Really... Here's the whole collection:
Now, a lot of this actually is offensive, and some of it is just unsanitary, but I really had to laugh at the inclusion of Monty Python's Life of Brian. Why? Because the movie did exactly what the Python boys set out to do: anger religious types. The movie is all about crazy religious types who will follow anyone they think is "the Messiah," no matter how messiah-like he actually is. It had nothing to do with Jesus at all, which means it's not really blasphemous. It's just saying to all crazy religious people that they're insane. That's what makes it a good movie.
On second thought, it should be on the list, not because it is actually blasphemous, but because everyone thought it was blasphemous.
Brian: "You don't have to follow me! You're all individuals!"
Crowd: "Yes! We're all individuals!"
Brian: "You're all different!"
Crowd: "Yes! We're all different!"
Because Steve Jobs doesn't want any.
Hmph. Steve, who are you, anyway?
Oh, and I think one interesting thing to point out, that has nothing to do with this story, is that whereas blog does not show up as misspelled in my spell check, weblog does. Strange, since the word blog is a derivative of the word weblog.
Crazy computers.
Stop the pitter-patter of little feet.
Daily Mail (via ninme)
This article disgusts me. Not the people who wrote it, of course, but the people in it. Apparently there are women out there who think having children will ruin the planet, so they don't have any. They say that their husbands agree with them, but I seriously doubt it's for the same reasons. The guy's just probably thinking, "Sex with you and no consequences? And you're find with that? I'm all for it!"
It's all just ridiculous. If having kids is bad for the environment, why are humans alive at all? Why not just stop everyone from having kids? Why not just kill everyone now? Mass genocide, because humans have ruined everything!
I posted in the comments on ninme's site the thing I always tell people who think having children will be too much of a burden (on them, or on the planet, or whatever): If your parents had thought the same as you, you wouldn't be here. Think long and hard about that, and decide whether you'd rather have been born or not. If not, you might as well just die now, right? You're a burden to the environment!
Now, that may seem harsh, but it's true. I get extremely annoyed by all the "Humans are ruining the environment! Humans are evil!" talk, because not only is it untrue, it's highly non-productive. I don't want to not have kids so I can save the environment. I want to do something about it, if it's as messed up as you say. I want to have kids, teach them the things they should do, and have them go out into society and change things for the better. Pessimists will say that humans have ruined the Earth. Optimists will actually find solutions for the things we have done, and fix them. Having kids doesn't ruin anything. Not raising them properly ruins things.
The most disgusting comment was this one, near the end of the article:
"When I see a mother with a large family, I don't resent her, but I do hope she's thought through the implications."
I don't even know what to say about this. It disturbs me in so many ways I can't describe them all. "The implications"??!!
to self: Calm down... Just don't look at her picture, and you'll be fine...
The textbooks are giving me the wrong answers!
Political Gateway (via digg)
Reviewers have found 109,263 errors in sample copies of math textbooks to be used next fall in Texas.
One second-grade math book, for example, has 4 plus 7 equaling 10, the San Antonio Express-News reported Friday.
Many of the errors, spread out over 164 textbooks and online materials, are blamed on faulty translation from English to Spanish.
Wait a second there. I don't know much Spanish, but I'm pretty sure 4 plus 7 equals 11 just like in English. Someone correct me if I'm wrong, please.
I found this amusing. This is why I don't watch TV news.
Watching the Watchers (via Drudge Retort)
So there was another of those debates... though I'm not sure what's left to debate... Haven't they all given us their views yet? Or do we all want to see how they've changed since last time...?
But it seems that CNN wants to act like it's letting "the people" get involved in the debate, but really just ask the questions it wants to ask. Take this one from the article for example:
After a commercial break, undecided voter LaShannon Spencer posed the following question, which was greeted with applause by the crowd: "We constantly hear health care questions and questions pertaining to the war. But we don't hear questions pertaining to the Supreme Court justice or education. My question is, if you are elected president, what qualities must the appointee possess?"
This question was the first posed about the court during the debate, and the audience greeted it with applause. But Suzanne Malveaux, the CNN anchor assigned to audience duty, couldn't leave it alone and let the candidates speak. She added a question of her own: "I'd like to get to Senator Dodd, if you would. And in answering that question, also tell us whether or not you would require your nominees to support abortion rights."
After Dodd answered the question, Blitzer posed it to all of the candidates: "All right, let's go through the whole panel. I want everybody to weigh in. This is an important question that was raised. I'll start with Senator Biden. Would you insist that any nominee for the U.S. Supreme Court supported abortion rights for women?"
But... that's not what she asked... The next part, though, is my favorite.
All night long, the voter questions were better and more serious than the ones asked by CNN (with one exception at the end). On the court question, Blitzer and Malveaux reduced the voter to a prop, replacing her question with their own and telling the audience how "important" it was.
The arrogance was so apparent that Sen. Joe Biden, much to his credit, chided them for it:
Biden: Suzanne's decided. I'm not answering her question. I'm answering the question of the woman who is there. Okay? (Cheers, applause.) And -- number one. And then I'll answer Suzanne's question.
Blitzer: Well, let's ask the woman. Do you want him to answer that question?
Biden: Do you want me to answer your question?
Spencer: I would like for you to answer both questions.
No, Mr. Blitzer, she asked the question, but she doesn't really want it answered. She just wanted to be on TV...
Give me a break.
UPDATE: So, apparently CNN is not only arrogant, but extremely deceptive. What's with all these fake "random questioners" recently?
Read it and weep.
After all the stories I've been hearing recently about police officers using tasers on other innocent looking folks, and even killing a few people with them (I think it all started with "Don't tase me, bro!"), I knew that this just had to happen.
ABC 6 Action News (some local ABC station... via digg)
Not much more to say about that, really.
This really made me smile.
Finally, the end of stupidity on the Internet. Some guys are making an "idiot filter" to get rid of all of those unintelligible comments and postings by the stupid people on the 'Net.
"How does it work? Say a user wants to post a really, really dumb comment on, for example, cnnmoney.com, where some of you might be reading this now.
If cnnmoney had the filter installed on its servers, it would intercept the comment just before it was published and flash a little alert at the author that reads: "This comment is more or less unintelligible. Please try to restate it."
The writer would get another crack at it, and another, until at last he was able to muster a few words of intelligence, or in frustration wandered off to inflict those LOL!!!!!s and OMG!!!!s on some more tolerant site."
Cool. The article goes on to explain how it's programmed and everything, and it seems like quite the project. There are several problems and questions to be worked out, but it may bring sanity and intelligence back to the Internet.
Hopefully.
Wow. He's really done it this time.
He's endorsed Rudy Giuliani for president. You know he's only doing it because he doesn't want to endorse Mitt Romney. Still, if I was Rudy, I'd be afraid that I'd been endorsed by Pat Robertson. Very afraid.