience member approached Rogan after the show explaining he is an archeologist of some kind and telling him he has proof of Noah’s Ark.

But he doesn’t really have proof.

But he says he has proof.

He’s not going to tell you he has proof.

But he has proof.

He wants to show you the proof.

Listening to the guy will make your head spin.

Stick around to the end when Rogan goes into more detail about what it could be. The video is not safe for work, by the way.

In the Dawkins video, ol’ Dick Dawkins spells out animal distribution across the planet and gives detailed rationale why 40% of Americans who claim the bible is 100% true are so full of malarkey it’s frightening.

I highly doubt my religious readers will watch either video, but I can always hope, right?

Thanks, Phil!

Comment of the Day (Yesterday)

The Scooby-Doo detectives cross paths with Spe...
Image via Wikipedia

Yesterday, I received a comment from a woman named “chelseamarie” on my reblog post titled “My son is gay (via Nerdy Apple Bottom).” I gave the woman a chance to explain herself, but she hasn’t returned to comment at the time of this post.

If you read the link above, you’d know that this boy’s mother decided that she wouldn’t encourage potentially gay behavior, but she wouldn’t discourage it either. For Halloween, her son decided to dress up as Daphne from Scooby Doo. After much thought, she allowed her son to be who he wanted to be.

The mother laid out the facts of the situation, and it was reasonable and well thought out. This mother decided unconditional love for her son doesn’t come with conditions. He could choose to be Daphne, Velma, Freddie, Shaggy or Scooby. There’s no harm in it. Individuality shouldn’t be stifled. I couldn’t agree more.

Chelseamarie appreciated the post, and wrote that she too would love her son unconditionally. Chelseamarie wrote:

The only think [sic] I liked from that post is the unconditional love she has for his son. Which I would have too if it happens to me, however I am not the one who is going to give him the option.

Wait, what?

Unconditional love with a condition ceases to be unconditional love. You get that right? Why doesn’t Chelseamarie get that? If you’re not going to give an option to let a child be who they want to be, that’s conditional love.

Own up. Be who you are and don’t use terms like “unconditional love” if you don’t plan on giving love without conditions.

It’s simple, really.

Chelseamarie gave no indication that she is religious, but I’m assuming she is. Who else can hold two opposing thoughts in her head at one time and have no problem with it?

If you believe your deity is three, let it be three. Don’t say three are one, and criticize me for furrowing my brow while you repeat yourself.

If your deity has conditions to his/her/its love, don’t say, “My deity loves unconditionally.” Say, “My deity has conditions to the extent of his/her/its love.”

Don’t say, “My deity is everywhere at the same time.” I don’t see him. I can’t use devices that detect the unseen. There aren’t math equations that render him/her/it visible.

And don’t say, “I love my kids unconditionally” and in the next breath give a condition.

Be honest. That’s all I’m asking for.