This won’t help abolish the “cats are finicky” stereotype

Everyone knows cats are fancy eaters. But usually, the cats aren’t also aware of it. But this one …

Okay, that lady is nuts (or a natural Poe). But still, neat trick.

(via Diaphanitas)

A simple question with an obvious answer

Obligatory funny

There’s a guest post up at Friendly Atheist where JulietEcho, who has previously written excellent articles about the harmlessness, if not even potentially beneficial nature, of polyamory and polygamy (ie. having more than one partner in a relationship or marriage), now takes on the traditional Christian standpoint that any and all premarital sex is wrong, even though there’s absolutely no logical reason for such a belief. (But then, there isn’t much logic in any other religious beliefs, either, so that isn’t necessarily saying much.) She ends her write-up with this question:

The religious belief that all sex outside a straight marriage is sinful seems to be contributing to a world with less sexual protection, more abortions, and more teen pregnancies. All the evidence points towards sex-positivity as a more healthy, beneficial attitude, so why do so many churches and denominations still condemn sex outside marriage?

Because A) traditionalist Christians (those who stick to basic Christian principles regardless of their obsolescence) regard changing their beliefs and their ways in much the same way they regard premarital sex itself (ie. over their dead bodies) due to Church influence and peer pressure, and especially, B) expecting such Christians to change their habits thanks to exposure to that wishy-washy “facts” and “evidence” stuff is as irrational and unrealistic as traditionalist Christianity itself.

These are the people who espouse abstinence and refuse contraception even though it’s been proven to be effective up to 99.9% of the time, who refuse to distribute condoms in Africa even though they have been shown to vastly cut the levels of STDs such as HIV/AIDS, who believe (and fight to believe) that homosexuality is an optional sin despite all reason pointing to it being a harmless and intrinsic sexual orientation, that gays will pervade their homosexuality unto others when such is completely impossible (and fucking stupid), who argue that women are raped because they wear immodest clothing when all the evidence (including testimonials from rapists themselves) clearly indicate otherwise – and that’s just some of their more commonly known weird beliefs regarding sexuality. I could go on endlessly about the rest of their absurd dogmatic beliefs – transubstantiation, prayer, Heaven and Hell, faith healing, resurrection, and so on (not to mention an intangible yet all-powerful superentity in the sky) – but I feel the point has been made.

The conclusion to all this is readily evident: traditionalist Christians who believe in this sort of retarded crap simply don’t care for the facts and the scientific evidence proving them wrong. They have God and the Bible on their side, along with blind faith. What do they care? What else do they need? They aren’t going to be convinced by showing them how and why they’re demonstrably wrong, or else no-one would believe in such nonsense anymore.

Daily Blend: Tuesday, May 04, 2010 – Catch-up edition

Was a little worried after seeing previews of last night’s House, but once again, I find my faith in the show’s generally apt adherence to reality restored as they treat conversion (ie. “gay-to-straight”) therapy exactly how it deserves – as dangerous bullshit.

• Virginia Attorney General and renown kook Ken Cuccinelli is now going after climate researcher Michael Mann with accusations of fraud, based on nothing more than the misinterpreted and distorted “evidence” found in the hacked “Climategate” emails, missives in which Dr. Mann and others expressed their frustration and anger at climate change denialists such as Cuccinelli. Dr. Mann has already been subjected to an ethics review before ^[PDF] based on these same emails and was cleared of any ethical or scientific wrongdoing, which shows how this is nothing more than a petty vendetta on Cuccinelli’s part towards a scientist whose honestly-conducted science has wielded results that contradict Cuccinelli’s climate-change-denying ideology.
  (via Pharyngula)

• Oh, and to prove his committment to pressing and vital issues, Cuccinelli is also trying to cover up an exposed breast on the Virginia state seal. Because, obviously, nothing poses a greater distraction to straight males and lesbians like seeing a fictional female Roman goddess’s exposed mammary on official state insignia.

• “Meet public enemy No. 1 in today's workplace”: the … office chair? (Well, sort of.) Not sure how credible this is, but it does seem to make some amount of sense. After all, humans weren’t designed to stay in a rigid seated position in uncomfortable chairs for hours on end.
  (via The Agitator)

• Just like dogs and wolves, different members of the ursine (that’s “bear” for you) family can interbreed. Unlike their canine counterparts, you probably don’t want to stray too close to this sort of hybrid.
  (via The Agitator)

• When lively dogs meet cops, doggycide invariably ensues.
  (via The Agitator)

• Spider-Man thwarts comic book caper with the help of timely Jedi Knights. (No, I did not write that while high.)
  (via The Daily Grail)

• Note to hack comedians: when someone busts you for blatantly ripping off their works down to the freaking pronunciation, it’s probably best not to lie about it. Especially if the comedian you’re ripping off is, amongst others, Patton-fucking-Oswalt. Bonus: from Oswalt’s rebuttal: “Jesus Christ, Nick -- you craven, pudding-spined clitoris of a man.” Da-yum.

• Sen. Mike Bennett (R-Bradenton) caught looking at either A) porn or B) a curiously porny image during a senatorial debate. I don’t believe it. (His story, that is.)
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Why we need to repeal Don’t Ask, Don’t Tell. (Again.)
  (via @todayspolitics)

As always, if you have any story suggestions, feel free to send them in.

Save our schools! (Or at least, envision it dreamily)

Former US Secretary of Labor and current university professor Robert Reich states the obvious: rather than bail out terminally irresponsible banks, we ought to focus our priority onto the US’s rapidly sinking education system.

This is certainly an excellent proposal, even if it’s more of a fantasy than anything else at this point, and I also agree with PZ Myers in this:

One additional requirement, besides diverting reasonable amounts of money into education: demand improvements in quality. Not this misbegotten accountability of No Child Left Behind, but shakeups in how school boards manage budgets; remove the elected officials from the business of dictating pedagogy and content, and let the qualified professionals design curricula that actually works.

Again, though, I suppose it doesn’t hurt to dream.

3D illusions with candles are cool

And here’s proof.

Amazing, and troubling, how easily the eye can be tricked, isn’t it?

(via Bad Astronomy)

Vox Day tells us what women really want in a man [updated]

Vox Day writes about what a woman wants in her male partner and compares two approaches, one from an actual female and another from what appears to be Vox’s own inflated self-image^[1]. This first one is from Marianne Murciano, a self-described “award winning writer, journalist and Emmy winning TV personality for more than 25 years” blogging at relationship advice outlet How To Train Your Man:

You can’t blame guys for feeling exasperated. We expect them to be psychic and to know what we’re thinking. As in the Dodge commercial, many men think that if they “behave,” their woman will be happy. If they disappoint us, we are unreasonable, intolerant, unpredictable, moody, PMS-ing or nagging. Sometimes it seems that it’s never enough. It’s really not men’s fault for not knowing what women really want.

So here it is, simply. Women want three things from men: someone who cares about them, someone who will listen and respond honestly, and someone they can share a laugh with. In other words, a good friend. Everything else falls under one of these categories.

Sounds pretty damn reasonable and commonsensical to me, and seems to be in-sync with that most women I’ve ever met desire from their male partners. But then, what do I know? I obviously don’t possess the insight into the female mind and heart brought about by years of experience and philosophical discussion such as that possessed by the (self-billed) “Dark Lord of Intersexual Relations”, who has this to say about what women really want:

The strongest woman and the most strident feminist wants to be led by, and to submit to, a more powerful man. Polarity is the core of a healthy loving relationship. She does not want the prerogative to walk all over you with her capricious demands and mercurial moods. Her emotions are a hurricane, her soul a saboteur. Think of yourself as a bulwark against her tempest. When she grasps for a pillar to steady herself against the whipping winds or yearns for an authority figure to foil her worst instincts, it is you who has to be there… strong, solid, unshakable and immovable.

Wimmen: stay in the kitchen and make me my goddamn sammich already!

Vox then asks: “Now, based on everything you know about women, based on everything that has been discussed here about women, which perspective do you think is more reflective of observable reality?” It would seem that this “observable reality” is only so in the alternate universe in which Vox Day’s brand of thinking isn’t quasi-universally reviled as chauvinistic misogyny by the majority of womankind (and the sensible part of mankind as well).

Because, you know, it’s not the case, here.

On the difference between tolerance and acceptance

Not exactly the idea, but too neat to pass up [source: The Saint Barnabas’ Blog]

Ed Brayton just unearthed part of a quote that I believe merits a full (re)posting, as it follows my line of thought in showing how most people are wrong to say that we have become a “tolerant” society – not in a cynical manner, but merely because “tolerance” is less appropriate than is “acceptance”. From Robin Hanson over at Overcoming Bias:

“Tolerance” is a feel-good buzzword in our society, but I fear people have forgotten what it means. Many folks are proud of their “tolerance” for gays, working women, Tibetan monks in cute orange outfits, or blacks sitting at the front of the bus. But what they really mean is that they consider such things to be completely appropriate parts of their society, and are not bothered by them in the slightest. That, however, isn’t “tolerance.”

“Tolerance” is where you tolerate things that actually bother you. Things that make you go “ick”, or that conflict with strong intuitions on proper behavior. Once upon a time, the idea of gay sex made most folks quite uncomfortable, and yet many of those folks still advocated tolerance for gay sex. Their argument was not that gay sex isn’t icky, but that a broad society should be reluctant to ban apparently victimless activities merely because many find them icky.

Someday soon, technology will allow an explosion of possible creatures and behaviors, many of which will seem icky to many others. No doubt it will be appropriate for some communities to ban some of them, but we face a very real danger of insufficient tolerance threatening our peace and prosperity. The alternative to living peacefully with those we dislike, may be to instead die with them.

Please, in preparation, let us learn to practice tolerance with the smaller variations we face today. Unless we see a clearer harm from letting some folks watch vids of cruel but legal hunting, let us tolerate it. Same for polygamy, polyandry, or digitally-created kid porn. You don’t have to like them, or approve them, to tolerate them.

Well said. I particularly appreciate that last part, in part due to its risqué-but-true quality. It is my belief, being what I dub a “utilitarian pragmatist”, that anything that doesn’t cause any verifiable harm to anyone (in general, that is) should not be suppressed or censored, regardless of how “tasteless”, “offensive”, or even downright “wrong” it may appear or feel to others, even if this extends to every other person on the planet. This includes a whole range of socially unaccepted and tabooed subjects – sexual “perversions”, and erotic material pertaining to said sexualities, being chief amongst them.

Daily Blend: Sunday, May 02, 2010

Oy, talk about a slow news day, yesterday. Or, for me, a slow day in general.

• Note to random boors: leave the George Carlin-esque swear-infused rants to people who can get a meaningful point across (unlike this) in style (also unlike this).
  (via Fark)

• Yeah, I know Caturday was yesterday, but screw it.
  (via Fark)

• School has students vote on whether they want to hold a prayer each morning. Students said “yes”. Judge rules “no way, José”.

As always, if you have any story suggestions, feel free to send them in.

FAIL Quote of the Day: Ezra Klein has it right on Limbaugh

Aww, look at him, counting the numbers of functioning synapses in his head

Again, in the file of “proof that there’s no conspiracy theory Rush Limbaugh won’t push to oppose Obama’s administration”:

I want to get back to the timing of the blowing up, the explosion out there in the Gulf of Mexico of this oil rig. ... Now, lest we forget, ladies and gentlemen, the carbon tax bill, cap and trade, that was scheduled to be announced on Earth Day. I remember that. And then it was postponed for a couple of days later after Earth Day, and then of course immigration has now moved in front of it. But this bill, the cap-and-trade bill, was strongly criticized by hardcore environmentalist wackos because it supposedly allowed more offshore drilling and nuclear plants, nuclear plant investment. So, since they're sending SWAT teams down there, folks, since they're sending SWAT teams to inspect the other rigs, what better way to head off more oil drilling, nuclear plants, than by blowing up a rig? I'm just noting the timing here.

Ezra Klein sums this up pretty well:

Is there literally nothing this man can say that will convince Republicans to disavow him?

But why would the Grand Orchestrated Party distance themselves from one of their most accurate and credible representatives?

(via @todayspolitics)

The courts system isn’t broken; it’s rotting in its piss-soaked grave

Skinny jeans such as those worn by the alleged victim

In the pantheon of stupid fucking excuses a defense can seize upon to try and “disprove” allegations of rape, this one has got to be the single most mind-blowingly idiotic of all time (or damn close):

A man was acquitted of rape today after a jury agreed his victim could not have been sexually assaulted while wearing skinny jeans.

Nicholas Gonzales, 23, told a court in Australia that sex with the 24-year-old woman was consensual, despite her claim he had ripped off her size six skinny jeans before the attack.

The Sydney jury sent a note to the judge during the trial asking for more information about 'how exactly Nick took off her jeans'.

The note from a jury member added: 'I doubt those kind of jeans can be removed without any sort of collaboration.'

You read that right: the defense is actually arguing that Gonzales, the alleged rapist, couldn’t possibly have assaulted the alleged victim because her jeans were “too tight”, which meant that she would’ve had to take them off willingly.

Look, I don’t know whether the allegations of rape are true, and the report certainly isn’t conclusive in any case. As always, I will withhold my judgment until it’s certain beyond reasonable doubt that the alleged victim truly was sexually violated by the accused man. But the fact remains, however, that when it’s gotten to the point where the courts actually accept such legal “arguments” as “but, her clothes were too tight, I couldn’t get them off without her helping me!”, as though something such as, say, a goddamned knife wouldn’t “fix” that problem in, like, making the victim obey and take her clothes off – and actually acquit someone being accused, especially of charges this serious, based solely on such mangled reasoning … then you know that’s a court system that’s completely FUBAR. Case closed.

Ridiculous crap like this is the reason why I both hate and fear the modern justice system, when innocents are the ones who end up prosecuted and criminals are cleared of charges they deserve.

(via Fark)

Something to be proud to be #2 in: religious extremists

Bill Maher lays it out plainly: however bad our religious nutjobs here in America (or Western society in general) may be, even the worst of them pale sharply in comparison to the sort of war-mongering religiously-fueled monsters in certain other parts of the world. What is terrorism to us is merely a way of life to them – and that may be the scariest thought of all.

Here’s a quick transcript of the first part:

MAHER: Though America likes to think it’s number one, we have to admit that we’re behind the developing world in at least one thing: their religious whackos are a lot more whacko than ours. When South Park got threatened last weak by Islamists incensed at their depiction of Muhammad, it served, or should serve, as a reminder to all of us that our culture isn’t just different than one that makes death threats to cartoonists. It’s better. Because when I make a joke about the Pope, he doesn’t send one of his Swiss Guards in their striped pantaloons to stick a pike in my ass. When I make a Jewish joke, Rabbis may kvetch about it, but they don’t pull out a scimitar and threaten an adult circumcision. And when I insult Scientology, the worst that happens is – [power cuts out comedically]

I loved it all until his derisory mention of Garfield. Now I must hit him.

Aaaand that’s a wrap.

(via Friendly Atheist)

Daily Blend: Saturday, May 01, 2010 – DEM LINKS edition

Hey … my Net connection hasn’t yet died this morning, as per its usual routine for, oh, over a month now. Is it teasing me?

• See medium (ie. fraud) James Van Praagh fail miserably at cold reading. Gee, that spooky speaking-to-the-dead stuff really is harder to do without the magic of editing, isn’t it?
  (via Friendly Atheist)

• At least he left a courtesy warning.
  (via The Daily Grail)

• More bad news for abortion rights: Florida passes two pointless and ridiculously harsh anti-abortion bills, though Democrats are trying to stall them. What is it with this flurry of states passing horrible legislation these days?
  (via Uzza)

• Also, more on the new Florida abortion restrictions: the “prove you were raped to get an abortion!” bill. Fucking hell.
  (via @todayspolitics)

• Amusing, though it strikes me more as an informative pamphlet of sorts than a warning or anything. (Also, I didn’t fall for it. I love the FDR model.)
  (via friend Chris)

• Amusing, too, in a childish, “you-can-dress-him-in-a-NAMBLA-shirt” sort of way.
  (via friend Chris)

• Today’s lesson in jurisprudence: what to do if you drive drunk, get into a crash and kill someone? Just flee the scene and sober up to have that pesky 50-year sentence cut down to … 5 years.
  (via Fark)

• Seven incredible scientific discoveries and innovations held back by feuding and hair-pulling.
  (via Fark)

• My condolences. As compensation, I’m sure he’ll win a fabulous trophy.
  (via Fark)

• Example #62442 showing how the justice system is broken.
  (via Fark)

• So this means the world’s about to end, then.
  (via Fark)

• Okay, this is disturbing even for me.
  (via Fark)

• Once again, Arizona shows its knack for passing pressing, vital, much-needed legislation that isn’t a 1½ tons of bullshit.
  (via @todayspolitics)

As always, if you have any story suggestions, feel free to send them in.