Mike Huckabee, the most likable candidate for the Republican nomination, is insane for Jesus and hates science.
In Sudan, they are protesting the prison sentence give to the woman who named a teddy bear Muhammad. They think she’s getting off too easy.
One demonstrator told reporters that it was unacceptable to take a toy and call it Muhammad.
“We can’t accept it from anybody. Even if they can do that in Europe, they cannot do it here in Sudan. We ask our rulers and judges to review what they have said. Fifteen days is not enough.”
I was trying to figure out the wittiest way to describe this story, but now I needn’t bother because Crunch Gear got it just right:
We’re following the story of a 48-year old man who was posing online as an 18-year old Marine recruit, and was romancing an 18-year old girl who was really a middle aged woman in real life, and the man was jealous of her online relationship with a 22-year old co-worker who was really 22, so he shot him dead at close range in his pickup in a factory parking lot. The Aristocrats!
Mitt Romney wouldn’t put a Muslim in his cabinet. His reasoning:
I asked Mr. Romney whether he would consider including qualified Americans of the Islamic faith in his cabinet as advisers on national security matters, given his position that “jihadism” is the principal foreign policy threat facing America today. He answered, “…based on the numbers of American Muslims [as a percentage] in our population, I cannot see that a cabinet position would be justified. But of course, I would imagine that Muslims could serve at lower levels of my administration.”
So wait… cabinet positions are justified based on being the same religion as some percentage of our population? Do they ever discuss this in confirmation hearings? I wonder what the minimum percentage would be for him to consider someone.
Paul Davies has a half-interesting, half-irritating op-ed in the New York Times about the faith element of science. He argues that scientists take the immutable physical laws of the Universe on faith in the same way that Christians take God on faith.
The laws were treated as “given” — imprinted on the universe like a maker’s mark at the moment of cosmic birth — and fixed forevermore. Therefore, to be a scientist, you had to have faith that the universe is governed by dependable, immutable, absolute, universal, mathematical laws of an unspecified origin. You’ve got to believe that these laws won’t fail, that we won’t wake up tomorrow to find heat flowing from cold to hot, or the speed of light changing by the hour.
Wow, that’s crazy wrong. You don’t have to “believe” that these laws won’t fail. You can rest assured that these laws won’t fail because scientists have conducted countless experiments that have validated the laws again and again. Is it possible that the two-jillion-and-first experiment will show gravity suddenly repelling two objects? Sure, it’s possible. Anything and everything is possible. I mean, in the philosophical sense, that is.
He actually makes a pretty good argument that scientists should be asking why our immutable laws are what they are. Which doesn’t seem very controversial to me — scientists should always be asking why. But it’s just stupid that he has to couch the idea in a lame discussion of faith vs. reason. Granted, more people will read it this way.
Oh no. I probably didn’t need to know that you don’t have to get your oil changed every 3000 miles. Apparently, 4000-5000 is ideal. Now I have an excuse to procrastinate…