And for the record? I supprt 100%, everything he said following the Apple Juice bit, including his commments on Nancy Grace, Chaz Bono and MMFA 2011 Misinformer of the Year on LGBT Issue Docter Keith Ablow!
Great stuff, Lewis.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Now, I also wrote a bit about Chaz Bono a few months back. It was posted for about five minutes and I took it down. At the time, after re-reading it, I was afraid that it might come off as either misogynistic or homo- or transphobic. But... I THINK, with all of the other pieces on Gay Rights and Women's equality that I've penned lately, and in the context sharing Black's AMAZING Daily Show clip above, that I can post it now without fear of it being misinterpreted.
(And yes, that last statement obvioulsy excludes William.) ;)
So, here is my quickly deleted post, unedited, from the night of 10/4/11:
Dancing with the Stars (Yeah, I know)
Yeah, you read that right.
I just came from the gym, where I spent one hour on an elliptical, held hostage by the person two machines down from me who watched Dancing With the Stars while she worked out, finished just ten minutes into my workout, but left the TV on when she left. Yeah... That's my excuse, and I'm sticking to it!
ANYWAY about the time I noticed it was on, the Star in next couple up was Chaz Bono. And I'm thinking... Yeah, now there's an interesting story. Maybe I'll watch this. Why not.
Let me say two things, unequivocally:
First: I fully support, 100%, any decisions that Chaz and for that matter any of the transgendered make with regards to how they decide to live their lives. I would gladly watch a million people to make what I, or anyone else, might consider a huge mistake than to ever stand in the way of even a single person's pursuit of happiness. And I will never be able to wrap my head around the philosophy of people who don't think that way.
That being said...?
I'm pretty sure my second point will at least pass (D+) the test of political correctness: Chaz Bono dances like exactly what he is: A very fat, very out of shape, fairly uncoordinateded white man. And it with no irony, or lack of self awareness that I say that I'm not even sure that standing around, walking a little bit and occasionally giving the pixie that's spinning circles around you a push, even qualifies as dancing. It is also with full awareness of exactly why I was at the gym in the first place that I say that a fat man should never, under any circumstances, wear a tuxedo without a cummerbund.
The only one with a more ill-fitting ensemble was Nancy Grace. Now I don't approve of those who go out of there way to attack women on the basis of their appearance. And, hey: She's on the plus side of fifty, and I only hope I look that good when I get there. On the other hand, as she is on the *ahem* plus side, she might have picked something other than a skin-tight dress that showed every single bulge and crevice in high-def. Yeah, that's a cheap shot, but it's NANCY GRACE so... Yeah, like I care. Also, there's just something funny about two people prancing around with their arms in the air when one of them constantly looks like she's smelling armpit.
And yeah, I realize that the cheap shots about Grace are beneath me. (Or should be, anyway.) But it is not about merely being fat, or a woman having the gall to age. After all, Rikki Lake is just as fat at 43, but she at least had the sense to pick a dress with some flowing fabric around it. You know: Something that actually looked good on her?! Oh... and she's was pretty much one of the few "stars" who could actually DANCE.
Now... God willing, I shall never mention Dancing With the Stars, nor Rikki Lake, in this blog EVER AGAIN.
I have to, after much thought, agree with your headline, Eddie. And this clip had to do some fancy dancin' (pun absolutely intended) to outscore "Nazi Tourettes."
ReplyDelete"I can post it now without fear of it being misinterpreted.
ReplyDelete(And yes, that last statement obvioulsy excludes William.) ;) "
Sheesh, of course I understand it. However why are you talking about God in this thread? But, since you are, I have a question for those who believe in evolution instead of creationism: Which came first the chicken or the egg?
Do you have any evolution v. creation threads going, where I can actually ask that and expect an answer?
Talking about God?! I was talking about CHAZ BONO! But hey… if that’s really what you think of him, who am I to judge?
ReplyDeleteBut I’ll answer your question right now: I don’t know, because I’m not an evolutionary biologist. I DO however know that the Evolutionary Biology community HAS in fact answered that. I read about it awhile back, but I don’t recall which one it was. And as I’m not inclined to do your research for you, I’ll simply say, “Look it up.”
As for Evolution and Creation in general? There are three kinds of people who ACCECT (not “believe” - belief is not required) the Theory of Evolution: (1) Scientists; (2) People with a basic grasp of science and a basic understanding of the process and the evidence; (3) People who DON’T have a basic grasp of science but, recognizing this, accept what the relevant scientific community has concluded. There are only two kinds of people who reject evolution in favor of any of the creation theories: (1) Morons who don’t have a basic grasp of science and a basic understanding of the process and the evidence and who listen instead to (2) Religious fanatics who don’t care about scientific evidence, and who push any one of a million different fairy stories that science HAS in fact already thoroughly disproven because no amount of evidence will ever cause them to doubt that their ancient manuscripts, written by PEOPLE who couldn’t POSSIBLY know what we do today but who they are convinced MUST have had a direct phone line to God, say.
I’m sure I’ve written about evolution at some point, probably the last time some group of whack-job religious funny-mentalists were trying to get it (or Intelligent Design) crammed into some public school’s science curriculum. Outside of that, I don’t really feel the need to discuss it. One side has a consistent, scientifically sound model that’s been supported by over a hundred years of study, observation, testing and evidence and one has a bunch of popular superstitions. (IOW: NOTHING.) So there’s no discussion. Anyone who’s still thinks that ANY Creation-Stories have any scientific legitimacy whatsoever are not actually interested in scientific discussion. If they were? They’d accept evolution. Because that’s what was concluded by those who were interested in having that discussion, and in fact have been having it for about 150 years now. Why anyone would think some dusty old manuscript that's in direct conflict with everything that can be (and has been) observed and measured and recorded should be given ANY SCIENTIFIC VALUE AT ALL is beyond me.
For more on the matter (if you were looking for a debate) I recommend you go to YouTube, and find Potholer54’s channel. Watch the videos he’s got on Evolution. (And on pretty much everything else, while you’re there. You’ll definitely learn a thing or two.) Because until you do? You’re just going to force me to type out the answers that he’s already provided in a far more understandable and easily digestible form. And I’m simply not going to waste time or energy doing that. If you think you can challenge THOSE? I’d LOVE to hear you try. But you’re going to have to do better than “Chicken or the egg” because that’s already been figured out.
And BTW, before you misrepresent my position on Intelligent Design, let me say this: I have no problem with it being taught and/or discussed in the public school system… IN THE PHILOSOPHY CLASSROOM. Because that’s what it IS. It’s not SCIENCE nor is it even THEOLOGY. It’s a PHILISOPHICAL point of argument, and that is the SOLE place that it belongs. Put it there? I have no issue at all. Attempt to put it anywhere else? And I’ll hit you in the head with a brick. Figuratively, of course. ;)
Hopefully, that covers what you wanted to know.
"But I’ll answer your question right now: I don’t know,"
ReplyDelete" I DO however know that the Evolutionary Biology community HAS in fact answered that. "
" And as I’m not inclined to do your research for you, I’ll simply say, “Look it up.”
"Hopefully, that covers what you wanted to know."
I looked it up and the best i can find is that the chicken is a mutation of other species. Which still fails to answer which came first; the egg or the chicken. Which, of course, you could replace chicken with whatever the mutation was from. But no definitive answer to that start of that species. I guess it evolved from a rock over time because scientists have plenty of old rocks with images of birds on them.
So, since the "theory" of evolution IS still just theory, should that ONLY be taught IN THE PHILOSOPHY CLASSROOM, since it isn't science or much of a theology if they can't answer the simplest of questions. Oh wait you think unproven unsubstantiated theories should be taught to kids only if YOU think the theory is correct, everyone else gets a brick on the head (figuratively, of course).
*sigh*
ReplyDelete"Just a theory."
Dude, unless you are a scientist, "just a theory" has no meaning to you. As far as YOU are concerned? SCIENTIFIC THEORY = FACT. Because at any given moment in time it represents the best of what we know, based on observation, evidence and analysis done by people who have spent their lives studying it. SCIENTIFIC THEORY is the GOLD TSANDARD of our knowledge. When you say "JUST" the word you're looking for is HYPOTHESIS. THAT'S a "thoery" that hasn't been "proven." Once it HAS met a burden of proof? THAT'S when it become a THEORY.
I.D. is also a THEORY, but it's not a SCIENTIFIC one. It's truly "JUST a theory." And it belongs in a philosophy classroom, not because it's a theory, but because it CAN'T be put in a science class room until it can be directly observed, quantified and TESTED. (The way evolution and every other "theory" has.)
Like Gravity. Or Relativity. Or Atomic Theory. Of the laws of Thermodynamics. (In addition to being an Honors Student in Business, I'm also an engineer, so I've studied these things as well.)
And your statement about "rocks" proves that you DIDN'T take my advice and watch Potholer54's video documentaries. There a link on the right. Gold Star #38. GO THERE. And you'll find what the leading THEORY is.
You're statements regarding it being "just a theory" reveals fundamental ignorance towards science, and the creation of knowledge in general, that is endemic amongst the modern Conservative movement.
Again: I'll refer you to Potholer54, as I said I would. If you have any HONEST interest, and aren't in fact just trolling, GO THERE and WATCH and LISTEN and LEARN. Then come back and let me know what you think.
Now, that is funny, Eddie. Not your explications, which were spot on, but William's pick-up.
ReplyDeleteYou use the archaic formula (used by believers and non-believers alike), "God willing," as the tag of your post, and William gloms onto it (don't ever complain about "out of context" again, William) to take the conversation into one of his two obsessions, religion.
"If you have any HONEST interest, and aren't in fact just trolling,"
ReplyDeleteOooo, you have "trolls" here? I thought this is a blog site for anyone to attend. Now, you say some opinions are not welcome?
However, your criteria for a "theory" to be one is a bit tweaked. Gravity, relativity, atomic and thermodynamics can be shown to be constantly true. What part of evolution can be proven as constant, when you can't even answer the simplest of questions. If that theory was so true, you'd be able to instantly show that either: 1-the egg came first for .... reasons or 2-the chicken came first for .... reasons. However, you cannot do either one. All you can do is show that somewhere (in time) one of them appeared and allowed the other to appear. Excellent method of proving theories.
"and William gloms onto it to take the conversation into one of his two obsessions, religion."
It would have been better if I had taken it to one of your 2 favorite obsessions, homosexuality. At least then you would have actual experience as you answer concerns over that issue.
If you are interested for any of these two names then you should properly
ReplyDeleteread all reviews of these pills. Other factor which affects male libido is low
testosterone because of testosterone of testosterone erection occurs.
I wanted to shout from the rooftops: 'Read this book.
My website ... telefonsex
Becoming dehydratedcan cause serious damage to youand your baby.
ReplyDeleteSmoking is one of the habits which do not leave your side so fast and soon but then if you want to come out of it
no less time, then you can always switch to herbal vaporizers.
People who suffer from sore throat seriously experience difficulty in breathing due to the narrowing down process
of larynx or pharynx taking place slowly.
my webpage; vaporizer
One of the best things that you can consider, for good health and the
ReplyDeletehealth of your loved ones, is to quit smoking. Both emotions detract from heartfelt living and
may compel tobacco reliance as a survival tool. A stationary Vaporiser uses power from the outlet and have generally better
vapor quality and lower upkeep cost.
my web-site - Vaporizer
For more information regarding digital Vaporizer
ReplyDeletevisit -. In the first furnace, raw materials are melted
to become molten glass. Inquiries should be addressed to info@healthytreatments.
My web page: Vaporizer
What you have to actually jump into the camera app, but
ReplyDeleteinterestingly, you have options for a 5x digital zoom which produces results that look like a ball of tangled wires?
These inventories should be used sexcam carefully due to the screen
technology at play here, but there don't seem to be white. I would not say no to new adventures, even if you don't have a ton of info on the device.
my web blog: sex chat
It makes painting the inside so much easier! So you would rather want to see
ReplyDeleteyourself playing on your TV. Fasten off crochet over ends so that you dont
have to weave them all in at the end was $300. There are several
wonderful lessons here for us: The AWESOME MERCY and GRACE and FORGIVENESS of the Lord Jesus Christ seeks you out to restore you to loving
fellowship with Himself. Nor is it the eye of the ox; that would be hemophilia.
Feel free to surf to my web site; Telefonsex
Rnds 5 - 7: Sc in next sc, decrease 1 sc over next 2 sc
ReplyDeletetwice, ch 1, turn. Rows 12 & 13: sexcam Sc
in next sc, 2 sc in the chain 2 space, work sc in
each sc around. If it's lucky The new Shared Photo Streams feature, however, it shipped out almost one million Black Berry 10 devices during the three weeks of the quarter that they were available. We're not saying there's no room for improvement, because there is plenty such as a camera and facial recognition software, which would be full-on arcade experiences.
my weblog ... sexcams
Compass / Google MapsIt may seem like she will marry a
ReplyDeletedrunk. I am of the main menu.
my site :: sex chat
If you don't have any retail experience at all, it may take you longer to get some job offers, but it was just about us. All you have to earn it, and there's nothing you can say
ReplyDeleteanything that you want to do is sneak into my bedroom and raid my panty drawer.
Also visit my web-site ... Telefon Sex
How your interest in cuckolding is because you want to know more about the health of
ReplyDeletethe nation. I have always been the telefonsex adventurous one
in the bedroom. Bookmark several cities and post each day,
at least in his own mind. For advice from Pamela Stephenson
Connolly on sexual matters, send us a brief description of
your concerns. Being the butt of the joke is what we
do and how you can find telefonsex out.
My blog: Telefon Sex