Pharyngula

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 12:56 AM

Mattir:

Obnoxious entitled parents deserve your wrath, but watch for signs of embarrassed shushing so that you don't vent wrath on people who are already dealing with way too much aggravation.

Amazingly enough, most of us are perfectly aware of when a parent is dealing with a child and when they aren't. There's a pretty big difference between a parent who lets a child scream their ass off in a restaurant or a store and doesn't have the slightest intention of doing anything about it and a parent who promptly takes that child to a restroom, lounge or outside until they settle down.

A couple of weeks ago, we went out to eat and sure enough, we were seated by a large group with a young child. Child starts screaming its ass off. What does daddy do? Nothing. What does mommy do? Nothing. After several minutes of non-stop screaming, guess who did do something? Granddad. It would be nice if more parents exhibited a clue and a willingness to use a clue by four if so needed.

Posted by: llewelly | August 4, 2010 12:57 AM

Left Behind, The Musical.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 12:58 AM

When Babylon the whore gets fried...

Yeah, that's a real toe-tapper.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 1:03 AM

Gyeong Hwa:

I find something fundamentally wrong with the name of this snack.

Perhaps they should have just gone with Soylent Green.

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 4, 2010 1:07 AM

I thought a baby monitor was a small display device.

No, it is the modern-day Skinner Box. Perfectly contrived to condition both parents and children into horrible, unbearable behavior.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 4, 2010 1:08 AM

"The damned thread", I like that.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | August 4, 2010 1:14 AM

I think kids just shouldn't be allowed on airplanes at all until they're at least five.

Or, at least, can communicate other than by bawling, and can understand an explanation that the discomfort they are currently feeling will subside soon. I don't mind it so much on a regular flight, but on a redeye where pretty well everyone is trying to sleep, it's a real PITA.

Posted by: Shplane, some shit in french | August 4, 2010 1:22 AM

The Bible

You guys might like this.

Posted by: Givesgoodemail | August 4, 2010 1:26 AM

Enough music.

How about parodied insanity?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 1:36 AM

blf:

The Pffft! of All Knowledge reports there's been a diplomatic protest about it.

The protest was filed despite Foreign Secretary Domingo Siazon's initial reluctance on the matter. Siazon had reportedly said "he saw nothing wrong with the use of 'Filipinos' as a brand name, noting Austrians do not complain that small sausages are called 'Vienna sausages.'"

Hmmmmmmm.

Posted by: Noddin | August 4, 2010 1:46 AM

OK. Hello everyone. I am new to this thread. What is the purpose? I would like to join.

Posted by: Factician | August 4, 2010 1:48 AM

Comment #8. Rules about children flying shouldn't centre on age. My 4 1/2 year old has flown considerably more than most adults. And, he behaves better than the vast majority of adults on airplanes (and in restaurants, for that matter). Rules should focus on behaviour, not on age, race, colour or creed.

I guarantee my son will be the best behaved human on any plane you care to put him on.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 2:03 AM

Zeno:

I was certain he was saying "prophecide."

I love the way you think, Zeno.

Posted by: Tim D. | August 4, 2010 2:10 AM

At least Satan has rock and roll. Fuck this tripe.

Posted by: hznfrst | August 4, 2010 2:19 AM

You mean this *isn't* a pwn??

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 2:23 AM

Autumn:

Those without children will think, "I must stop this, or find an authority figure to stop it."

Not me.

Posted by: Factician | August 4, 2010 2:30 AM

#28: Third option: Those of us with children will think, "What the hell does yelling at a child accomplish? You're just teaching that kid that yelling is an acceptable behavior." You can discipline a small child in millions of ways that don't involve yelling or corporal punishment.

Understanding how to raise children is like understanding genetics or understanding economics. You get what you select for. If you give kids what they want when they freak out, they'll freak out. If you show them that yelling is a way to get what you want, they'll yell. You can train a kid out of tantrums by removing them from any social situation when they have a tantrum. If they're at home, put them in their room until they're done. If they're in a store, take them to a car. Do this with 100% consistency, and they will essentially stop having tantrums. Not in the car, not in the restaurant, not on the plane. We deal with about 1 tantrum a month. Not a big deal.

If you see a kid behaving badly in public, the only person to blame is the parent.

Posted by: Andyo | August 4, 2010 2:36 AM

My experience has been that parents who scream or get a little physical with children have the worst behaved brats. Their technique obviously doesn't work, and it's probably what makes the kids worse.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | August 4, 2010 2:51 AM

Ow.

That man has excellent abilities as an editor. And as a rhymer.

And what an upbeat little ditty.

It's prophesied, it's prophesied,
My last brain cell, it just got fried.
But it will go to Parasied.
I know because it's prophesied.

Posted by: otrame | August 4, 2010 2:55 AM

Coming into the discussion of crying kids late and I realize I may be copying what others have said but FWIW a crying baby is twanging every protective instinct you have and since it sounds like most of you complaining do not have kids of your own you don't realize how the little darling is pushing buttons you didn't know you have. The younger the child the worse it is. A sound of similar decibels that did not resemble a crying baby would have you snoring in minutes.

Babies cry for a lot of reasons but they are ALWAYS distressed. That said, most parents know you do not always automatically "do something" every time a baby makes a peep. Air travel should be avoided if the kid has the slightest bit of a cold. If an airline host can't tell a parent that giving the kid something to swallow will help the ear issue then said host needs to be fired. HOWEVER, sometimes they are going to cry and you sitting there thinking "do something" is just fine, but what the fuck do you suggest? I hear smothering them works pretty well but some people would object. I mean, I've been on flights with screaming kids and frantic parents so upset that they can't calm the baby and getting homicidal glares from hostile seat mates and if you think the kid can't pick up on all that stress you know nothing about kids. If it is bothering you so much, how about trying to help by trying to distract the kid. Talk to him/her pleasantly, ignoring the crying, commiserate with mom/dad/whoever. Help calm the atmosphere. It makes a HUGE difference. Sleeping baby within minutes. It works.

As for hysterical toddler tantrums in public my view was always: in a restaurant you get them out immediately. In places like a grocery store you ignore them for up to 10 minutes, then get them out. If they are in a tantrum because they are over tired get them out immediately, taken them home, and berate yourself for stimulating them like that when you knew they were too tired.

The reason I ignore a tantrum for as long as I think people around me can stand it is the little darling needs to learn that such behavior gets them NOTHING, not even negative attention. My kids each threw a wobbler in public twice in their lives and then never did it again because it was very tiring and it got them NOTHING, not even anger from me.

So that us my two cents worth. And a bargain at that price, too.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | August 4, 2010 2:59 AM

The four horsemen are already here. Their names are Chris Cohan, Robert Rowell, Larry Riley and Don Nelson.

Not many will understand what I'm talking about, but a few of you will definitely get it.

I'm hoping our long, National Nightmare is over. Or at least the Norcal one.

It's prophecide. I like it.

Aisle 7, right next to the herbicide.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 3:18 AM

Otrame:

Coming into the discussion of crying kids late and I realize I may be copying what others have said but FWIW a crying baby is twanging every protective instinct you have and since it sounds like most of you complaining do not have kids of your own you don't realize how the little darling is pushing buttons you didn't know you have. The younger the child the worse it is. A sound of similar decibels that did not resemble a crying baby would have you snoring in minutes.

You could not possibly be more wrong. Or more condescending. A crying baby does not twang a protective instinct in me. It twangs an immediate "Please, shut that the fuck up".

I do not find babies darling or cute, whether they are noisy or not. As for a sound with comparable decibels having me snoozing? Wrong. I don't care for any type of loud noise and I cannot sleep unless there is silence.

I'm watching my rat, Bruce, run around my studio as I type this. I do have protective type feelings for my rat; how would you feel if I told you "I'm going to let my rat loose, and if he starts running around and climbing on you and you don't like it, it's just the little darling pushing your protective instincts. You don't have rats, so it's likely you're unaware that you have protective instincts towards rats. Really, you do love rats, listen to him squeaking in distress and you know you want to take care of him!

FFS, way to be an idiot, Otrame.

Posted by: Zeno | August 4, 2010 3:22 AM

So, it was Pres. Obama who started a war he can't win, eh?

No, Caine, it's a prediction. William Tapley is actually crazy enough to believe that Pres. Obama will deliberately launch World War III (probably in October) in hopes of preventing a Republican takeover of Congress. Makes sense, right?

Posted by: dactylifera | August 4, 2010 3:35 AM

Re: The children on aeroplanes thing (and mindful that this whole children in public spaces has just been done to death on Feministe with some nasty racist overtones to boot).

I just wanted to point out that by keeping children of aeroplanes,one is also keeping their mothers (usually) off aeroplanes. I am not saying that a mothers right to holiday, visit family, travel to a job interview, travel to a Global atheist conference etc. should necessarily trump your right not to be annoyed/distressed/triggered/injured etc. by the crying, I just feel that I need to say that this policy disproportionately affects women (esp when talking about breastfeeding infants) and poorer people (who may not be able to afford babysitters, car hire etc).

Also, as I consider children to be an oppressed class (and again aware this is out of step with majority opinion and not saything that they are as oppressed AS group X or in exactly the same way as Group X). Therefore I find statements such as "I hate children" upsetting, even though I am sure they are not intended in that fashion.

Finally, lest someone make a "if people choose to have children..." arguement, ever notice how in threads about abortion etc. it is rightly pointed out that pregnancy is not always chosen and that abortion can be hard to access (particularly by the poor), but in threads about snotty child in public, parenthood is ALWAYS a choice?

(Disclosure: I have flown twice with my baby. Didn't want to. MIL emotionally blackmailed me. On the way there she slept the whole way, on the way back she cried for a humiliating six and a half minutes while landing. I did what I could.)

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 4, 2010 3:39 AM

Remember when I warned everyone about the terrorist monkeys being trained by the Taliban? And it turned out that one shouldn't automatically trust the Chinese state media?

Well, a much more reliable source, Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-TX), has found something even worse: al Qaeda is training terrorist babies!

"Your theory is that we're not only home growing terrorists," said the host, Eric Bolling, "we're actually experiencing situations where dangerous countries al Qaeda will send a pregnant woman over here, have a baby, and then start to train these babies to be terrorists, is that right?"

"Well, Eric, it's not just a theory. It first came to my attention [when] some of us were traveling to the Middle East last August, a year ago. And a lady on the plane was telling one of our group that they were about to have their second granddaughter," Gohmert said. "Her son-in-law was with Hamas. And [she said] that they were going to do with the second as they did with the first grandchild. Daughter is going to come to America right before it's born on a tourist visa. Have the baby. They just like the option of having American citizens in the family."

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 3:50 AM

SteveV:

WTF do fathers views have to do with a woman's decision to terminate or not to terminate a pregnancy? It's her body, her decision. Any views the father may have should be kept to himself. Surely it's for the woman to decide if his views are at all relevant and if she really wants to know his opinion she can ask.

I do think a potential father's view should be taken into consideration, at least if the relationship which resulted in pregnancy is a serious one.

That said, I'm a huge believer in talking about this long before you hit the sheets. (Or floor, table, whatever). Yes, it is most definitely the woman's choice, full stop.

A fave tactic of the religious right and other anti-abortion people is bringing up "daddy" though - what about "daddy"? What about his rights? They then use that line to reason that if women weren't such sluts, givin' it up for free to whoever, then this wouldn't be a problem, ya know? That's when the biblical flavour really comes out - it should be up to the man and women should be good little subservient non-beings. You have a uterus and that's the only part of you that should operate freely!

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 4:07 AM

dactylifera:

but in threads about snotty child in public, parenthood is ALWAYS a choice?

Oh? Where did I or anyone else say that? More to the point, what the hell does it have to do with people who are parents without a clue?

Personally, I've found people who have had a good education and a good income to be the most clueless about parenting, as in oh, little junior the third whatever, we don't like to repress his/her instincts, you know, so we just let him express him/herself. Even when that expression is behaving like an out of control monster.

Therefore I find statements such as "I hate children" upsetting, even though I am sure they are not intended in that fashion.

Well, you'd be wrong. In my case, I'm not around children enough to say I hate them; I certainly do not like them. At all. I don't care if you (or anyone else) has what you might think is the perfect, most well-behaved kid on the planet. I do not like them.

Like Florence King, I didn't like kids when I was one. You might not like hearing that, however, if more parents were aware that no matter how much they like their kid, other people don't, perhaps they'd pay more attention to the things their children do in public.

Back when I used to bother chatting with parents as a childfree person, one interesting thing always came to light. Most parents don't like other people's children. They like *theirs*. That's only natural. Parents get just as upset over a lot of behaviours on the parts of parents and children as childfree people do.

No one likes an inconsiderate person, whether that person is an inconsiderate smoker, an inconsiderate dog owner, etc. I am tired of everyone being free to complain about inconsiderate people of all stripes, but leave parents alone! Fuck that noise.

Posted by: John Morales | August 4, 2010 4:12 AM

Rorschach @48, I watched the Condell video to which you linked.

I have no issue with it; I quite like Condell.

Yeah, he's not being particularly precise ("atheists blah" and "I'm an atheist"), and he does seem a touch paranoid regarding Islam, but other than that — no.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 4, 2010 4:15 AM

I do think a potential father's view should be taken into consideration, at least if the relationship which resulted in pregnancy is a serious one.

Posted by: SheepdogB | August 4, 2010 4:25 AM

@Givesgoodemail #19

Thanks for that link-I went to the Christwire site, fool that I am.

O.K., that gets filed in the folder with the Haitian voodoo-worship causing the earthquake stuff.

Kind of reminds me of when I was in college back in the late 1960s-early 1970s. We used to come up with things like that. Of course, we took a lot of hallucinogens beck then, too.

But, then again, religion is a hallucinogen. No ingested or smoked chemicals needed.

Impressive.

Posted by: Andyo | August 4, 2010 4:38 AM

oy, yeah, spammer all right. No banhammer though?

Posted by: Emmet, OM | August 4, 2010 4:47 AM

… keeping children of aeroplanes… disproportionately affects women

Nobody (I hope) is suggesting keeping all children entirely off 'planes. I've no problem whatsoever with an, otherwise quiet, small child who screams his/her fucking head off for the entire ascent/descent — I find it damn uncomfortable too and I don't blame the kid for expressing that the only way s/he knows how — but <RANT>allowing babies who might bawl for six solid hours (or, more accurately, who bawl for a few minutes every 20 minutes or so for six hours) on redeyes leaves 150 or so other people (on a packed A320) bleary-eyed and pissed-off at the destination. It's entirely foreseeable that such a small child would react that way, given the discomfort of the experience and the late hour. It's grossly selfish on the part of the parents, and greedy on the part of the airline, both of whom should've had a little more consideration for the other people on the flight.</RANT>

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 4:51 AM

Andyo:

No banhammer though?

No. Givesgood has been blogwhoring here for ages; has never actually commented that I know about. Most people have him/her killfiled.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 5:00 AM

Deviant One:

as long as they don't behave like assholes towards kids (which, unsurprisingly, very, very few of them ever actually do (act like assholes), they tend to try to IGNORE said kids).

You get love and a cookie for that. Thank you so much for getting it. Thank you, thank you.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 5:02 AM

Andyo, oh snorers. Yeah, I have a problem with snorers. I'm married to one. There have been times I've contemplated activities with an axe...

Posted by: dactylifera | August 4, 2010 5:06 AM

@55 Caine, Fleur du mal OM

I did not mean to imply that anyone had said that, just that the "if people choose to have children then they should accept the consequences" type arguements come up a lot in discussions like this in my experience. I apologise.

Re the hating thing, if I understand you correctly then you have misunderstood me as I should have been clearer on precisely what I meant. Again I apologise. I did not mean to tell you or anyone else what they intended.
I take it in the "I hate oppressed group X" way, which I personally find distressing. All I meant was that I don't think that someone who hates children hates them in the same way that someone who says "I hate People of colour/ people with disabilities/ homosexual people" hate those people.
How I take it is my problem not yours.

Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas | August 4, 2010 5:07 AM

A fave tactic of the religious right and other anti-abortion people is bringing up "daddy" though - what about "daddy"? What about his rights? They then use that line to reason that if women weren't such sluts, givin' it up for free to whoever, then this wouldn't be a problem, ya know? That's when the biblical flavour really comes out - it should be up to the man and women should be good little subservient non-beings. You have a uterus and that's the only part of you that should operate freely!

This one has allways been a hard one for me. While I've felt for a long time that I should also be in control of my reprodution, there is just no sensible way to do so ('cept for condoms and abstinence).

So thankfully I've learned to accept that I've abandoned any rights to any sperm that leave my body. It's the only sensible view.

Posted by: dactylifera | August 4, 2010 5:14 AM

@ Emmett #65

Nobody (I hope) is suggesting keeping all children entirely off 'planes.

I took Rey Fox's comment at #8 that way. I admit I could be mistaken/mislead as to her/his tone there.

Re the rest. Assuming that the red eye is not noticably cheaper than other flights (or that the parent and baby can afford the expense if it is) and provided that it is not an emergency, I do agree the polite thing to do is to consider the needs of other travellers as much as possible.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 5:21 AM

Thebear:

This one has allways been a hard one for me. While I've felt for a long time that I should also be in control of my reprodution, there is just no sensible way to do so ('cept for condoms and abstinence).

So thankfully I've learned to accept that I've abandoned any rights to any sperm that leave my body. It's the only sensible view.

I understand that can be difficult for a man. It is problematic, for a man to control his fertility, outside of going all juice, no seeds. ;)

It's also difficult if you're not comfortable with abortion. Once more, this is one of the main reasons I think a possible pregnancy really needs to be discussed before you get to sex. Of course, if neither person is looking for a relationship and it's a one off or something, then you don't need to do that in particular. Even so, it always pays to be careful.

Until there is reliable male contraception (outside vasectomy), all you can do is the best you can, with what you have at your disposal. That does mean condoms if you're having sex with someone you don't know well.

Posted by: Deviant One | August 4, 2010 5:29 AM

Thebear:

This one has allways been a hard one for me. While I've felt for a long time that I should also be in control of my reprodution, there is just no sensible way to do so ('cept for condoms and abstinence).

So thankfully I've learned to accept that I've abandoned any rights to any sperm that leave my body. It's the only sensible view.

Actually, there's been some really promising news on a male contraceptive pill from India:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/7857262/Scientists-invent-first-male-contraceptive-pill.html
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3543478/

This makes me very, very happy. This is great, I can't wait for it to become widely available.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | August 4, 2010 5:36 AM

Re: #76 & #77,

Yep, combining the two, I think the airlines could, at least, offer tickets on non-redeye flights at the same price (if/when there's a differential) to those traveling with babies and/or toddlers. I doubt they'd even notice it in their bottom-line, and it'd make things more comfortable for everyone. Not a complete solution, perhaps (owing to emergencies and what have you), but it'd certainly ameliorate the problem.

Having babies on redeyes is a bad idea as much because the parents are up past their normal bed-times as the kids; the parents are inclined to be less patient, more easily frustrated, and under more pressure (because the bawling is keeping everyone on the 'plane awake), which makes them less well able to comfort the distressed, tired, and cranky baby.

Posted by: dactylifera | August 4, 2010 5:42 AM

#80

That's a fair point. I took Emmetts comment as meaning that he/she did not think that anyone was proposing a blanket ban on children (but rather suggesting more considerate behaviour/flight selection) rather than no one was proposing a blanket ban on all ages of children. But your reading could well be the correct one. My apologies, Emmett.

However, I am not sure I find five years of excluding children as a class from planes for five years any more than what? 15?

I really apologise for offending you, Caine. (really)

Posted by: dactylifera | August 4, 2010 5:58 AM

#86 John Morales :)

I am familiar with and generally admire Caine's work. I have been (largely) lurking a while. Perhaps I am misreading the situation as I am involved with it, or perhaps my socialisation to avoid conflict is overriding my objectivity.

My sister is a woman who does not want children/ like them very much and I do try to be sensitive to such women as she has often expressed how frustrating she finds the expectations placed on her. I am distressed that I seem to have failed so badly here.

I hope you are right and that Caine is not bothered with me.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 6:04 AM

@my 88:

Seems like an entire part of my post got eaten - a ban on babies on planes. Would you leave the children at their old home when their parents move across country or across the sea? My sister and I would have been left in Missouri when my dad was moved to Germany (my sister was 2, I was 4)

Posted by: MrFire | August 4, 2010 6:29 AM

Caine:

I'm not around children enough to say I hate them; I certainly do not like them. At all.

Oh c'mon...it seems like just yesterday we were discussing the joys of listening to baby skin crackle in the oven. You're saying you don't find them tasty anymore?

Posted by: Emmet, OM | August 4, 2010 6:43 AM

Nah, use one of these.

… and, as an added bonus, the airline gets the checked luggage fee.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 4, 2010 6:56 AM

This is whole talk babies reminded me of a FSTDT quote. A guy named Dan runs a blog called Debunking Atheists and takes the joke of atheists-eating-babies far too seriously. He then writes a long, vivid hypothetical of an atheist kidnapping a 5 year old, agonizing over whether to eat the child and then coming to doing it regularly.

To him, this story says a lot about atheists. To everyone else, it says a lot about Dan.

Posted by: Bernard Bumner | August 4, 2010 7:15 AM

Without in any way trivialising the situation or excusing bad practices, this looks like qualified not too bad news.

Or else, it could be wishful thinking and bias. I think that it will probably take a long time to assess the damage caused by this spill, and the Telegraph glibly pointing out that a mere three dolphin corpses were found is probably a sign that they don't really understand or care about the potential long term effects of the oil.

Perhaps the situation is better than was feared, perhaps not, perhaps it is too soon to tell.

Posted by: MosesZD | August 4, 2010 7:36 AM

Christians have been declaring "the end times" since the days of Paul. At one point many even believed they'd missed the rapture and Paul had to tell them "no."

I think the Rapture is the most-failed biblical event ever. Makes all the clowns who bought into Y2K look two-kids huddled in the corner.

Posted by: MosesZD | August 4, 2010 7:53 AM

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM | August 4, 2010 1:08 AM

Rey:

To pick up a topic from the previous iteration, I think kids just shouldn't be allowed on airplanes at all until they're at least five.

Outside of genuine emergency travel, I agree. It used to be that parents thought there were a lot of places their kids shouldn't go or be at until they were properly trained. Now, parents seem to think babies belong bloody everywhere.

I appreciate that it's difficult for a lot of parents to get out of the house sans kidlet; however, it's no joy for anyone else when your little bundle of happiness is making everyone else miserable.

You demand freedom and tolerance for yourself and the ability to self-act in many areas in which others wish to control you (like abortion rights, perhaps). Yet you're more than willing to drop the jack-boot of intolerance on people because babies cry?

Should parents be required to wear a yellow star? Get to the back of the bus? Can they even get on the bus?

How far does your intolerance of the human rights (including free, peaceable assembly) of others who have chosen to procreate and be members of society go? I'm kind of curious.

Ok, not really. I lie.

Because what I see is a self-important jerk who thinks the fucking universe revolves around them and whose avowed 'tolerance' is a load of bullshit. And I'm not really interested in that crap.

I do hope you out-grow it. Most, but not all, do; and they're always better, more tolerant persons, for having seen their feet-of-clay and unthinking self-importance that contributed to their intolerance.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 4, 2010 8:03 AM

I have had some unpleasant 6 hour flights on occasion. However, the unpleasantness can be overstated - it's only a few hours after all and even the presence of a crying baby or an outright loon is not going to last forever. Of course, I'm not a regular flyer* and I can see how this sort of thing could really grate if I was flying every week.

*Havn't been on an aircraft since last year when we went here for a long weekend
The flight time was 15mins.

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 4, 2010 8:10 AM

If there are no babies on planes, what the hell are we supposed to eat on the intercontinental flights to the double super secret atheist world domination meetings?

Posted by: MosesZD | August 4, 2010 8:12 AM

Posted by: Caine, Fleur du mal OM | August 4, 2010 3:50 AM

I do think a potential father's view should be taken into consideration, at least if the relationship which resulted in pregnancy is a serious one.

That said, I'm a huge believer in talking about this long before you hit the sheets. (Or floor, table, whatever). Yes, it is most definitely the woman's choice, full stop.

A fave tactic of the religious right and other anti-abortion people is bringing up "daddy" though - what about "daddy"? What about his rights? They then use that line to reason that if women weren't such sluts, givin' it up for free to whoever, then this wouldn't be a problem, ya know? That's when the biblical flavour really comes out - it should be up to the man and women should be good little subservient non-beings. You have a uterus and that's the only part of you that should operate freely!

I'm a parent. It's my fucking choice. And it's my choice to take my kids on planes when going cross country.

And, according to your logic: YOU CAN JUST SHUT THE FUCK UP, YOU HAVE NO SAY.

And yet, here you are engaging in power-fantasies in which you're telling people what they can do with their lives and their children.

See what I mean, hypocrite? See why I say you're intolerant. You're not a tolerant person even if you think you are.

You're not really a "liberal" in the sense that you believe in the ideals of liberalism and take them to where they should take you. Instead, you're just and ideologue and have far more in common with people like David Horowitz, then social liberals such as myself.

If you don't know who Horowitz was, he was an intolerant left-wing jack-ass back in the 1960's. Then, in the 1970's he became an intolerant right-wing jack-ass. The IDEOLOGY he expressed in his two incarnations is different. But the same jack-ass intolerance for the freedom of choice in the hands of others was just as present when he was on left, even as it is this way now that he's on the right.

In short: An intolerant ideologue is an intolerant ideologue. Whether on the left or the right. And both suffer the same defect of character.

Which you're amply displaying in your bigot-control-freak-power-fantazies against parents being able to function in society as free and equal memembers. Can you be more unaware?

Posted by: Emmet, OM | August 4, 2010 8:18 AM

Tell you what, I'd sleep better on redeye flights, any flight for that matter, if the 150 kg brute in the seat in front of me wouldn't recline his seat to the max 5 minutes after takeoff, and cause a major earthquake on my tray everytime he tries to move.

You leave your tray down when you're sleeping?

Posted by: NoYourGod | August 4, 2010 8:24 AM

PZ - showing that to us, ENTICING us to watch it, was just plain evil. Sure, you tried to coddle us with your comments, but putting that video out there was as sinful as a young lady showing her whorish ankles to a fine christian horndog.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 4, 2010 8:31 AM

For the Rev. BDC:

Comic

Posted by: Shala | August 4, 2010 8:36 AM

You could not possibly be more wrong. Or more condescending. A crying baby does not twang a protective instinct in me. It twangs an immediate "Please, shut that the fuck up".

In fact, during my developmental psychology class, I learned that's exactly the response a baby is looking for when it's crying. It's a way to grab someone's attention and go "hay guyz I won't stfu until you gimme stuff thnx".

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 4, 2010 8:45 AM

Anyone else notice how well the moniker "Bleedin' Ears Edition" fits the baby-on-board discussion, too?

Posted by: John Morales | August 4, 2010 8:59 AM

Carlie:

I'll offer it on behalf of all parents, because children are not trainable pets. They are actual people of their own, with their own thoughts and needs and desires and everything, just without the knowledge of how to always express that in a socially acceptable way.

On behalf of all pet owners everywhere, I tell you now that pets are actual "people" of their own, with their own thoughts and needs and desires and everything, just without the knowledge of how to always express that in a socially acceptable way.

And I tell you too that my dog was far, far better trained and behaved than any three-year-old terror I've ever come across.

So — you got any problems with taking pet dogs on aeroplanes?

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | August 4, 2010 9:05 AM

So — you got any problems with taking pet dogs on aeroplanes?

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 4, 2010 9:22 AM

Public transportation by definition means that you have to deal with the shittiness of others. Yes, the social contract means that it's up to each person to try to minimize their own amount of shittiness, and that public shaming is called for when they don't. However, it also means that you give those other people some amount of latitude when things go awry.

QFT

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | August 4, 2010 9:29 AM

Without in any way trivialising the situation or excusing bad practices, this looks like qualified not too bad news.

With the chemical dispersants, it's hard to tell from a fly-over whether or not there's any ecological damage. Most of the oil would've sunk to the bottom, coating the ocean floor with poisonous residue.

Two decades later, the Exxon Valdez spill is still a mess. Considering the BP spill is quite a bit worse, I would take the Telegraph report with an oil-tanker-sized grain of salt.

Posted by: Emmet, OM | August 4, 2010 9:39 AM

If the very idea of a child in an airplane annoys you to the extent of considering restricting whole families' civil rights…

Hyperbole much? My problem is just with babies (defined as “children too young to understand WTF is going on who can only communicate distress by crying“) on redeyes. On the whole, I've seldom had any problem with kids on flights, and have pulled silly faces, played “peek-a-boo”, etc. with nearby babies on 11+ hour transatlantic flights to shut them up (successfully).

It seems to me that if you're flying with a baby, it's most likely a pleasure flight where it doesn't matter a whole lot whether you're on that flight, the one earlier, or the one later. On the other hand, a lot of the people on a redeye are on it because they have to get to the destination before business hours to work at the destination. A real bawler can mean they have to function all day with no sleep. It would just be a whole lot better all around if parents with babies flew when their babies were not tired and cranky and more prone to cry, and the parents themselves were not tired and cranky, and less able to comfort him/her.

Sure, there are times when it's unavoidable, but it seems to me that, given the choice between a high risk of inconveniencing 150 people and a minor personal inconvenience, I'd take the latter every time. And, it's really not comparable to the obnoxious/smelly evangelist in the next seat, either, that affects one or two people only. Last redeye I was on with a bawler, s/he was probably 10 rows in front of me and it still kept me awake. Baby cries really are quite unique in their power to jar.

If I ran an airline, I'd offer incentives to parents to avoid redeyes, and personally, I'd certainly pay a bit extra (25%, maybe more if I thought about it) for a “guaranteed baby-free” redeye.

While I'm ranting, another thing that pisses me off on redeyes is cabin-crew who like the sound of their own voice over the PA so much that they make unnecessary announcements every 20 minutes (I really don't give a flying pun-intended fuck if we're at 35,000 feet or 37,000 feet, and if I did, there's a little screen right in front of me that'll tell me), but, for the most part, at least that doesn't have the earplug-piercing quality of a baby crying.

Maybe those noise-canceling headphones might be worth the exorbitant price after all.

Posted by: windy | August 4, 2010 9:39 AM

FWIW a crying baby is twanging every protective instinct you have... A sound of similar decibels that did not resemble a crying baby would have you snoring in minutes.

Not sure I buy this theory. A mosquito or a fly in your bedroom at night is pretty annoying although it's quieter than a baby and I doubt it invokes "protective instincts". But maybe you just have to have little dipterans of your own to understand?

Posted by: Andyo | August 4, 2010 9:43 AM

Oh, and general rule: when you're bestowing upon yourself your own title, it's important to go for grandiosity. Looks better on the business card...

Y'know: 'Wile E. Coyote, Genius'...

... aaand: 'William Tapley, Third Eagle of the Apocalypse

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 9:46 AM

@my 130:

No I don't take credit.

Mitch Hedberg did that joke (except his punchline was that he didn't work anywhere.)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 4, 2010 9:51 AM

I just watched the video. I'll be over in the corner curled in a fetal position for awhile, thanks.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | August 4, 2010 9:55 AM

I think I would print up a business card that says "Kevin Donnell, Potential Lunch Winner." You've seen those bowls with "Drop your business card in, win a free lunch" but I don't want who I work for to be in the hands of some random at the local Quiznos.

Hee hee... You could also just do an anonymous/deadeyed corporate/government lackey thing. Same sorta effect...

Y'know: generic title, could be anything: 'Kevin Donnell, Analyst, Department of Things'.

(/... granted, they might figure you're in intelligence or somethin', if they pick it. But hey, also good for a laugh.)

Posted by: Aaron Baker | August 4, 2010 10:12 AM

I guess, being a parent, I'm of two minds about babies on planes. Non-parents need to grasp that leaving the baby at home isn't always optional. (For this reason, I'd oppose any airline policy to bar them from flights.) Still, it can be ear-rending.

I remember bringing our adopted daughter home from Tennessee (not optional). The change in pressure as the plane descended for landing caused her and every other baby there to start wailing. I think the other adults with us that day were being understanding and reasonable about it all. If not, well, it was all over pretty quickly.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 4, 2010 10:14 AM

Two decades later, the Exxon Valdez spill is still a mess. Considering the BP spill is quite a bit worse, I would take the Telegraph report with an oil-tanker-sized grain of salt.

I agree. However, the Braer spill in 1993 was larger than the Exxon Valdez and didn't cause as many problems.
See here www.scotland.gov.uk/Uploads/Documents/AE17Braer.pdf

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 4, 2010 10:18 AM

Emmet @127:

Yeah, um, sorry for the hyperbole. Brain and fingers not running at the same speed.

Yes, booking yourself with the baby onto a flight other than redeye is only a minor inconvenience, but on those rare cases when you do not have a choice, having to stay home altogether would be quite a major one - unless there is someone at home who can stay with the baby, in which case you probably would have left the baby with them in the first place. Anyhow, I think a ban is way too harsh.

It goes without saying that whenever possible, redeyes should be avoided out of consideration - the same as avoiding rush hours when travelling with a baby & carriage in other forms of public transport. Also, it's much nicer for yourself w/baby as well - usually there's more room, the crew is more attentive and what's best, there are less grumpy business commuters complaining ;)

What you said about offering incentives makes perfect sense (had you not mentioned it, I would have done so myself). Airlines are businesses, and if offering a wider range of services is financially profitable, it is most likely to happen (once they are educated on what the consumers want).

The least they should do is have those headphones available free of charge to all passengers when there happens to be a wailer on board :)

Posted by: Q.E.D | August 4, 2010 10:30 AM

"So — you got any problems with taking pet dogs on aeroplanes?" - someone upthread

Yup. Lots. - Ringtailedlemurian"

Although childless, I have been a voice of tolerance for parents with screaming infants on planes. That said, my dog is smarter, cleaner, better behaved and more obedient than any child until the age of about 2.

So all you parent's out there, I hope you got my back when I want to take my dog on a plane or let her run around the park off the leash.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 4, 2010 10:37 AM

Q.E.D @145:

No prob with me, I luv them doggies. Alas, people with severe allergies have a veto on the flight issue.

I take that she being "better behaved and more obedient" means she doesn't attack kids without provocation? I want mine to be eaten by atheists, not canines.

Posted by: Brianblackberry | August 4, 2010 10:53 AM

Wow, I never seen someone so gleeful about the idea of massive death and destruction just so they can get some blissful reward, that is about as narcissistic as it gets.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | August 4, 2010 10:56 AM

I tend to either put my cards for my BizSpark company ("Siwoti Systems") or a Get Out Of Hell Free card into those fishbowls.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 4, 2010 11:05 AM

Regarding the children on airplanes:

I travelled with my kids when they were 7 and 4 by plane to Florida (yes, it was to Disney, why do you ask?). (((Girl))), age 4 at the time, was well behaved and quiet. (((Boy))) was a pita. Big time.

One of my favourite moments from an airplane trip (while heading for a fire (and yes, blf, I did see your question and will get to it in a moment (and happy Monday, everyone!))) involved a family with small children:

I was on my way to a forest fire in Oregon. The flight was on a Delta Embraear Regional Jet (comfortable, fast, and don’t take forever to load or unload) which left at 0600. The plane was almost full. The five seats behind and to my right were occupied by a family of five — Mom, Dad, and three little girls.

About an hour into our flight, the oldest of the three little girls (age about 6(?)) spoke up:

“Daddy. We’re missing church!” she said, loudly.

Dad answered, “I know, honey, but God understands.”

“But Daddy, we’re missing church!”

“I know, honey, but our airplane ride is today.”

“But Daddy, you said God hates people who don’t go to church!” she answered in a louder voice. (By this time, I was fighting a case of the giggles.)

Dad sighed and said, “He does, but we were at church last night, and Friday night, and Wednesday night, and Monday night. So God won’t be mad that we missed church today.” (Okay, why would someone go to church four or five times a week? I really do not understand.)

She persisted, getting louder and louder. “Daddy! You told me that only Sunday counts! God’s gonna punish us!”

Dad tried one more time: “God knows that we fear Him and love Him. He will forgive us this one day.”

“Okay, Daddy. But what if God makes the airplane crash?” (I could hear the sense of desperation in her voice.)

“He won’t.”

“But what if God blows up the airplane to punish us?”

“He won’t” (I heard a snigger from someone near the front of the plane.)

“But what if God . . . .”

“He won’t.”

“But what if God lets . . . .”

“He won’t.”

“But wha . . . .”

“He won’t!”

She finally got the hint and stopped talking. Then her little sister (about 4(?)) pipes up and asks, “Daddy, are we going to church today?”

Mom finally joined the conversation: “Honey, don’t. Daddy’s having a mood.”

The third one (in diapers) did not try to join in the conversation.

As we got off the airplane, the family paused at the end of the hall to await their gate-checked stroller. As they stood there, an older gentleman walked past and asked of the older girl, soto voce, “Are you going to church today?” and walked away.

Dad snarled, “Fucking asshole!”

So God loves this little girl. She fears Him and loves Him. Yet she is terrified that if she misses one day of Sunday church, He will kill everyone on the airplane (all 48 of us) just to punish her for missing church.

Apparently her God is a sociopath. And, if we didn't let little kids fly, I would have missed that delightful piece of Christian love, empathy, forgiveness and hilarity.

----------

blf:

(from a couple of threads ago (I was on vacation and then forgot my log-in name (which is not my screen name (here, anyway))) I'm not sure whether it is allowed to use salt water in water drops. I've looked around in my docs (keep in mind, I'm security, not air ops) and can't find any info. Next time I'm at a fire, I'll ask.

As to loading the water cistern via a high-speed skim, that would make sense. After all, the Pennsy had water troughs between the tracks which allowed their passenger trains to pick up water on the fly. They would pass over the trough at 45mph, lower a scoop, and fill a 10,000 gallon cistern in less than a minute while travelling over the 1/2 mile long trough. I guess it would work for aircraft, though the scoop design would be tricky.

I've seen helicopters taking on water via a siphon, but that's a little different.

------

Sorry for the long comment. It is good to be back (for me, anyway; not sure if anyone else is happy to see me (er, hear from me)).

Posted by: MrFire | August 4, 2010 11:05 AM

Thanks, kid! And thanks, parents, for not saying or doing anything! Your inconsideration is much appreciated!

How about the classic: the kid who decides to press a whole bunch of buttons on your elevator ride?

The parents who let their kids get away with that deserve to be half-in and half-out the elevator as it goes down.

Posted by: mbrauer | August 4, 2010 11:10 AM

"When the Man Comes Around" this ain't.

Posted by: Snikkers | August 4, 2010 11:14 AM

I smell a Grammy!

and as a final perfect fillip, subtitles in comic sans.

Surely the gomer was just being kind to those like myself with ears that don't work, praise jeebus.

Posted by: desertfroglet | August 4, 2010 11:16 AM

Moses ZD @ 101

Should parents be required to wear a yellow star? Get to the back of the bus? Can they even get on the bus?

Good grief, lad, get a sense of perspective. Someone expresses their opinion and your response is to go Godwin on them? Of course they shouldn't be made to wear a yellow star. A pink pacifier will do just fine.

Fuck me, you're an intolerant nitwit.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/a/SaqGVG0xvJEQVwURVamS3DTCdvov0BLhXK1jOsYPPJQ-#b4893 | August 4, 2010 11:18 AM

@Rey Fox, #8.

I'll never forget the year. It was late July, 1984, when I took a flight from Tokyo to San Francisco. A young mother, with her very small daughter, was seated across the aisle. I'd guess the child was about 2 or 2-1/2.

An 11 hour flight.

Poor kid had inner-ear problems, and howled with genuine pain the entire trip. No one within 3 rows of the pair slept a wink.

I really did feel sorry for them. And then it got even worse: They were then to proceed to Texas for their second leg. First time to America, and that poor mom looked completely frazzled, but they still had 5 hours to go.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | August 4, 2010 11:22 AM

My children are grown, both are married, and neither one screams on planes. I managed not to accidentally kill them with my bad parenting skills when they were children. Both are exceptionally intelligent and Dawkins-style atheists. Big win for me!

Posted by: Lynna, OM | August 4, 2010 11:27 AM

Mormon parents typically videotape their sons when the guys open their mission call letters. This one clearly shows that the parents are enthusiastic, but the kid can hardly stand the prospect of going on a mission.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VS77rYoxriY

Posted by: Ewan R | August 4, 2010 11:28 AM

I do have a rather pleasant kids on a plane story too - about 8 or so years ago I was making my biannual trip to the US from the UK (long distance relationships are the win) - changed flights multiple times (cheapest flights to the US always require multiple changes, and quite often send you in utterly the wrong direction first) and upon sitting down on the flight from Paris to Newark discovered that the woman I was sitting next to had a kid (probably 6? I dunno, poor judge of age) sitting 4 rows back. Kid looked in abject misery.

So, I do the right thing, and offer to switch seats with the kid (it's the right thing b/c the kid had 2 seats to herself - score)

20 minutes into the flight a little German voice pipes up next to me (Entschuldigung or somesuch - that's what I'd like to remember it as being as I vaguely recall that being excuse me from high school german - but I could be wrong) and said 6 year old is offering me sweets. Most awesome kid ever.

I can only assume that some sort of strict Germanic adherence to rules drove the mother to sit rows away from a kid with a spare seat next to her - I personally treat the seat number as a guideline rather than anything else - anything that makes the flight easier for whoever and I'll switch (and generally hope others will do the same for me - not a fan of asshats who won't switch so I can sit next to my wife when it is perfectly clear they have no attachment to the seat they're in other than that it takes 20 seconds to move)

Posted by: Dania | August 4, 2010 11:30 AM

Oh, but I have a story about annoying dogs and inconsiderate owners too.

Having my attempts at photographing those birds ruined by said kid, I eventually gave up and went for a swim in the sea. There was a dog bathing herself there and running along the beach. She was wearing a collar but I have no idea who the owner was. Now, this wasn't bothering me too much... until she decided to shit right there on the sand. Eww's were heard everywhere, but no one showed up to clean it. I don't know if the owner didn't see it or pretended not to see it, what I know is that after about 5 minutes of everyone around looking in disgust and doing nothing, it had to be me to pick up a plastic bag and solve the situation. Assholes.

Posted by: Epikt | August 4, 2010 11:33 AM

Rev. BigDumbChimp:

If there are no babies on planes, what the hell are we supposed to eat on the intercontinental flights to the double super secret atheist world domination meetings?

You're allowed to bring on board one piece of carrion.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | August 4, 2010 11:41 AM

Blasphemy consists in wantonly uttering or publishing words, casting contumelious reproach or profane ridicule upon God, Jesus Christ, the Holy Ghost, the Holy Scriptures or the Christian or any other religion.

We need Mark Twain's take on this law.

Posted by: https://me.yahoo.com/hairychris444#96384 | August 4, 2010 11:50 AM

Not a parent. A pretty confirmed child disliker but luckily not a regular flyer (and, fwiw, planes are different from other transport as you're trapped on it).

Grim public transport experience: Homeless guy with gangrenous leg. Interesting smell.

Posted by: Paul W., OM | August 4, 2010 11:53 AM

from The Southeast Missourian - Nov 18, 1936

---

NONVOCAL ATHEIST ATTENDS UNIVERSITY

Columbia---S. Woodson Canada, Missouri University registrar, has announced that a survey showed 459 students indicated no church preference, two declaring they were "agnostic," and one stating, "I am a non-vocal atheist."

Thirty-one religious groups claimed 3799 adherents, the Methodist Church ranking first with 951. Churches ranking next were the Christian, Baptist, Presbyterian and Catholic.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=N1cgAAAAIBAJ&sjid=09IEAAAAIBAJ&pg=5283,4739929&dq=vocal-atheist&hl=en
---

(h/t Stewart at Butterflies and Wheels.)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 4, 2010 11:57 AM

So all you parent's out there, I hope you got my back when I want to take my dog on a plane or let her run around the park off the leash.

Plane? Ok. Run around the park with no leash? Hell no, unless it's specifically a dog park. Nobody but nobody can predict their pet's behavior 100% of the time. And even if you can, and your dog will honestly never ever hurt anything, the kid who did have a dog run up to them and bite them and who will fall into hysterical panic when they see a dog run past won't appreciate that very much. And your dog might also get mauled by that much bigger dog over there who wasn't trained well and has a bit of a territory complex.

As they stood there, an older gentleman walked past and asked of the older girl, soto voce, “Are you going to church today?” and walked away.

I would totally have bought that guy a drink. Dad brought his child's neuroses entirely on himself.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | August 4, 2010 11:58 AM

We need Mark Twain's take on this law...

Heh. Funny you should mention. He came to mind to me, too...

Also, speaking of, I used that and your thing for a bloggy sort of outburst, just now. Just h/t, y'know... not gonna go linking directly, as people are a bit justifiably twitchy 'bout blogwhoring, I guess...

(/I am not a blog whore. A little blog promiscuous, at the very worst, I say... Or just a little too into the joy of blog, I guess.)

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | August 4, 2010 12:00 PM

This cartoon is funny, but scroll down; it gets even better.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 4, 2010 12:04 PM

Carlie:

If I had not been racing from one end of O'Hare to the other, I would have (except that it was really early in the morning, so the bars weren't open).

Minnie:

Eh, sticky is no big deal. Sugar comes out of clothing and it's not like I'm going to put the kid in my mouth (that sounds wrong; sorry). If they look like they have butterscotch pudding coming out of their pants, then the answer would not only be no, but would also include a request to change seats. Or be allowed to stand for the entire trip.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 4, 2010 12:05 PM

"English American (actually Welsh, Canadian but it's not like there's any real difference, right?"
Fixed?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 12:20 PM

I find it funny how many people seem to have terrible flights. The worst I ever had was one where a kid cried for about ten minutes after takeoff, and I fly a lot.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 4, 2010 12:32 PM

The worst flight I ever had was when I was going from the UK to Australia via LA and Auckland.

No crying kids, no smelly people. Just the fact the journey took 48 hours door to door. To make matters worse I arrived mid-morning local time and tried to stay awake all day. I made it until the evening when I fell asleep in a Vietnamese restaurant.

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 4, 2010 12:45 PM

Welsh actually has more vowels than English. 7 vowels and 28 letters. W and Y are vowels in Welsh.

Posted by: Q.E.D | August 4, 2010 12:52 PM

Run around the park with no leash? Hell no, unless it's specifically a dog park. Nobody but nobody can predict their pet's behavior 100% of the time.

How is it possible that in the US my trained and socialized Border Collie/Retirever is a serious threat to all and sundry but in the UK and France I can let her run in a public park every day with no issues to man, woman, child or beast? When did the standard for risk in teh US become 100% safety? A child getting into a car is at wildly higher risk of injury than when encountering a dog.

Interestingly, in London we have fenced in children's enclosures where dogs are not allowed and my dog can run around the other 790 Acres of Hampstead Heath.

And even if you can, and your dog will honestly never ever hurt anything, the kid who did have a dog run up to them and bite them and who will fall into hysterical panic when they see a dog run past won't appreciate that very much.

children who are affraid of dogs need to be helped to get over their fear. And as I said above, my dog and I are happy to help. Such a fear is debilitating and any responsible parent needs to help them get past the trauma. I see no reason why a hypothetical fearful child should limit my right to have a dog and excercise it properly.

And your dog might also get mauled by that much bigger dog over there who wasn't trained well and has a bit of a territory complex - Carlie

If I see a dog, or more likely, its owner that looks worrisome, I call my dog over and move on. Once, a passing dog tried to take a chunk out of her backside but we both got over it. The only dog I know who was seriously injured was in an eclosed "dog park" as you suggest above. The poor standard poodle could have outpaced the staffordshire bull terrier but was cornered against a fence.

My greater point is that dogs and children can co-exist hapily. The vast majority of children love dogs. We can share public facilities responsibly. By all means bring the hammer down on irresponsible dog owners but I really don't understand the desire to over-regulate dog ownership in the "Land of the Free."

Posted by: Dianne | August 4, 2010 12:59 PM

"English [American] (actually Welsh, [Canadian] but it's not like there's any real difference, right?"

Correct me if I'm wrong, but aren't England and Wales part of the same country (the UK)? The US and Canada are not and never have been the same country. Thus, I would claim that the nearer analogy to English/Welsh might be New York and Texas rather than US/Canada.

Posted by: Ewan R | August 4, 2010 1:03 PM

Dewiant one @196

WTF? Your "type"? What "type" would that be? People whose names start with E?

and continue with W... =)

To answer the question of "type" - white.

Apparently to some Rosa Parks wasn't quite about what the rest of us thought.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 4, 2010 1:07 PM

Son #1 once has his butt nipped by a Welsh Corgi (of all things!) and it took him a while to get over it. He wasn't so much afraid of dogs after it, more like just extremely apprehensive not to mention extremely insulted.

Friends' Great Danes cured him of that - exposure to something that big and extremely friendly did the job fairly quickly.

Having said that, I wouldn't go "curing" my kid or anybody else's if the child was really, really terrified of a dog, even though exposure seems to be an essential element in the treatment of many phobias. That I leave to professionals. ("Don't do this at home.")

Posted by: Matt "Nora" Penfold | August 4, 2010 1:10 PM

Welsh Corgi

No such thing!

All corgi's are Welsh, in that corgi's as a breed originated in Wales. However there are two breeds, the Cardigan and the Pembrokeshire.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 4, 2010 1:16 PM

I've been injured twice by Corgi's. The first time was when I was a paper boy and had a (small) chunk of my calf ripped out by a psychotic Corgi which lived in a yard bordering the alley I used as a shortcut. Five stitches.

The second time was when I stepped on a Corgi Spitfire. The tail of the metal plane went into my heel and I had to go to the hospital to get the paint chips out. I also broke the landing gear on the Corgi model.

----

Dianne:

I suspect that (average) American and (average) Canadian my be closer in mores and attitudes than (average) Texan or (average) New Yorker. Unless you are speaking of bacon.

Posted by: Q.E.D | August 4, 2010 1:18 PM

Four countries held together by apparently nothing but disdain for each other and a common history of chopping each others bits off when nobody was looking

still laughing and stealing that.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 4, 2010 1:24 PM

Obviously, I haven't yet learned NOT to double post. Sorry, everyone.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 1:31 PM

@Mattir:

You could break me in half, honestly. So no threat to your safety from myself :)

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | August 4, 2010 1:44 PM

I dunno but in my state it is a good idea to keep your dog on a leash, although few people do. If you saw that footage of a deer pounding a poor dog while the owner screams you know what I mean. Furthermore if your dog gets away and causes a traffic accident the owner of the dog is held liable for the damage and injury, on top of having to deal with the dog possibly being hurt or killed.

That being said, most people here don't pay attention to the laws. But that doesn't mean they don't suffer the consequences.

I always thought common sense would be enough for people to keep their dogs leashed but I guess not. And in other places it does seem to actually be less of a problem.

Some one in Germany once suggested that the dogs learn good behavior from each other though. That because they see other dogs not freaking out and barking at everyone then they act better themselves. Perhaps proper dog behavior just isn't socialized enough into US culture.

Where I live dogs are usually wandering around and semi-feral, and a lot of owners get off on their dog being "crazy" and "dangerous" as a sign of their own power. I can't assume that a dog I see is well behaved because too many aren't and I don't care to find out the hard way that it isn't.

See what I mean?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 1:48 PM

@Ben G:

Me too. Homeschooled from 8th Grade til 11th Grade, dual-enrolled in 12th grade, community college, then college.

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | August 4, 2010 1:51 PM

Oh... I can assure you lady. I'm not enjoying mine now already, how 'bout you let me give your kid some time outside so you can eat? No? Well then... I don't feel so very sorry for you now! Shit. That's just idiotic.

I love this! It frustrates me to no end that people will just let their children jump, shout, run, etc, all over the place and do nothing about the situation until they are done eating.

I have a little guy and our restaurant take has always been that fussing=outside. This is not just for the enjoyment of the other patrons. We aim to educate behaviour through exposure to different environments. If he is good, we stay, if he isn't, we leave, if he is tired, we don't even enter.

Clearly, if people wanted to hang around screaming, ill behaved children, they would be eating at the mad clown place.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 1:55 PM

@Rey Fox:

I'm pretty sure parents don't bring kids on flights for the hell of it.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 4, 2010 1:59 PM

Just for the record, I am not worried that Bill and Kevin are criminals. I thought Mr. M's concern was cluelessly sweet and rewarded him with mulefucker porno from Pharyngula.

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 2:02 PM

@Mattir:

I'm glad your husband is looking out for you :)

You'll see me and see I'm no more threatening than a poodle. I may be tall, but I'm a twig.

Posted by: Ewan R | August 4, 2010 2:11 PM

I'm now in a state of joy as I think I've just figured out how to use pivot tables and charts in Excel.

If I could just start automating these things, and making them pull from access this high may well last all week.

As it is it'll last until I realize that I don't actually know how to use pivots right - but that probably won't occur today.

I lead a varied and enriched existence.

Oh yes.

Posted by: Ewan R | August 4, 2010 2:15 PM

Kevin - until 10 minutes ago I thought Vlookup was the greatest thing ever.

How mistaken I was!

(although I think being able to use Vlookup probably does more for my job security than being able to use pivots, it amazes me what otherwise brilliant people are unwilling to learn)

Posted by: broboxley OT | August 4, 2010 2:23 PM

vbalbert #226 try this
http://www.google.com/search?q=depression+treatment+journal&ie=utf-8&oe=utf-8&aq=t&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&client=firefox-a

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | August 4, 2010 2:31 PM

(I'll just be sitting over here in the corner, under the dunce cap.)

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 2:40 PM

Ahh, I love IDiots. Ray Comfort's latest blog post he mentioned that evolution doesn't happen because the tadpole shrimp hasn't changed in 200 million years.

Living fossils exist, they don't change because nothing is making them change. If their living conditions are static, they won't need to change. The Wiki of living fossils has tadpole shrimp on the (rather large) list.

@cicely:

*hugs*

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 4, 2010 3:02 PM

Interestingly, in London we have fenced in children's enclosures where dogs are not allowed and my dog can run around the other 790 Acres of Hampstead Heath.

I'd be perfectly happy with separate but equal areas, but we tend not to have those here in the US. Instead, it's dogs bounding into the middle of a playground, frantic and overexcited by all the small squeeing two-legged creatures. In fact, I'd love if more playgrounds were fenced in; I had access to a single one that was fenced when my kids were little, and it was paradise to not have to worry that I would have to chase them down from the edge of the road every five minutes, as opposed to the situation at most parks.

children who are affraid of dogs need to be helped to get over their fear. And as I said above, my dog and I are happy to help. Such a fear is debilitating and any responsible parent needs to help them get past the trauma.

On their own terms, not yours. The sight of a dog coming up out of the blue running towards oneself, after having that exact situation result in a painful bite in the past, is something that should never be forced on a person.

I see no reason why a hypothetical fearful child should limit my right to have a dog and excercise it properly.

I could just as easily say that if you don't have the personal property required to properly exercise your dog or don't have the ability to keep up with the dog running on a leash, then you've chosen the wrong breed to own. Your desire to own a large dog that requires a lot of running space shouldn't supercede anyone else's ability to use a public space without being bitten/drooled on/sniffed by a large furry creature that they may be allergic to or paranoid about, or have to walk around the poop and pee they leave behind. Your dog may be the best behaved dog on the planet, but that makes it different than about 95% of owned dogs out there. I'd rather have the regulations set for the 95%.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | August 4, 2010 3:14 PM

(I blame the senility.)

*watery-eyed smile for Kevin*

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 3:18 PM

MosesZD:

Which you're amply displaying in your bigot-control-freak-power-fantazies against parents being able to function in society as free and equal memembers.

You have issues, Moses. I don't dream of murdering kids or locking up parents, however, there are a lot of parents who I'd love to give a clue by four too. If you're the sort of idiot who thinks it's good parenting or cute to allow your sprog to sprawl on a store floor screaming its lungs out, no, I'm not going to smile at you.

I'd most likely glare at you and leave the area before I got a headache. Yeah, that's real jackbootin' behaviour there. Idiot.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | August 4, 2010 3:25 PM

@218: Thanks for the link to the article by Hitchens. What great writing.

I have more than once in my time woken up feeling like death. But nothing prepared me for the early morning last June when I came to consciousness feeling as if I were actually shackled to my own corpse....

Posted by: prozim | August 4, 2010 3:31 PM

What should we make of his beard??!

Posted by: Lynna, OM | August 4, 2010 3:40 PM

Awww, too bad this story is not true. Having a fine set of breasts of my very own, I was looking forward to prolonging my life by staring at them.

Note that the purported study of the salutary effects of viewing fine knockers is set in Germany. Rorschach?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 3:45 PM

@cicely:

And actually - I'll raise that with a Metroid cocktail too!

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | August 4, 2010 3:47 PM

On their own terms, not yours. The sight of a dog coming up out of the blue running towards oneself, after having that exact situation result in a painful bite in the past, is something that should never be forced on a person.

Posted by: Deviant One | August 4, 2010 3:49 PM

@ Dhorvarth 219:

I have a little guy and our restaurant take has always been that fussing=outside. This is not just for the enjoyment of the other patrons. We aim to educate behaviour through exposure to different environments. If he is good, we stay, if he isn't, we leave, if he is tired, we don't even enter.

This is so true - and with training behaviour comes consequences (like leaving) for misbehaviour, which is part of teaching kids to function in society.

Posted by: JeffreyD | August 4, 2010 3:59 PM

Kevin -

Hmm, that is true - she is an atheist after all. Those people are known cannibals - but only with delicious baby... I mean adorable babies.

Was just preparing to suggest she and Bill might be in on it when I saw your #254. Anyway, babies are for choice, them thar atheisties eat all kinds of peepul. Heard that on Glenn Beck TV picture show.

Posted by: SheepdogB | August 4, 2010 4:02 PM

@ Caine, Fleur du mal OM #62

Thanks for the heads-up. No, I wasn't aware of Givesgoodemail's spamminess nor Christwire's parody status until I went back and re-visited it.

I probably reacted too fast-religious insanity has me a bit gunshy, I guess.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | August 4, 2010 4:29 PM

Whose brilliant idea was it to have all major photo print sizes have different aspect ratios?

Listen. I shoot 2:3. That means that if I want my pictures printed without cropping, I get my choice of 4x6 (teeny tiny) or 20x30 (making every photo look like a big Diesel Sweeties strip). A few places offer 8x12 or 12x18, but there are no frames for them, and most places don't even give that option.

8x10 is the worst offender. I have to cut a huge chunk off of each photo to print it at 8x10. 5x7 requires less cropping, but still isn't very big.

PS: What's the lowest DPI at which I can print an image and still have it look okay? I know 300dpi is standard, but that means my photos don't even reach 8x10.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 4, 2010 4:33 PM

And as I said above, my dog and I are happy to help. Such a fear is debilitating and any responsible parent needs to help them get past the trauma. I see no reason why a hypothetical fearful child should limit my right to have a dog and excercise it properly.

Go find a fucking dog park, where the only people you'll encounter are those who can stand those smelly, slobbery things. I don't know exactly when dog owners became indistinguishable from evangelists ("Good morning sir: mind if I take a few minutes out of your day to share with you how friendly my dog is and how he's no threat to you if you let him lick your hand first?"), but I'm sick of it. I'm not scared of dogs—I outweigh most of them and am probably more likely to bite when aroused—but I just don't like the damn things. If you're going to walk with it on my city streets, then that's fine: keep it as leashed and well-behaved as possible and we'll get along famously. But keep it away from me: do not assume that because you've found love and joy and salvation and whatever with your damn pet that I'm obligated to find it too. If I wanted to pet a dog, I'd get my own.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 4:53 PM

MrFire:

Here in New England, a large piece of property is defined as anywhere you can place both feet comfortably on the ground, and still be entirely within your own property.

Oh my. Wouldn't work for me, I'm afraid.

Posted by: nigelTheBold, Minister of Spankings | August 4, 2010 4:56 PM

Lynna #264:

Huzzah! That is fan-fuckin'-tastic news!

Thanks.

Posted by: Deviant One | August 4, 2010 4:59 PM

@ Lynna YAY! That means it's revoked, yes?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 5:03 PM

Lynna:

Prop 8 ruled unconstitutional!

YES!

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | August 4, 2010 5:08 PM

Yeah the recorded macros are generally evil. That belching pit of monstrous coded non sequiters is nothing to be embarrassed about. Nothing, and I mean nothing, written to play in microsoft's playground of doom is but a thin veneer over a lagging bloated abyss.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 4, 2010 5:11 PM

Hooray! Prop 8 sucked.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | August 4, 2010 5:14 PM

And I will celebrate a little tonight for the strikedown of Prop8!

One less thing wrong about my country.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | August 4, 2010 5:17 PM

It has to go to the supreme court for it to actually apply to the whole country. But every where it is struck down is a victory nonetheless.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | August 4, 2010 5:19 PM

Jessie:

A little of both. Keep in mind IANAL.

Directly, the decision only affects California, since it's California law. However, the decision is precedent in all states in that district. When the decision is appealed to the Supreme Court, then SCOTUS' decision will be precedent for the entire nation.

Constitutionality must still be determined on a law-by-law basis. However, with strong precedent, most states won't pass similar laws, and those that do have them overturned in short order. For instance, states generally don't pass anti-miscegenation laws since Loving v. Virginia. They do still pass anti-abortion law after Roe v. Wade, but those laws are typically smacked down in short order thanks to the relatively strong precedent.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 4, 2010 5:20 PM

Fandamntastic!!!!

And the right wing freakout will begin in 5, 4, 3, . . . .

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | August 4, 2010 5:25 PM

Please forgive my ignorance of your laws but does a ruling that it is unconstitutional mean that it is unconstitutional in the entire US or does it have to go through the Supreme Court for it to be applied across the country?

I really hope it reaches SCOTUS and gets upheld, because my state has one of those evil constitutional amendments that needs overturned as well.

Posted by: CJO | August 4, 2010 5:31 PM

Proposition 8 fails to advance any rational basis in singling out gay men and lesbians for denial of a marriage license.

Thank you, thank you, thank you, for saying that, Mr. Federal judge, sir. It's the gods-damned truth, quite obvious all along, and it's so gratifying to hear it in plain language from the bench.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | August 4, 2010 5:37 PM

And I will celebrate a little tonight for the strikedown of Prop8!

I wonder how the mormon family who donated all of their children's college funds to the Prop 8 campaign feel now.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 4, 2010 5:48 PM

"*Points and laughs at the LDS church.*"

I'm not gay, but I would so kiss a dude in front of the Temple right now.

Posted by: Lynna, OM | August 4, 2010 5:53 PM

I wonder how the mormon family who donated all of their children's college funds to the Prop 8 campaign feel now.

You're shitting me, right? Somebody did this?

Not shitting you. They documented the donation, and it even appeared in the movie "8: The Mormon Proposition" -- $50,000, if I remember correctly. They had a lot of kids.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | August 4, 2010 5:58 PM

Not shitting you. They documented the donation, and it even appeared in the movie "8: The Mormon Proposition" -- $50,000, if I remember correctly. They had a lot of kids.

*People seem to forget that constitutional part. I get so sick of the people who think that the majority should get to do whatever the hell they want to whomever the hell they want.

Posted by: Ahze | August 4, 2010 6:13 PM

On the subject of unleashed dogs, I think they are fine - as long as you don't mind me kicking your fucking dog as hard as I can in the fucking head if he comes within range of me. I used to deliver pizza for eating and rent money while in college. Any dog that rushed me as the door was opened got a swift knee/foot to the head. Lost about dozen tips in four years. But, I didn't get bit after my first week when I learned my lesson the hard way. If people called to complain (and they did) my excellent boss told them to sue. There is no chance of getting punished in court. You say you were afraid and protecting yourself. Humans are more important than animals. You should be happy I used my foot instead of pepper spray.

Owning a large dog in a city is fucking retarded. If you have a large yard, more power to you, have as many as you want. But in a city with 80'x120' house plots (or even worse, in an apartment building), it is stupid and inconsiderate of both the dog's needs and your neighbors.

Wailing kids on planes suck, but personally, I think loud adults are worse. The kid is doing the only thing he/she can do. Adults nominally have powers of reason and have supposedly been taught proper public behavior. Kid free flights are a vain hope I fear. I don't think the airlines would even consider doing anything that might cost them a nickel's profit.

Posted by: Judy L. | August 4, 2010 6:18 PM

Couldn't he have played that with a calypso beat? I'm sure there's a button on the keyboard for that.

Posted by: Ahze | August 4, 2010 6:21 PM

Also, yay for that court ruling on Prop 8. I hope the regressives on the federal Supreme Court allow it to stand.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 4, 2010 6:39 PM

cicely #232

I think that the potential father has the right to offer his opinion, even unasked; but he has no right to in any way attempt to compel obedience to his whim, and the potential mother has every right to tell him to fuck off.

I wouldn't dare.
Nor would I have any other way.

Posted by: crowepps | August 4, 2010 6:47 PM

My experience has been that parents who scream or get a little physical with children have the worst behaved brats. Their technique obviously doesn't work, and it's probably what makes the kids worse.

Posted by: crowepps | August 4, 2010 6:53 PM

Just back from a trip up to Anchorage to take my 6-year old grandson to the Zoo and the Imaginarium at the Anchorage Museum and I just can't say enough about how great that was -- it was recently expanded and covers dozens of science areas in a really fun way. EXCELLENT way to encourage kids to love science! And the parents were right in there making huge bubbles and checking out their temperature images as well. Wish they would put these in all museums.

http://www.anchoragemuseum.org/expansion/imaginarium.aspx

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 4, 2010 7:12 PM

Just have to share this - and I think this is a safer place than the feminism/consent threads. Greta Christina is awesome (as usual).

http://blog.blowfish.com/culture/when-porn-goes-bad-girls-gone-wild/1280

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 4, 2010 7:16 PM

Caine
Lack of talent demo #256 I see. (My writing, not your comprehension)

Miss M has no issue with hearing my opinion on somthing affecting us both, but any construction resembling 'It's my right' especially if at all whiney is treated with the respect it deserves.
And, to be fair, this works both ways!

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 4, 2010 7:30 PM

Caine
BTW Miss M always blames me for use of 'bad' language. Claims my use of engineering terms has corrupted her. Not sure I believe her.

Good to hear about the prop 8 decision. It has no direct effect on me (non gay Brit) but 'no man is an island'

After midnight. Good night.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | August 4, 2010 7:35 PM

KOPD: Because an individual is not allowed to sue a state, thanks to the Eleventh Amendment. (I'm not entirely certain why a state can't be sued in Federal court by a citizen of that state, but I'm not a lawyer, so...)

Traditionally, such lawsuits are filed against the chief executive of said state. Hence, Perry v. Schwarzenegger. I seem to remember a variety of lawsuits that were (someone) v. Bush, that changed to (someone) v. Obama on 20 January 2009, so apparently the defendant is 'the current occupant of the office', not necessarily 'the occupant of the office at the time the offense originally occurred'.

Here's a reasonably detailed explanation. Took me some time to find.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 4, 2010 7:43 PM

I'm not gay, but I would so kiss a dude in front of the Temple right now.

Hand me an obliging woman and the Temple, and I'm right there with you! :D

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | August 4, 2010 8:22 PM

Late to the game on the talk of babies on planes, but here's my story of a sweet one:

I'd just gotten the news that Dad had a diagnosis of stage IV cancer (at that time we knew it was either liver or lung--turned out to be lung). My whole world completely fell apart. A nice man (who'd never met me) at my folks' church bought me a plane ticket so I wouldn't have to drive 10 hours alone to get to my family. I hate flying, but this seemed like an appropriate time to do it. I got on the plane that morning completely exhausted and emotionally raw. Next to me was a young mother and her year-old toddler. The little fella smiled and played with me through the whole flight. It was the first time I'd smiled in days.

Of course, I absolutely love children. They called me the "baby whisperer" at work, and I'd still be taking care of young'ns if it paid the damn bills.

By the way, to all the parents out there who claim that you have to have a child of your own to know anything about it: stop it. I've had an active hand in raising literally scores of children. Granted, you will know your own child better than I will, but chances are that I understand children in general as well or better unless you have comparable experience/education. So just stop it.

Posted by: Kirk | August 4, 2010 8:56 PM

Regarding the "whore gets fried" singer ...

It would be interesting to see an example of the smug, middle-aged white guy with an organ singing a song about not being the chosen one:

I'm so fucked;
Not the chosen one;
'Cuz I picked
The wrong religion.

I'll get fried;
I'll get fried;
With the whore of babylon
By my side.

There seem to be very few religious documents where the author claims to be from the wrong religion, and wants everybody to know that God is going to fuck him over, and rightfully so.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 9:04 PM

Disambiguation: Solution, Final

Yep.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | August 4, 2010 9:07 PM

I was cleaning out my car, so the doors were open for about an hour. Not only is my car full of mosquitoes, but I now have polka-dot legs. Yeah, I could use some suggestions on that front, as well.

Posted by: MrFire | August 4, 2010 9:20 PM

Beaming ear-to-ear at the smashing of Prop 8. Here's a short verse I composed (and am cross-posting over from the Prop 8 thread) in honor of the occasion:

They tried so hard to force Prop 8
They tried so hard to keep us straight
But Karma saw it fit to find
Us ramming it up their behind.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 4, 2010 10:03 PM

Not only is my car full of mosquitoes, but I now have polka-dot legs. Yeah, I could use some suggestions on that front, as well.

Play Dots and Boxes?

Good kitty update: I just saw her drink on her own from a fountain I rigged up from a Pyrex bowl and a, um, fountain thingy. That's the first time since we brought her home from the vet yesterday morning that I've seen her drink without it being forced down her with a syringe. Perhaps she's rallying for a bit.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | August 4, 2010 10:14 PM

Ben, re the bites, dunno. Topical analgesic thingies exist, but in my experience, these don't work real well on me. I find ice is nice, if it's just a few, tho'. Can calm things enough I can stop thinking about the things, anyway.

Re getting 'em out of the car: in a house, you pour a sink of warm water. As in, wash the dishes in the sink. They sense the heat and moisture, and they come like moths to a flame, and you squash them. Dunno if you can adapt this to more automobile things, tho'. Mebbe a bowl of warm water by an open window?

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | August 4, 2010 10:29 PM

but I now have polka-dot legs. Yeah, I could use some suggestions on that front, as well

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | August 4, 2010 10:46 PM

glad to hear that your kitty has resumed drinking

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 10:52 PM

broboxleyOT, take a wander through What's That Bug?

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 4, 2010 10:55 PM

Had a wonderful evening with Mattir and Bill Dauphin - neither of them tried to eat me, although Bill did sprinkle a little bit of pepper on my shoulder. I consumed voluminous quantities of alcohol, and am now going to bed way later than I'm used to, and will likely wake up tomorrow perky and cheerful :D

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 4, 2010 11:00 PM

Quick request:

Will someone please talk a SpokesGay out of having a cigarette, and remind him that his nicotine vaporizer is just as yummy, with half the calories and all the flavor? Thank you!

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 4, 2010 11:05 PM

Will someone please talk a SpokesGay out of having a cigarette, and remind him that his nicotine vaporizer is just as yummy, with half the calories and all the flavor? Thank you!

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 4, 2010 11:06 PM

God damn you Nerd. Now I'm excluding all yours and your ass Bride's recipes. Pffffft. :))

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 4, 2010 11:09 PM

Thank you, ODS. That's the kind of support I needed. Lift and separate!

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 4, 2010 11:11 PM

Funny, that's exactly what my bra is doing right now.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 4, 2010 11:21 PM

Josh - John Barrowman sez the e-cig makes you look more sexy!

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 4, 2010 11:22 PM

Thank you Carlie, that helped too! It's just like a Shake 'n Bake commercial. . .

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 4, 2010 11:27 PM

Caine:

SPOKESGAY WILL COMPLY WITH HYPNOTOAD COMMAND. /SEQUENCE

Thing is, I'm down to one, or one half, a cigarette per day. Down from 40 cigs a day. For me, that's unbelievable. I get the urge once or twice a day, but once I light it, I realize I don't really want it, it's not giving me anything I can't get from the e-cig, and it's just a bit of habit I have to break.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 4, 2010 11:36 PM

Lynna @ 247,

clearly the study is rubbish, since the healthier subjects were reported to have lower blood pressure from ogling titties !!

Interestingly, Vanity Fair is blocked from work, so will read the Hitchens article when I get home.

FWIW a crying baby is twanging every protective instinct you have...

I think it's more the fact that babies cry at around 3000Hz, a frequency human ears are tuned to hear best at.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 4, 2010 11:48 PM

Josh:

Thing is, I'm down to one, or one half, a cigarette per day. Down from 40 cigs a day.

That is beyond fantastic, too. I've kept the odd cig to one in the morning with my tea, and I've done that 4 times now since July 28th. I have one cigarette left in the house. It's now been elevated to "hmmm, I think I'll just stash it somewhere and save it..." territory. :D

Posted by: MrFire | August 4, 2010 11:51 PM

Josh: every time you smoke a cigarette, somewhere a pair of Ferragamos gets scuffed.

Ok. More seriously: what about the cigarette is calling to you? Nostalgia, or some specific sensation?

Hmm.

I've never smoked. What would it be like, I wonder, to bypass the cigarette phase entirely, and go straight to getting hooked on e-cigs?

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 12:01 AM

MrFire:

What would it be like, I wonder, to bypass the cigarette phase entirely, and go straight to getting hooked on e-cigs?

Better for you and non-offensive to others.

Mattir, bible tripe is cow stomach:

Beef tripe is usually made from only the first three chambers of a cow's stomach: the rumen (blanket/flat/smooth tripe), the reticulum (honeycomb and pocket tripe), and the omasum (book/bible/leaf tripe). Abomasum (reed) tripe is seen much less frequently, owing to its glandular tissue content.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 5, 2010 12:06 AM

@Caine - Yes, I could have looked it up, but it was more fun to imagine and to avoid having it in one's soup. We did have a lovely discussion over pho about weird animals and body parts we've eaten or are planning on eating (dog, lungs, or mealworms, anyone?).

Posted by: Lynna, OM | August 5, 2010 12:19 AM

clearly the study is rubbish, since the healthier subjects were reported to have lower blood pressure from ogling titties !!

Why do these fake studies also claim to have been published in the New England Journal of Medicine ... then you look, and, lo, they lie.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 5, 2010 12:24 AM

@ Josh - it's not nearly the same thing, but oddly enough, I'm having a bit of a grieving thing as I contemplate whether I can continue with my lung-aggravating heat source. It's a dirty, high-maintenance, finicky beast, and yet I'm reluctant to give it up for something that doesn't leave smoke film on my windows and lungs.

Oh, and yes, Bill and I are totally disfigured compared to Kevin. By which I mean that we're middle-aged and he's young and hot. Especially after we roasted him over that pit barbecue and doused him with yummy sauce...

Posted by: Josh, "Raquel Dommage," Porte-parole Gay Official | August 5, 2010 12:29 AM

@ Josh - it's not nearly the same thing, but oddly enough, I'm having a bit of a grieving thing as I contemplate whether I can continue with my lung-aggravating heat source. It's a dirty, high-maintenance, finicky beast, and yet I'm reluctant to give it up for something that doesn't leave smoke film on my windows and lungs.

Do you mean the wood stove, Mattir?

Whatever it is, I get the grieving part. I know it sounds melodramatic (and oh, poor me!), but I am sad about giving up tobacco. It's a hateful weed, it's put a hurtin' on my lungs, but it has been my "friend" for a long time. It's not easy to let go.

Posted by: Benjamin "pardon my French" Geiger | August 5, 2010 12:33 AM

My dating life summed up in a math joke. Meh.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | August 5, 2010 12:39 AM

My dating life summed up in a math joke. Meh.

Well I could make it real. But she'd have to be squared. Which would make her negative. The sum, regrettably, would be zero. OTHO at least she isn't irrational. It wouldn't be bad though if she were radical. You'll have to factor this out.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | August 5, 2010 12:53 AM

I'm surprised. There hasn't been one post about prop 8 and the evil homos from any of my fundamentalist Christian facebook friends. Only support from straight nerdy allies.

Posted by: Ahze | August 5, 2010 1:03 AM

I used to be mildly annoyed by screaming kids on planes. Then, on a flight from Tokyo to San Francisco, while everyone was sleeping the guy sitting next to me picked up his wife and tried to open the plane door to throw her out of it.

I am confused.

Posted by: Miki Z | August 5, 2010 1:16 AM

The guy sitting next to me was flying with his wife, who was in a different row, from China to the U.S. through Japan. During the time when all the lights were off and most people were sleeping, he got out of his seat, bodily picked his wife up and carried her to the door of the plane, at which point she began screaming, so he began yelling in Chinese, English, and Korean (as far as I could tell) that he was going to throw her out of the plane. He tried to force open the door, at which point he was bodily restrained. On our arrival at SFO, police were waiting; my assumption is that they were doing so for his arrest, but I didn't stick around to find out.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 1:32 AM

Miki Z, that must have been one hell of a thing to see. Talk about issues...

Posted by: Miki Z | August 5, 2010 1:52 AM

Re: John Morales

Microevolution in action! (I assume the taxidermist is not actually thinking that this is some sort of literal cross between a crocodile and a platypus, but I've been wrong before...)

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 5, 2010 2:11 AM

was looking at houses in fargo on the internet today. conclusion: people in fargo have atrocious color preferences, and strange obsessions with photographing fuse boxes.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | August 5, 2010 2:24 AM

Regarding the giving up smoking thing.

I am one of those horrible people called "social smokers", I can go for weeks without one yet at events where the alcohol is flowing and other people are smnoking ( GAC anyone?) I'll go a pack a day. Of the late I've been in a rebellious mode because the ex hated smoking so I've been having two a day out the back of my workplace ( particularly after a difficult client). I've never let my children see me smoke and never will.

My dilemma now is this. With the leukemia diagnosis ( today got word it's CLL so I got the "lucky" leukemia BTW. Highest survival rates and best response to chemo.)I recognise that smoking is probably incredibly detrimental to treatment. But you know, it's one of the only things that makes me feel "good" at the moment and I wonder about the detriment of 2 cigs a day vs the simple small pleasure it gives me.

I mean damn, I'm separated so no sex, the doc has absolutely ruled out alcohol so no wine. If I have to give up my two little cigs I might as well join a bloody nunnery.

Posted by: Bride of Shrek OM | August 5, 2010 2:33 AM

Also, is it wrong of me, with the leukemia and all to want and go and fuck with a few woo practitioners by testing their "skills" while I still look healthy and fine?

My best friend has suggested starting with an iridologist to see if they can "diagnose" the same disease by looking at my eyeballs. She then suggested we move on to some reiki people to check whether they think my chakras are out. Maybe then a naturopath or two. Of course when they give me the usual crap vague diagosis about suffering from stress or needing more organic food or overpriced vitamin therapy or something I can king hit them and say "but what about the leukemia thing?"

It could provide endless hours of amusement and make for a great report at the end of it all but I think really, it's just putting good money into those bastards pockets for a small victory.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 2:39 AM

Bride, I am so glad you've got a good prognosis going for you. All tentacles remain crossed for you.

I mean damn, I'm separated so no sex, the doc has absolutely ruled out alcohol so no wine. If I have to give up my two little cigs I might as well join a bloody nunnery.

Heh, I know what you mean. I doubt smoking so little is going to make or break things, but it's hard to say with your particular situation, both the leukemia and the treatment process. Is your oncologist someone who would get your wanting to have the occasional renegade smoke or would he just yell "no!" at you? (My neurologist gave up on trying to lecture me about smoking 5 years ago, but I'm not dealing with cancer.)

Josh got me (and JeffreyD & Pygmy Loris) on E-Cigarettes. I smoked two packs a day. I've had 4 cigs since July 28th. You're still getting nicotine with an e-cig (in an amount you choose), but no smoke, tar, or all the rest of the crap that is in commercial cigarettes.

With an E-Cig, you get the sensation and satisfaction of smoking, but with seriously reduced harm to yourself, no smoke and no smell.

I went with a Joye eGo due to the long battery life.

If you think this might be a reasonable compromise for yourself, you can read all kinds of stuff about them here: http://www.e-cigarette-forum.com/forum/

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 2:49 AM

Bride:

Also, is it wrong of me, with the leukemia and all to want and go and fuck with a few woo practitioners by testing their "skills" while I still look healthy and fine?

As long as we get juicy details, no, it isn't wrong. It would be a shame to put money in their pockets though. It would be great to act like you're being sold on "this great therapy" but you're broke and...go full sob story. See if you can get a bunch of "free consults and one free treatment" type deals.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 3:16 AM

Jadehawk:

there was even one room painted in 2 different shades of pink, because clearly they ran out of one kind before finishing. interesting effect, that...

North Dakota Weird. There's no getting away from it. Green is supposed to be a soothing colour, but I've never considered painting a room any shade of green.

Posted by: MrFire | August 5, 2010 3:25 AM

Miki Z, your punning skills are...punmatched.

*ahem*

Posted by: vbalbert | August 5, 2010 3:48 AM

broboxley #231: Thank you. I'll look through those, but it appears those are actual research papers and while they will yield some fascinating information it's not likely that I'll be able to wade through them very well. (Got to love how depression reduces concentration.) I was hoping that there might be a blog where the author distills this down to a more manageable level for those of us who are not biochemists.

Posted by: Cath the Canberra Cook | August 5, 2010 4:05 AM

Bride, you should totally do the woo-baiting if you think the amusement is worth the money. As long as you do a good write up. There was a great one several years ago on some skeptic site, where a guy with chicken pox visited several different naturopaths about his rash. I can't find it now, though - too hard to google with all the quacks in the way.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 4:46 AM

Tom Brock On Those Pesky Gay Urges

I hope people will discover that there are thousands of people with unwanted same-sex attraction who have joined similar groups around the country and have found there is hope in Jesus Christ for transformation of life. In other words, there are options other than simply "giving in" to these attractions.

Posted by: Birger Johansson | August 5, 2010 4:51 AM

@ 402 "Jonas, 32, sewed up his own leg after ER wait"
Addendum: "But hospital staff were not as impressed by his initiative and have reported the man on suspicion of criminal dispossession (egenmäktigt förfarande) for having used hospital equipment without authorization"
It is like the episode of "Yes, Minister" where patients are regarded as obstacles to the smooth running of a hospital.

BTW, Suggested horror film title: "Toddlers on a plane"

Posted by: John Morales | August 5, 2010 5:13 AM

Pakasuchus — any relation to Pikachus?

Posted by: blf | August 5, 2010 5:39 AM

In Airspace Over The Pacific, No One Can Hear Your Scream

Except the others on the plane.
And the Reptilian Overlords.
And due to freak weather conditions, Mr Waio in Peru, who will interpret the screams as an answer to his prayers and either eat an extra slice of apple pie, set his neighbor's cat on fire, or start a blog about the Unnamed Monsters from deep Under the Andes who are eating his beard, depending on which prayer he was saying at the time.

Posted by: blf | August 5, 2010 5:59 AM

There hasn't been one post about prop 8 and the evil homos from any of my fundamentalist Christian facebook friends.

They're still shoveling the spittle and other bodily emissions off the screen, keyboard, cat, guns, and road outside. Also, they still waiting for their independent thoughts and honest heartfelt opinions to arrive from Teh Caribou Teabag and Her Moron Sycophants.

Posted by: Kel, The Privileged View From Nowhere | August 5, 2010 6:21 AM

Sex, I wouldn't know, can't remember what that's like.

Posted by: Rorschach | August 5, 2010 6:35 AM

You should have picked up at the GAC.

Not into picking up, and I had some guy sleeping in my apartment at the time anyway, I forget who that was....Ken or something...

;)

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 5, 2010 6:59 AM

BoS - good to hear! I guess that's something, at least.

Josh- would it help to carry around a pack just to have it with you, or would that be too tempting? Or keeping a pack in a specific place in the house? I'm thinking if you can make yourself think you're not giving them up so much as keeping them safe for a "special occasion", it might not feel so much like giving them up altogether.

Posted by: blf | August 5, 2010 7:45 AM

Whilst looking for something totally unrelated, I stumbled on this giggler, Slave Species of God: The Story of Humankind from the Cradle of Humankind:

Were humans created by "God" as Slaves? Was Abraham the first human Spy? Was Jesus an accidental Messiah? The author takes readers on a remarkable odyssey of the true origins of humankind in which he: draws clear and startling analogies between new discoveries in genetic engineering and ancient archaeological finds...; highlights emerging scientific information overlooked in the past...; unravels the Bible's often obscure stories by linking these to their original forms in Sumerian clay tablets and other pre-historic writings..; provides explicit answers to why our modern world has become so senseless and chaotic by revealing the very secrets of our prehistory...While shattering myths about evolution and God, Michael Tellinger's "Slave Species of God" enables evolutionists and creationists to finally co-exist in one pond. The arguments are compelling, simple and refreshing, retracing the path of human evolution from the murky distant past to the religious dogma that haunts humankind today. The question of who we are and where we come from takes on a new meaning as we discover that our DNA may have been manipulated by our Creator some 200,000 years ago to produce a less intelligent 'primitive species'.

As you can imagine, most of the reviews are, uh, interesting. From two different highly-positive (5 star) reviews:

Tellinger deserves a Nobel prize for this work!
What an absolutely fantastic book this is! It has got to rank as being the most thoroughly researched book on the origins of humanity, civilisation and religion. Thankfully there was no silly conspiracy theories only theories backed by a multitude of evidence! Every theory in this book is backed by a whole lot of heavy evidence taken from the authors own research …

… Challenging accepted wisdom and using the most recent research as support for his theories, Michael Tellinger treads very much his own path, yet follows in the footsteps of authors like Erich Von Daniken and Graham Hancock. …

Yeah, conman Erich von Däniken is who occurred to me as well, but I would not count a comparison to same as good point in a review.

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 5, 2010 7:54 AM

"Sex? It's BRILLIANT! Well, apart from all the clearing up afterwards... you know... all the wood an' that."

The Fast Show?

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | August 5, 2010 7:58 AM

@ SteveV - your internets are in the post...*

*delivery not guaranteed

Posted by: blf | August 5, 2010 8:05 AM

Oh wow! This nutters got his own site, http://www.slavespecies.com/ and it looks like he's planning to tour the USA with his nuttery starting later this month (August 2010). Campy comedy, I presume…

According to The Pffft! of all Knowledge, el nut is apparently a follower of some kook called Zecharia Sitchin, whose hypothesishobby-horse is:

… there is an undiscovered planet beyond Neptune which follows a long, elliptical orbit, reaching the inner solar system roughly every 3,600 years. This planet is called Nibiru… According to Sitchin, Nibiru … collided catastrophically with Tiamat (a goddess in the Babylonian creation myth the Enûma Eliš), who he considers to be another planet located between Mars and Jupiter. This collision supposedly formed the planet Earth, [yadda yadda, and after some more celestial billards would up in its current orbit].

According to Sitchin, Nibiru … was the home of a technologically advanced human-like extraterrestrial race called the Anunnaki … who Sitchin states are called the Nephilim in Genesis. …

Sitchin believes the Anunnaki genetically engineered Homo sapiens as slave creatures to work their gold mines [on Earth] by crossing extraterrestrial genes with those of Homo erectus. […some drivel about an ancient nuclear war…] Sitchin claims that his research coincides with many biblical texts, and that biblical texts come originally from Sumerian writings.

Great! Not only Erich von Däniken but Immanuel Velikovsky as well.

Actually, that very last bit, some biblical texts come originally from Sumerian writings is plausible if confused.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | August 5, 2010 8:12 AM

Sex, I wouldn't know, can't remember what that's like.

I, on the other hand, never found out in the first place.

But I imagine it's overrated. :-)

Posted by: Katherine Lorraine, Chaton de la Mort | August 5, 2010 8:16 AM

@Walton:

I, on the other hand, never found out in the first place. But I imagine it's overrated. :-)

Yeah - me too. Lots of people told me how amazing and delicious lobster was, and it's just okay.

Sex has to be the same way, right?

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 5, 2010 8:23 AM

But I imagine it's overrated. :-)

Posted by: blf | August 5, 2010 8:34 AM

Bloody hell, I devoured [Däniken] when I was 14 or so.Damned if I know why 'rents bought me one of his books in the first place !

I also read of Chariots of the Gods at about the same age. I cannot recall exactly how I came in the possesion of that book. At about the same time I recall also read Hal Linsdey's The Late Great Planet Earth. I'd apparently stumbled on a cache of nuttery, but its origins/existence have always been a mystery. There were also some rabid anti-commie books of slightly earlier vintage which were so clearly in what we'd now call wingnuttia I don't recall finishing them.

Anyways, I have a vague recollection of thinking that, at first, von Däniken was plausible, but became very very suspicious as more and more claims were made which I'd never heard of before. Some searching of the encyclopaedia (this was per-internet (and thank you very much, parents, for investing in a good encyclopaedia when I was quite young!)), and a re-reading of Asimov's takedown of Velikovsky, made me decide von Däniken was full of it. Sometime later I finally read someone's (cannot now recall who) takedown of von Däniken with a systematic listing of many of his errors and outright lies, and remember giggling with glee.

Posted by: broboxley OT | August 5, 2010 8:46 AM

Gyeong Hwa Pak #366

What's a Ferragamos?

Posted by: Thebear, just an agent of peas | August 5, 2010 8:53 AM

@Kevin:
Lobster is overrated (especially the american variant).

Now crabs: That's the underrated crusteacean.

It's the same way with sex IMO.

Posted by: Ring Tailed Lemurian | August 5, 2010 8:55 AM

blf, there's a lot of stuff about Sitchin (and Nibiru) on BAUT.

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | August 5, 2010 9:04 AM

@ Thebear: never a good idea to combine the words "crabs" and "sex" in the same post - just sayin'...

Posted by: broboxley OT | August 5, 2010 9:08 AM

SteveV #431 which part?

Posted by: SteveV, Death's Pissant Haberdasher | August 5, 2010 9:16 AM

SteveV #431 which part?

Shhhhsh I'm at work!

Posted by: broboxley OT | August 5, 2010 9:18 AM

ya'all want to cut out the woo?
http://abcnews.go.com/Nightline/atheists-conduct-de-baptisms/story?id=11109379
if you think its crap a majik ceremony is not the way to procede

Posted by: Ewan R | August 5, 2010 9:22 AM

Walton and the subsequent overrated conversation...

Looks more like it's a personal thing - to me masturbation's like going to McDonald's, sex is more like a $40 steak at a good resturaunt in comparison. One can quite easily be gone in 60 seconds, the other you try to make last as long as possible to savor the moment. One may leave your loved one questioning you if they catch you at it - the other is something you're hopefully sharing with em...

I guess it could be compared to lobster - I didn't really "get" lobster until I had some real good lobster, then I realized what the fuss was about.

Again though, purely personal I'd imagine - as a teenager I built it up mentally into pretty much the be all end all - sans expectations perhaps it does amount to a mediocre lobster.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | August 5, 2010 9:32 AM

I woke up this morning to find that my Facebook status had metamorphosed into a Pharyngula thread, and that the horde was ganging up on some of my RL friends in an argument about Perry v Schwarzenegger. It was a slightly surreal experience. :-D

Posted by: Glaxo PharmaBase 6 | August 5, 2010 9:39 AM

MESSAGE BEGINS

Bride of Shrek OM, You are ordered to visit an irididiologist while still appearing healthy, and make every effort to make said irididiologist look like a fool.
Follow up with merciless internet mockery.

MESSAGE ENDS

SubLord Draconis Zobinol, SVC, iH13L

PharmaCOM Orbital HQ

0101000011111

Posted by: MrFire | August 5, 2010 9:45 AM

me @452 being a dimensionally-confused doofus:

Creationists resemble the one-dimensional thin film on the surface.

*headdesk*

Q.E.D. @450:

My example involved a 790 acre park called Hampstead Heath in London.

Right by where I grew up dude! I do remember a challenging game that I used to play there. It was called "Avoid The Dog Turds".
:P

Posted by: Birger Johansson | August 5, 2010 9:48 AM

"Arrested for Possession of an Unlit Candle" http://www.huffingtonpost.com/zac-hill/arrested-for-possession-o_b_670321.html

BTW, the women who started smoking as teenagers during the late fifties/early sixties have started to die off from chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (sorry, no english-language links). It seems to hit women harder than men.
The sooner you get a diagnosis, the better you can prevent it from getting worse, but most afflicted persons do not react to the symptoms in time, or think it is a natural, age-related group of symptoms.
Thank you, tobacco industry.

Posted by: https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8Er0xHwr5oQ2bWARUzonh6Ov_ijL0Dbw | August 5, 2010 9:49 AM

Maybe this is off topic--but this is the endless thread where anything goes, right?--and I really need to vent to someone.

I just saw another example of a godbot supposedly comforting a fellow believer after a wonderful job offer fell through at the last moment. The comforter said,

"It is times like this that make us so thankful that God is sovereign. We can know that He blocked this from happening, and that it is better for you guys that it not happen. Still, I'm sure you are disappointed in so many ways."

How many creepy things are wrong with this statement? How does anyone love and praise a deity that they think set them up for and orchestrated such a crashing disappointment? No wonder Christians are depressed.

I'm just furious that the clueless one has no idea what a horrible thing she is saying to her equally religious friend.

Posted by: Q.E.D | August 5, 2010 9:54 AM

"{Hampstead Heath] Right by where I grew up dude! I do remember a challenging game that I used to play there. It was called "Avoid The Dog Turds". - Mr. Fire"

Are you still in London? There as some great, dog-friendly pubs near Parliament Hill.

As for dog owners who don't pick up, I say fine them and make them pick it up and take it home in their pocket.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 5, 2010 10:06 AM

Oh, we've found him all right - we just can't figure out what the hell he's trying to say...

It's right in the manual. Kill everyone you think doesn't agree with you (save the virgin females to breed slaves), kill animals and burn them (Dog likes the smell of burnt meat), and, oh yeah, forgiveness comes to those who worship the zombie. How hard is that?

Posted by: blf | August 5, 2010 10:22 AM

[pTerry]'s funny, he's insightful, and he's more addictive than crack. Luckily, with marginally less physical damage.

You're not laughing hard enough. Or else you're in a rubber room.

Posted by: Alice Bluegown | August 5, 2010 10:33 AM

@ Ogvorbis - your zeal is commendable, but when I wrote 'Dog' I meant 'Dog'. See comment #23, and then have a look through the recent threads, especially "We've angered another crackpot".

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 5, 2010 10:35 AM

Ogvorbis @458:

No prob, I kinda figured it out from your original post that it wasn't cancer in the end.

As long as a scenario is not exclusively proven wrong, it is a possibility. Statistical likelihoods will not diminish the anguish in the least bit. It's like thinking that most likely there is no monster under your bed, but it is still a possibility.

When the issue is something that has a strong impact on you and your family, rational thinking does not help much, because as long as there's even a tiny possibility that the monster really does reside under your bed, you have to think about the effect that the hypothetical beast might have on you and you nearest. If only to play it safe.

Sorry to you all for my morose ruminations, I'm in a kinda dark place just at the moment. Won't last long, and I won't mind if you make sounds to the effect that maybe this is not the best possible forum to air my angst just now :)

Posted by: Jules, Bride of Death | August 5, 2010 10:54 AM

To Bride of Shrek and MinnieTheFinn
My best to you both. *tips flask for a swig, wipes mouth, passes flask to the left*

There's plenty more internet booze where that came from.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 5, 2010 11:01 AM

llewelly @470:

whoa, that's the way for me to go :) I'll most definitely will look into ways to discredit as many wooers as I can without compromising my personal health.

I've been thinking of starting a blog on the whole bc issue (and it should be started right now to get the raw, day-to-day material included), mainly as a way for myself to air my emotions, but I'd love to include less personal themes to it, too. Themes that would have meaning to other people rather than just my own grievances.

Going for the charlatan treatments is a great idea and my props to whoever came up with it in the first place (the thread is so long that I cannot find the original post anymore but you'll recognize yourself, I hope).

Also, I will most definitely go to some prayer meetings to see their reaction. Although we do not (luckily) have Benny Hinn type charismatic fundamentalist xtian movements in Finland, we still have plenty of groups that are saving up to be similar. Looking forward to being knocked down by the Amazing Monochrome Dreamjacket. If I start speaking in languages, do not worry, it'll be Finnish.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 5, 2010 11:13 AM

Jules @471: Cheers! I'm having a cold brewski here myself (and none of that virtual stuff, either, mind you!).

The temperatures in the normally freezing cold Finland have been tropical* for the past month. One needs to ensure that there's a steady intake of fluids at all times.

Also, my usual way to deal with any problems:
1) get drunk
2) moan about it
3) wake up in the morning and figure out ways to deal with it.

*Average daily temperature for the month of July have been in excess of +30°C, which is roughly... uh, 90°F. We're all melting.

Posted by: Walton, Marquis of Carabas | August 5, 2010 11:21 AM

The French and the British are much more tolerant of dogs in society, parks, pubs and restaurants.

Yes, and I wish we weren't. :-(

Don't get me wrong... I support others' right to own dogs. But nothing will ever persuade me to like them.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | August 5, 2010 11:37 AM

Also, is it wrong of me, with the leukemia and all to want and go and fuck with a few woo practitioners by testing their "skills" while I still look healthy and fine?

Hell, no! Your happiness and quality of life are important factors for your positive outcome. Really, if you can stand the expense (because woo ain't necessarily free of charge, even if it's free of content), I don't see how you can not do this; plus, it will, as others have noted, provide a great many yucks for those of us in the Studio Audience, which qualifies it as a Public Service, as well.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | August 5, 2010 11:40 AM

Q.E.D. I thought it would be obvious by the sentence preceding and following the one you've pulled there, that I was talking about the place where I live as an explanation of why some places have the leash laws you're talking about in the US (pretty sure that's city by city anyway... the laws that is.) Maybe it's by State?

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 5, 2010 12:15 PM

MrFire, that was a great story!

@Q.E.D.:

A dog being walked on the street should always be on a leash (for its safety and that of humans around it). My example involved a 790 acre park called Hampstead Heath in London. Dogs are free to run and children are free to play. The latter in their own enclosure and/or the rest of the 790 acres. People in society sharing public resources, it's a good thing.

I don't have a problem with that.

I'm just saying that dogs have lived side by side with humans for approx 15,000 years. They have been celebrated in art since the dawn of humankind. They serve us as bomb sniffers, in policing and search and rescue. I just find it surprising how intolerant many people here seem to be towards "man's best friend"

An appeal to tradition? Really?

Shall we conduct an accounting of the myriad things that have been with us since the 'dawn of humankind' and have been celebrated in art that most of us here on Pharygula are resolutely against?

I was going to agree that you may not be an evangelist (though a great many dog owners are), but now I'm not so sure.

Posted by: Kieranfoy, Faerie Godfather of Death, GMKSC, OED | August 5, 2010 12:26 PM

@Minniethefinn: Honestly, I find Pratchett gets better with every re-reading. I get more and more of the references, subtle humor and satire in his books every time I read them.

And I find having a padded room does help with the laughter-induced spasming. Fortunately, the asylum has no problem lending me one.

Posted by: MrFire | August 5, 2010 12:29 PM

Thanks, Brownian.

*tips hat*

It's only slightly exaggerated, too.

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | August 5, 2010 12:31 PM

Sitchin is awesome, as background material for a D&D campaign.

The thing is, you can make cuneiform say anything you like, spaceships and all, if you get to re-define all the symbols to suit yourself. To someone who doesn't realise that that is what he's doing, it looks impressive.

Also, there's a limited supply; once you've read all his books, then that's it, folks. Re-reading is never quite as addictive as the first-time experience, although it will happen regularly throughout you mortal life.

But, subsequent readings allow you to pick up the nuances enabled by awareness of the greater Discworld corpus; which means, snickering at all the in-jokes.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 5, 2010 12:49 PM

BoS and Minnie - if you ever find yourselves doused in the "think positive" mantra and it turns your stomach the wrong way, you might want to read Barbara Ehrenreich's book Bright-Sided: how the relentless promotion of positive thinking has undermined America". She started the project after dealing with one too many support groups saying how thankful they were for their cancer after she was diagnosed.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | August 5, 2010 1:01 PM

I just find it surprising how intolerant many people here seem to be towards "man's best friend"

*shrugs* You should ask some people what they think of other people some time! :P

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 5, 2010 1:15 PM

The reason I'm intolerant of man's best friend is that it bites me, leaves poop all over the place, and makes annoying racket in the middle of the night. Don't get me wrong, many dogs are wonderful, and I enjoyed fostering a guide dog pup for a year. The problem is that many (most) people with dogs are morons who don't have any comprehension of the ways in which dogs and humans differ and thus fail train their dogs to behave appropriately. And then they get all huffy when other humans are intolerant of their best friends.

When we were training Bud (the guide dog pup), the worst problems we had were dog owners with untrained dogs. A close second was the folks who wanted to exclude him from every public space despite his "service dog in training" status. These people seemed to think that service dogs are stamped out of a mould somewhere, fully trained. Most service dogs represent 18 months of intensive volunteer training BEFORE the animal even goes into the specialized training to learn to do its official job.

Oh, and did I mention the people who would come up to the dog and get him so worked up that he would hump them, and then announce that they didn't mind that he was HUMPING them? This actually happened more than once, including a time at a lumberyard cashier when I couldn't easily escape from the human moron problem.

/rant

Posted by: blf | August 5, 2010 1:22 PM

Sitchin is awesome, as background material for a D&D campaign.

Heh! I can see that. I've no recollection of ever hearing of this kook extraordinaire before.

Posted by: Ewan R | August 5, 2010 1:36 PM

Mattir @ #495 - Having looked after a guide dog pup at the early stages of training for a couple of days rather than the whole period I'm in absolute awe of anyone who could do the whole thing - to turn a crazy ball of energy into the useful docile end product requires much more patience than I think I could muster (which is probably why I'm a cat person)

QED @ #496 - as soon as you get rid of the

Many people who own dogs shouldn't because they are inconsiderate, don't train their dogs, have badly socialized dogs, have dogs they cannot handle, train their dogs to be dangerous, don't pick up

then I'm 100% with you on the

constant legislation, the attempt to fence dogs in, exclude them from parks, leash them at all times and generally treat them as a menace

Until then, not so much.

Posted by: MrFire | August 5, 2010 1:48 PM

Depression seems to be the high fashion nowadays, all the celebs have it, and they're all sooo happy to tell us all how it only took a few days to get rid of it with the help of good friends/vitamin D/positive thinking/hopi ear candle treatment.

Well, sticking a hopi candle through the ear of a faux-depressed* celeb would do wonders for my depression, I can tell you.

[*If they exist. I don't mean to denigrate actual depressives - just anybody who may conceivably be mugging it up for publicity.]

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | August 5, 2010 1:58 PM

Then there was the bible tripe, which I think the three of us would agree is probably better as a pho ingredient than as a source of mathematical wisdom.

Nononono! "Unfit for human consumption."

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 5, 2010 1:59 PM

Me,

You're independent Walton.

Arghhh, that should be: You're killing independent Walton.

(Reminds self not to post before morning coffee.)

Posted by: Lynna, OM | August 5, 2010 2:05 PM

It's the Blob!

...Scientists from Imperial College London, have developed a detailed 3-D model of the only known fossilized specimen in the world of a creature called Drakozoon. The specimen was found by one of the team approximately six years ago in the Herefordshire Lagerstätte, one of England's richest deposits of soft-bodied fossils. Drakozoon lived in the ocean during the Silurian Period, 444 to 416 million years ago, and today's model hints at how it lived.
     Drakozoon was a cone-shaped, blob-like creature with a hood and it probably had a leathery exterior skin. It appears to have survived in the ocean by attaching itself to hard surfaces such as rock. It was approximately three millimeters long, and used filament-bearing tentacles to catch and eat organic particles in seawater. It pulled its hood down over its body for protection against predators, pulling it back again to expose its tentacles when danger passed.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 5, 2010 2:10 PM

It pulled its hood down over its body for protection against predators, pulling it back again to expose its tentacles when danger passed.

Was Drakozoon the first What About Teh Menz™ advocate?

I've got to go do something semi-useful. So far I've propositioned Aquaria and snickered at a post about paleontology.

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 5, 2010 2:15 PM

Mr.Fire @501:

Sticking a candle into some other orifices of a faux-depressed celeb would be much more entertaining. Heck, they might even give permit to have it publicized if they thought it would make them look like nice persons.

Not that I have violent tendencies or anything.

Posted by: Erulóra (formerly KOPD) | August 5, 2010 2:25 PM

And now for something completely different.

I've come across a couple of references recently to the scene in Superman where he reverses time. It seems that a lot of people think that Superman caused the Earth to rotate backward and that it was that backward rotation that caused time to reverse (and then rightly pointing out that this would be dumb). That's not the way I took it. I think that's putting the cart before the horse. I thought the Earth was rotating backward because Superman was reversing time! (at least locally)

/geek rant off

Posted by: MrFire | August 5, 2010 2:31 PM

Me,

You're independent Walton.

Arghhh, that should be: You're killing independent Walton.

FWIW, it kind of still works, in my opinion.

Posted by: MrFire | August 5, 2010 2:47 PM

It seems that a lot of people think that Superman caused the Earth to rotate backward and that it was that backward rotation that caused time to reverse

Once upon a time, I had a work colleague who insisted that time was "just the Earth going round the Sun". I did a double-take, then tried to throw a reductio ad absurdum (?) his way, by saying "so you think if we destroyed the Sun, time would cease to exist?". He simply replied: "Yeah".

True story.

Posted by: First Approximation, L'esprit de l'escalier | August 5, 2010 2:48 PM

Mecha-Megawalton, watch out for for Godzilla's kicks!

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 5, 2010 2:57 PM

nononono by flying at faster than light speed counter to the rotation of the earth, he was transporting himself to a known time in the past. What ever actions he took in that past did not affect the earth he was on when he started the flight. It continues on regardless.

So you are saying that Lois Lane really was irrevocably dead, deceased, passed on, had met her maker, had shed her mortal coil within the original timeline? And that all Superman did was create a new time stream? Wouldn't that have resulted in there now being two Supermans (Supermen?) in the new timestream (the one travelling back from the future and the one saving everyone but Lois Lane)? And, more important, why am I worrying about this?

Posted by: MinnieTheFinn, kaamea ateistifeministinarttu | August 5, 2010 3:03 PM

Ogvorbis: now that's a classic example of the Trousers of Time.

Too much either Pratchett or Hawking.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 5, 2010 3:10 PM

@Dhorvath:

I was just in Van a couple of weeks ago for a wedding. I find myself thinking of it more and more as Fall approaches.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 5, 2010 3:20 PM

:::Peeking in thread:::

:::Sniffing for trolls::::

Smells nice in here. Ah!

I'd hate to upset his RL friends. That being said I kind of don't mind if people argue with each other on my profile.

I'm so American, I just jumped right in and spoke my mind.

It's one of my best traits!

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | August 5, 2010 3:24 PM

[...]with a picture of Palpatine doing his cannibalistic leer.

Nicely descriptive turn of phrase. :D

How to give a cat a pill.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 5, 2010 3:26 PM

Y'all don't even want to imagine what I am like on prednisone.

Mr Aquaria accepts sympathy cards.

Posted by: Mattir-ritated | August 5, 2010 3:33 PM

Prednisone is, hands down, the most unpleasant drug I have ever been on. Nice in smallish doses for poison ivy and the like, but in large doses, I could barely walk for the jitters for several hours after I took it. I could breathe fine, but didn't want to get out of bed and couldn't walk a block without the sturdy arm of Mr. M by my side.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 5, 2010 3:40 PM

I know that I have an allergic reaction to prednisone. Not sure what it is. I was given some while in the army (20 of us had an allergic reaction to something) and woke up in a hospital room with an IV in my arm. Still not sure what happened. Oddly, I also discovered I was allergic to codeine in the army.

Posted by: broboxley OT | August 5, 2010 3:42 PM

Ogvorbis #521 dead as a doornail, thats why he went back in time, to get a fresh one. The first timeline doesnt have a superman anymore, he left and was replaced by an influx of xfluvium (take matter from a universe it is replaced by an equal amount of antimatter) which appeared like a 20 megaton brilliant light flash and a farting noise

Posted by: Dhorvath, OM | August 5, 2010 3:51 PM

Oh, two supermen isn't nearly enough. Don't they have some multiple worlds thing going on with good supermen, bad supermen, etc?

Clearly one of those supermen gets transported into the really strange alt universe with Richard Pryor.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 5, 2010 4:07 PM

Ewan: I become jittery and borderline manic on prednisone.

I usually end up taking it about once a year, since I get colds that lead to bronchitis about that often.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 5, 2010 4:11 PM

MrFire:

Never saw combat. Never completed my training due to a blown out knee (14 surgeries later, it still hurts and is unstable). So, no destruction or death or dismemberment. Sorry. I'll try to do better next time.

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 5, 2010 4:15 PM

Wait. Last fall, when I had pneumonia, I was given prednisone and it really helped and there was no adverse reaction. Of course in the army it was an injection and last fall was an inhalent, but still. Now I wonder what the hell happened to me (and the other soldiers) in the army. Hmmm.

Posted by: MrFire | August 5, 2010 4:41 PM

Oh!

Never saw combat.

Ogvorbis - I'm not sure, but I think I may have left you with the wrong impression! I meant to imply that the injection had turned you into the Incredible Hulk or something, and you had blacked out, secret military expt. etc. I wasn't trying to imply that you were, like, a military death-monger, or anything like that!

Really sorry about that, if that was the case.

Posted by: Dania | August 5, 2010 4:48 PM

Until recently, sunny days were actually irritating, since I had to fake sharing the "what a beautiful day" enthusiasm to avoid standing out.

I don't usually like sunny days very much. Only after it's been rainy for weeks or months. So, yeah, Spring is nice but the sunny days get old pretty soon. I get tired of Summer quickly.

But then, I'm the one who likes to sing ♫What a day, what a day/If you can look it in the face/And hold your vomit♫ to cheer up. Yeah, that cheers me up. I never claimed to be normal, you know.

Posted by: Brownian, Most Vicious & Petty of Pharyngulites | August 5, 2010 5:07 PM

Wow, Birger. As someone with mild-to-moderate depression, of which some anhedonia is a symptom, I'm very sorry, though it sounds like you've found a way to cope after a fashion.

You say 'Until recently, sunny days were actually irritating'. Has something changed?

Posted by: Rev. BigDumbChimp | August 5, 2010 5:21 PM

"He was a wise man who invented beer" - Plato

just sayin'

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | August 5, 2010 5:36 PM

Ewan in my case my lungs were messed up after pneumonia. The infection was gone, but I was still having problems with pleurisy. I toughed it out and got pneumonia again a year later. Kicked it and by the time I went to the doctor it was on it's way out, although I was kind of wrecked. This time he suggested that I take prednisone for the resulting inflammation because apparently the illness left my lungs more... reactive.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 5, 2010 6:45 PM

Oh dear oh dear oh dear... I've gotten a bit brash about what I post links to on Facebook, and my fundamentalist sister-in-law has just weighed hotly in on one... oh dear oh dear.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 5, 2010 7:00 PM

Hee. I opted for calmly explaining the main objective of the link in question. It's about the hypocrisy of "pro-life" Sen. Lindsey Graham talking about immigrant births in a crude way, so it is a topic for which a fair point can be made that she ought to be just as outraged at the way he's discussing the Miracle Of Life™ as if it's akin to a cockroach infestation.

Posted by: Nerd of Redhead, OM | August 5, 2010 7:21 PM

immigrant births

Posted by: Ogvorbis, Parenthetical Death | August 5, 2010 7:35 PM

Birger:

Luckily, I was in the army 20 years ago and had no problem with the military taking responsibility for the injury. Were I in today, with the MOS I had, I would most likely still be in rather than taking a disability discharge.

Posted by: Audley Z. Darkheart OM, purveyor of candy and lies | August 5, 2010 7:39 PM

Miki:

The "few just in case" was how my wife finally quit smoking. She kept 2 1/2 cigarettes because she "hadn't quit yet, just hadn't smoked in a while".

OMG, that would absolutely destroy any will-power I had. When my husband and I quit* the first time, he started out by doling out 5 cigs per day. At that point I just said to myself "fuck it, I'm smoking anyway" and bought myself a pack.

Kudos to your wife! Quitting is such a tough thing to do-- anyone who sticks with it is nothing less than a superhero! :)

*I planned to quit again this week, but I chickened out. *sigh*

Posted by: Miki Z | August 5, 2010 7:44 PM

Kudos to your wife! Quitting is such a tough thing to do-- anyone who sticks with it is nothing less than a superhero! :)

And, in actual news, Elena Kagan was just confirmed to SCOTUS.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 5, 2010 7:49 PM

anyone who sticks with it is nothing less than a superhero! :)

Believe it or not,
I'm quitting the smokes
I never thought I could breathe so freeeee,
It's not that it's wrong
but it costs a fuckton
of monneeeyyyyyyy,
Believe it or not,
I'm quittiiiiiing.

Posted by: Ewan R | August 5, 2010 8:20 PM

Ogvorbis & Ol'Greg - ah I shee.

Similar reasons then - body not knowing what in the hell the appropriate thing to do is.

Gotta love that intelligent design. Spose 'im upstairs had to leave some reason for creating pharmacists.

Posted by: ronsullivan | August 5, 2010 8:35 PM

Oh, did I miss someone's ID of broboxley's moth? From Peterson I'd guess male tulip-tree silkmoth, Callosamia angulifera or sweetbay silkmoth, C. securifera.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 5, 2010 9:08 PM

JeffreyD - no, I was just adding musical accompaniment to the superhero comment. :) I've never smoked, because I know I would be hooked immediately.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 9:09 PM

So, I'm reading the RR thread on the Prop8 decision.

A taste:

God created marriage and man decided to get involved with it even though it has always been a Christian institution. Submitting that we should not force our views on the Californian population because "not all of them are Christian" would be akin to submitting that it would be ok for the government body to get involved with communion. They would decide who is and who is not worthy to receive and create a 'license' for communicants. Then one day they decide that ALL people irregardless of their beliefs or standing have the 'right' to communion.

Government has hijacked marriage. It was never theirs. Not that long ago, a 'license' was not even needed. You registered family marriages in the family Bible and that was that. It was accepted. Births registered in a family Bible are still acceptable as 'birth certificates' in many parts of the country.

The word 'marriage' has been polluted and diluted by man, vis a vis government inteference. Taking a so-called non-judgemental stance on a Christian institution is a non-starter. That would be like saying you believe a license for a Bar Mitsvah is required and anybody can perform one and anyone can become Bar Mitsvahed.

This is exactly what human government has done to marriage.

******

That is exactly what is next. I truly believe that many of those immersed in the homosexual agenda want their lifestyle to be validated and celebrated, and even vindicated by the church. It is not enough to have the fringe churches in their corner, they want ALL churches to be accepting and welcoming of their choices, and the reason, I believe, is because God gave every one of us a longing for Him. We were created to worship Him and commune with Him, and their sin--their unrepentant sin--separates them from Him. With their daily fight within, they feel "bad" about themselves (hence so many partners, drug addictions, drinking problems, etc) and they *think* that if they are finally accepted by the church as a whole, with their lifestyle held up the same as holy matrimony, then GOD is fine with their homosexuality, and they will get rid of the ache they have inside. They see the church as synonomous with God. If the church says my lifestyle is valid and even holy, then so does God. It is heartbreaking, really.

Now there is also a militant homosexual agenda that is not so much about being accepted, but about destroying families. This is a dark agenda, and they are just "useful idiots" to Satan, as he goes about destroying the basic foundation of society. There may be some seriously dark days ahead before our Lord snatches us away in the blink of an eye!

*******

Nu-uh. I'm making sure I get married in my church with a large wedding for everyone to see. I'm not letting Sodom-homesick pervs mess with my church or my future wedding!

*********

I've been roaming around the 'net' reading the myriad of comments made from both sides of the aisle and pulpit. What amazes me is that no one seems to be addressing the effect on the children. It's a glaring ommission.

Homosexuality and all it's incarnations will now be taught as 'normal' in school irregardless of the child's or the child's family's religous beliefs. The children of America have lost their freedom to practice Christianity out loud or in private as any and all comments, beliefs, et.al. refuting the homosexual lifestyle will be seen as hate speech. All the fun that comes with these beliefs will soon follow. Being made an example of comes to mind.

So adorable little Sally, who's all of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd grade will be bombarded with text books showing Johnny's two mommies or daddies. She will be taught that this is 'normal', acceptable, and even encouraged as we 'must all explore our sexuality'. The lifestyle is self-perpetuating as it can't procreate--oh, but it's oh so 'normal'. Indeed.

Sally may even be questioned on where she got these views/beliefs. Why mommie/daddie/ grandma/grandpa of course. I'm not Chicken Little. This all will happen. The text books have already been printed, just waiting in the wings. This is not a tin foil meme, someone very close to me was a public elementry school librarian and retired early so they did not have to witness or be a part of what was coming down the pike for our dear innocent children. She read the textbooks. They're here.

So now we have these poor children who will not only be confused, but torn in their loyalties. What child has not looked up to and admired their kindergarten, 1st - 3rd grade teachers? And what if the teachers encourage the children to report on their family's views regarding this and other topics.

This was always going to happen. Watch how fast these textbooks make it into the school. We've been duped again. They just had to go through the 'motions'. One judge overthrows the will of 7,000,000 people? Yeah right. Where I come from, that's called living in a totalitarian state, communist state, etc., etc., whatever label anyone wants to put on it. Basically, anti-freedom.

My only remaining comment is to beg the Lord to please get us out of here so that His justice and will may be done.

*****
I haven't even gotten to the 5th page yet. I think it's time for a drink. Or three.

Posted by: Jadehawk, cascadeuse féministe | August 5, 2010 9:30 PM

[marriage] has always been a Christian institution

epic.

Not that long ago, a 'license' was not even needed. You registered family marriages in the family Bible and that was that. It was accepted. Births registered in a family Bible are still acceptable as 'birth certificates' in many parts of the country.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | August 5, 2010 9:34 PM

Dear God,

Why do you make the good people at Rapture Ready suffer by allowing homosexuality to exist naturally in human and other animals society, to allow relationships to be based on consent rather than outdated patriarch, to make homosexual just as moral and sometimes even more moral than Rapture Ready, put evidence of evolution in fossils, our DNA, currently existing animals, and make it observable, to put evidence of an old earth in our geology, geography, astronomy, allow women control of their body, allow women to speak their minds, allow other religion to exist, allow other non-American culture to exist, to allow opposing groups the rights to protest the good people at Rapture Ready, give people logic and reason, to create the existant of fallacies, remove evidence of your existence to the point that at best you'll be seen as a non-intervening deity and at worst you just don't exist at all unless they suffer from delusion, make other people think that Rapture Ready is filled with ethnocentric, delusion, paranoid, hysterical, idiotic, insane, lying folks, to allow morality to exist in society independent of Judeo-Christian influences thereby suggesting morality is universal rather than a monopoly of the Christian religion, allow the existence of tolerant Christians and secular Jews, to fracture the Christian religion to the point that it would suggest there is no universal way to interpret it's doctrine, to allow a right-moderate president Obama to be democratically elected, to provide non-believer evidence to historical Christian atrocities every time Rapture Ready tries to point out non-believer’s atrocities, to provide non-believers with the Bible so that they can point out it's contradiction, inconsistency, errors, evils, and ambiguity, and finally (the biggest insult of all) to not provide enough smilies to post in one post?

God, with Jesus as my Savior, I await your reply, but don't expect cookies. Those are all mine.

(In case if anyone is wondering, I'm joking around. I wouldn't waste my time praying to a sadist god.)

Posted by: broboxley OT | August 5, 2010 9:39 PM

Jadehawk OM #579 its partially true, would get out the family bible, wait for a passing minister or travel to see one or a captain of a ship. A Captain of a wagon train was also acceptable. The idea was that a "respectable" witness signed the book to show that it was in fact a marriage. Any spongebob could claim himself a preacher and do marriages tho, there was no need for a "license" to marry or a state requirement.
The practice came from the evolving laws regarding inheritance.

Posted by: 'Tis Himself, Quel Dommage | August 5, 2010 9:41 PM

[marriage] has always been a Christian institution

All those Jews, Hindus, Muslims, Buddists, etc. thinking all this time they were married. They sure got fooled. And their kids are all bastards.

Posted by: 朴競花/박경화 (Gyeong Hwa) | August 5, 2010 9:46 PM

[marriage] has always been a Christian institution

O R L Y ?

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | August 5, 2010 9:48 PM

Well in the rural part of my family it does seem that married often meant married in the eyes of the small rural community in which you lived.

Honestly, I live in a huge city. I have no fucking nostalgia for that shit.

Posted by: Wowbagger, Man-Hating Man of Pharyngula | August 5, 2010 9:52 PM

ahahahaaa.... so Moses was never married, or Adam, or Noah, or any of the pre-Christian patriarchs?

But they were Christians, even if they didn't themselves know it; apparently, Jesus' magic powers aren't limited by chronology so once he showed up he was able to retroactively Christianise even those people who lived hundreds and thousands of years before him.

Crazy, yes. But I didn't make it up - I'm fairly sure it's a (slightly exaggerated, I admit) version of something heddle wrote about a list in the bible of who's in heaven (or somesuch). And you can bet your next meal of bacon-wrapped baby that if it's in the bible, heddle has found a way to explain how it all makes 'sense' - to use the term loosely.

Anyway, yeah. If you're a Christian, you get to decide what marriage is or isn't, because Jesus says so.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 5, 2010 9:53 PM

irregardless

What is it with homophobes and this stupid non-word?

I got into a weeklong Me v. the Morons rumble about how homophobia was prejudice (you'd think...Duh?) in my online arts history class the last time I was in college. One of them used this word in the message board exchange, I called her on it as an aside (it's college, after all), and she swore I used it first. And then of course I became the militant one (sigh) for refusing to let them misuse and redefine words all over the place, refusing to let them just make up shit about LGBTs, but it wasn't militant when two classmates got thrown out of school for sending me rape and death threats via email.

Because I couldn't let it go when an African-American fundie spewed that he didn't think homosexuals deserved to be considered a minority, and he couldn't be reasoned with. I really did try that first.

Yeah, I knew better, but it was college, y'know?

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 5, 2010 9:56 PM

[marriage] has always been a Christian institution

That's the kind of statement that makes me positive that The way we never were and Marriage, A history should be required reading to get a high school diploma.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 5, 2010 9:58 PM

Crazy, yes. But I didn't make it up - I'm fairly sure it's a (slightly exaggerated, I admit) version of something heddle wrote about a list in the bible of who's in heaven (or somesuch). And you can bet your next meal of bacon-wrapped baby that if it's in the bible, heddle has found a way to explain how it all makes 'sense' - to use the term loosely.

As I said over at Ed's place, heddle's entire tenure on the internet is one long shrieking rant of No True Christian (TM).

Did he do something childish in response to that? I didn't go back to look, but that's what he's been reduced to whenever I needle him these days.

Posted by: John Morales | August 5, 2010 10:00 PM

Nah, True Marriage™ is Christian marriage.

All other forms are only "marriage" — kinda like 'civil unions'.

So, from their perspective, it makes perfect sense.

Posted by: Carlie of the lacy, gently wafting adjectives | August 5, 2010 10:03 PM

I also have beautiful lighters, cigarette cases, paraphernalia that I will miss - part of the ritual.

Not even remotely the same thing, but I went through a time where I grew out my hair to my hips; I don't miss the hair one bit, but man, sometimes I just gaze at my collection of hair sticks and pins and combs and wish I could figure out some way to still showcase them. Pretty things are nice.

Posted by: Algernon, elle sans chapeau | August 5, 2010 10:06 PM

irregardless

I remember one of the most sad, truly sad, MRA types I ever met from a now-defunct message board once spewed a novel or two's worth of verbiage in defense of his use of that word. It was beautiful and painful. Although I'm sort of poking at him here, he actually makes me really sad to think about. We were almost friends but the guy had real (holy fucking shit real) problems and I finally had enough of it.

Posted by: Aquaria | August 5, 2010 10:09 PM

Hey Jeffrey! How ya been?

As I've mentioned in the past, the flu from hell permanently made me an ex-smoker. It's probably the only thing that would have worked, because I loved the rituals of it, as much as the smoking. But I still don't miss it, and other people's smoke still bothers me.

I think I've quit for good this time.

Posted by: MrFire | August 5, 2010 10:14 PM

Gyeong-Hwa @581: that's the stuff that Mollies are made of, surely!

(caveat: not that I'd be an authority on that. But I can still vote...)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 10:19 PM

MrFire:

But I can still vote...

Me too and I have another of Gyeong Hwa's posts bookmarked as an example for Molly nomination time.

Posted by: JeffreyD | August 5, 2010 10:23 PM

Carlie -

I went through a time where I grew out my hair to my hips; I don't miss the hair one bit, but man, sometimes I just gaze at my collection of hair sticks and pins and combs and wish I could figure out some way to still showcase them. Pretty things are nice.

Make a shadow box presentation of the pretty things. I did that with some of my smallish memorabilia from my ill spent and scandal ridden life. Nice to have some things out to see vice moldering in a cardboard box.

Caine - Me too. Several of my lighters have special people/time/place meanings.

Posted by: AJ Milne OM | August 5, 2010 10:25 PM

Speaking of bleeding ears (we still were, right?), I just fell just right during a sailboarding lesson, got one of those 'water pumped into the ear by force of landing' things.

And it Hurts. Like. Fuck. Still, like more than two hours after I getting back to shore.

Seriously, I hate that. Happened once before, at the bottom of a waterslide (chaperoning our little one). Same sorta awful. Like some sadistic nut has just decided to attach a bicycle pump to my ear, pump stuff in until I scream...

Lesson was awesome, otherwise, tho'. Instructor figured the wind was like 20 knots in some gusts--high for here. And when I could actually get the thing up properly in front of that (erm... not exactly always, no), it was seriously sweet...

... and maybe that's actually the bright side to the ear. Hurts so much I'm not especially noticing what my arms feel like. Nor my hands. Nor, for that matter, just about everything else.

Posted by: JeffreyD | August 5, 2010 10:32 PM

Aquaria - Hello my dear. Physical problems still with me, mental ones are better - call it a push. :^}

Glad you quit. Sometimes I think the forced way is the best way to quit, horrible as it may be. My Dad was forced to quit by virtue of being in an oxygen tent due to pneumonia complication after open heart surgery. Tough for him, but allowed him to quit...and then be a pain in the ass about being an ex smoker.

Caine is right about the ecigs - there is nothing to bother anyone. I have stealth vaped in various places to see if I could. No one has noticed any smell or discomfort. It really is just water vapor that one exhales.

Posted by: JeffreyD | August 5, 2010 10:37 PM

Nite all.

(Waves his deadly, albeit friendly hands of steel at Mr. Fire on the way out...munching a raw heart.)

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 5, 2010 10:39 PM

"So adorable little Sally,"

*gasp* Not Little Sally!! THINK OF LITTLE SALLY!!!

"who's all of 1st, 2nd, or 3rd grade will be bombarded with text books showing Johnny's two mommies or daddies. She will be taught that this is 'normal', acceptable, and even encouraged as we 'must all explore our sexuality'.""

Well, it is. People who know more about these things than Sally's parents know that it is.

To me it sort of ties into Caine's earlier remarks about people bringing their babies everywhere. Not specifically where/when it is appropriate to take babies or small children (so breathe easy, folks), but rather the reluctance of parents to ever let their children out of their sight, or more specifically in this case, their influence. I understand that parents are protective of their children, it's one of the strongest biological urges out there, but I'm of the belief that children should have a variety of adult influences in their lives, whether they be teachers, relatives, friends of the parents, etc. It takes a village, and all that. One shouldn't mind a teacher teaching children things that you don't know about. But I suppose this is incompatible with indoctrination into a fundie world.

"So now we have these poor children who will not only be confused, but torn in their loyalties."

Welcome to life, kiddo.

"My only remaining comment is to beg the Lord to please get us out of here so that His justice and will may be done."

Apparently, His justice and will ain't what they used to be. Oh and also, you need to do some penance prayer for failing to capitalize "justice" and "will".

"I also have beautiful lighters, cigarette cases, paraphernalia that I will miss - part of the ritual."

Smokers do have nice paraphernalia*, don't they? I can see how one could get attached to it. I still have a Zippo lighter with a lovely scrimshaw design on it that I fished out of my dorm toilet 12 years ago, even though I've never smoked. I have fuel for it, but I guess that stuff dries up if you don't use it? I can't make a flame without a fresh fuel addition.

* One of maybe five words that I've had to Google the spelling of in the years that I've been an avid typer of brain farts on the internets.

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 10:40 PM

MrFire:

You're an atheist! You don't grieve!

Shhhhhhhhh. That's supposed to be a secret!

You're an emotionless, nihilistic, robotic monster! (With a heart-tearing fist, no less

Well, yes. Only when necessary, mind.

Posted by: Rey Fox, Bird Caller Guy | August 5, 2010 10:43 PM

Gah dammit, I forgot about Futurama. It's been so long since I've had an appointment TV show.* Well, better wait 'til 11. And hope that I don't miss the first couple minutes like I always do because of CC's irritating practice of starting the show on time.

* Though for three years of that, I didn't have a TV either

Posted by: cicely (Inadvertent Phytocidal Maniac) | August 5, 2010 10:44 PM

That, from one of a group who screams the loudest about our current President's birth. Mm hmm.

But it's okay if it's "us", where "us"=the members of the speaker's/poster's in-group.

[...]adult/child marriages (NAMBLA for instance)[...]

And yet, even in these modern times, right hyar in the U.S.of A., while 16 a person is still considered to be a minor, they can be married with parental consent; down to 13 for a female in New Hampshire with "special cause" (which I assume is a euphemism for preggers), and California (according to Wikipedia) has no statutory minimum.

I feel sure that these same people would have no problem with marrying off Little Dumpling at 13, if she'd got pregnant. Legal minority or no.

Posted by: Kyorosuke | August 5, 2010 10:51 PM

I need some quick help, and I know you guys are the ones to turn to:

What is the name of the fallacy, if there is one, where a person insists that by being opposed or that a certain group of people disagree with them, therefore the opposite view is correct? For example, someone saying that "because liberals believe it, it must not be true" or similar?

Alternatively or relatedly, is there a fallacy where someone insists because you're asking questions or confronting someone about something, means that you believe the opposite of what you're implying? I'm probably not explaining it well, but someone said to me recently after I criticized them that I must actually not believe the criticism? Let me quote from the person I'm debating:

The fact that you're even attempting to criticize me leads me to believe you're trying to convince me I'm not [subject of the debate] because YOU think I am. You are attempting to disprove your own beliefs by arguing with me.

Now, I'm not the most accomplished debater or the smartest guy in the world, but that definitely seems to make no fucking sense, right? I'm hoping someone can help me explain why that makes no sense, if that's at all possible, and I know you guys are good at this stuff. Thanks!

Posted by: Ahze | August 5, 2010 11:00 PM

#498 MinnieTheFinn

I absolutely detest when someone, who has never experienced anything even closely similar to my experiences comes to me with a chirpy "cheer up, it can't be that bad, there are other people worse off than yourself and besides, it's a sunny day" kinda shite.

I most heartily agree with this statement. I’ve thrown otherwise well meaning friends out of my place for not realizing how their “advice” was affecting me. It has lead to me cutting off one acquaintance that just refused to believe that his bachelor’s degree in “clinical therapy” from an evangelical Lutheran college did not make him my perfect vessel of salvation.

Unfortunately, I tend to have the same opinion of cognitive behavioral therapy. This makes the already difficult task of finding a new therapist who takes Medicare and is willing to work with someone like me out of an inpatient environment nearly insurmountable. I had to move away from the one doctor I had found, and I’ve not had the energy/motivation to look for another one since finding and rejecting three here in Rhode Island.

Also, the modern media is full of the oh-so-trendy celebrity depression.

This is also infuriating. I wish there was some other name applied to my problem as this lighthearted facile treatment of depression makes it rather hard for me to be taken seriously by a large number of laymen.

#501 MrFire

just anybody who may conceivably be mugging it up for publicity.

Perhaps I am a bit jaded, but I often suspect this as well.

#512 KOPD and others.

I was given a wonderful device that aids in forcing pills into a cat. I do not know the proper name of the widget, but it is basically much like a syringe. There is a split rubber tip on the business end that holds the pill so you can’t get chewed while using your fingers to inject the medicine. The plunger pushes the pill out of the rubber grip. The whole thing is about 8 inches long loaded. You take Sylvester and restrain him enough to prevent the claws from finding your flesh, wedge the jaws open with your thumb and forefinger on the off hand, shove the syringe thingy waaay far down the hatch of the cat and hit the plunger. Apparently, cats do not have similar gag reflexes to humans…you can get the tip really far down the throat. Drop the widget, hold jaw shut and rub the throat. If you put the pill far enough back, it can’t be spit up. Makes the whole process a lot less traumatic for everyone since it generally only needs to be done once. I had to purchase it directly from a vet. Cost about 7 bucks if I recall correctly.

#554 Birger Johansson

I assume being exposed to this kind of mood disorder for a long time also makes the brain "optimised" to feel this way, like Marvin the Paranoid Android.

The one therapist who I had a decent relationship with told me that new research was suggesting that physical changes in the brain do happen to longtime depression and anxiety sufferers. She has a Piled higher & Deeper, but I didn’t get a name of the study or anything like that. (Being an arty type, I didn’t think that I would get much out a reading a real science document.)

Posted by: Caine, ghetto féministe | August 5, 2010 11:02 PM

Kyorosuke, this might help you out: http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Logical_fallacy

Posted by: Aquaria | August 5, 2010 11:06 PM

Aquaria - Hello my dear. Physical problems still with me, mental ones are better - call it a push. :^}

I know you've headed out, but I'm glad to hear it.

I understand that parents are protective of their children, it's one of the strongest biological urges out there, but I'm of the belief that children should have a variety of adult influences in their lives, whether they be teachers, relatives, friends of the parents, etc.

The over-protectiveness has made suburban neighborhoods deathly quiet since the 80s. Kids don't even get to spend unstructured time playing with other kids in most places anymore.

The Valley was the only place I've lived in where the kids in a given neighborhood would still be outside, playing, romping, having disputes, sorting them out, poking into things, and discovering, with us parents not suffocating them.

Yeah, they got banged up and did stupid things, but they had such a great time together.

Maybe it's because there wasn't a ton of crap to schedule kids into, and most of us were too broke for that, anyway.