Oh, and by the way...when did Al Gore become such a badass? As the Rude Pundit put it,
- Man, someone spiked Al Gore's coffee with spinach yesterday [linkies], 'cause he went all Popeye on the Bush administration's Bluto ass.
..."You want threats?" Gore is saying. "Dude, you only gotta keep track of a couple hundred goatfuckers who shit in holes on the side of a mountain. Try dealin' with a few million Soviets. God, stop being a dickhead about it and just do your job without fucking up the joint too much, a'ight?"
5 Comments:
I guess if the Bush ilk can make Ashcroft into defending a civil liberty, why not Gore.
Gore is Ali G? He'll need a goatee though.
The grand conference of calamity is underway, Adria... get in touch, and I'll clue you into the ridiculousness planned.
ol' PH La Fount
Btw... BU seems so long ago. Geebus.
Author, do you remember it being asserted by certain parties on this site that Evolution failed to explain the origin of species because our chromosome/chromosone count differs from that of the monkies we were alleged to have descended from? It seems to be under dispute whether, as they say in spy movies, this incident ever occured and I wonder if you remember it.
Credit where it's due:
Vatican Paper Hits 'Intelligent Design'
By NICOLE WINFIELD
The Associated Press
Wednesday, January 18, 2006; 4:45 PM
VATICAN CITY -- The Vatican newspaper has published an article saying "intelligent design" is not science and that teaching it alongside evolutionary theory in school classrooms only creates confusion.
The article in Tuesday's editions of L'Osservatore Romano was the latest in a series of interventions by Vatican officials _ including the pope _ on the issue that has dominated headlines in the United States.
The author, Fiorenzo Facchini, a professor of evolutionary biology at the University of Bologna, laid out the scientific rationale for Darwin's theory of evolution, saying that in the scientific world, biological evolution "represents the interpretative key of the history of life on Earth."
He lamented that certain American "creationists" had brought the debate back to the "dogmatic" 1800s, and said their arguments weren't science but ideology.
"This isn't how science is done," he wrote. "If the model proposed by Darwin is deemed insufficient, one should look for another, but it's not correct from a methodological point of view to take oneself away from the scientific field pretending to do science."
Intelligent design "doesn't belong to science and the pretext that it be taught as a scientific theory alongside Darwin's explanation is unjustified," he wrote.
"It only creates confusion between the scientific and philosophical and religious planes."
Alright kiddo, I'm leaving for Americorps, "answering the President's call" and such. I'll be in touch with email.
Post a Comment
<< Home