In no particular order:
The Oatmeal http://theoatmeal.com/comics
Schlock Mercenary http://www.schlockmercenary.com/
Saturday Morning Breakfast Cereal http://www.smbc-comics.com/
Girl Genius http://www.girlgeniusonline.com/comic.php
+1 for referencing A Canticle for Leibowitz. Brilliant, dark post-apocalyptic novel. Like Harper Lee, Miller seems to have had just that one novel (discounting a couple of shorter stories), but it's a great one.
I saw the "flocked" car in a parade when I was a kid, and actually got to touch it after the parade when they were getting ready to transport it to its next destination. I'm not sure who brought it out, but the guy told me that they had originally painted it black but the glossy finish made it very difficult to film correctly due to reflections, flashes, etc. Therefore, the whole car was covered with a sort of velvet material. Very cool,but I'm sure it was a pain to take care of, and I imagine it wouldn't have handled rain/snow/whatever very well.
Here, I made one. Probably not the most cleverly written but hey.
Singed up just so I could vote for this. Thanks!
I submit Arnold Rimmer as new leader of Sealand!
Okay, so is it okay to say "We pay less for blacks, Jews and other undesirables"? Answer the question.
And if health care for employees is a scam, what else fits in your definition? Food safety laws? Child labor laws? Any regulation at all? Or is it just that smart/rich/connected people "deserve" health care, and poor/uneducated/unlucky people should suffer and die if they "choose" to get sick? How is it a scam?
I don't know you, but your posts seem to indicate that you like or approve of the idea that health is reserved to those who can afford it, and that we as a society have no interest in trying to insure that our citizens have access to basic health care. I believe that everyone should have access to such basic items as prescriptions, emergency care (already in place in the U.S.), necessary continuing care like physical therapy and chemotherapy, and access to transplant lists, etc. Reconstructive surgery for accident/burn victims, or those scarred by disease. And of course preventative care. Lack of free preventative care is the #1 cause of rising health care costs. It's like code: the earlier you find and fix the problem, the less it costs.
Botox, breast implants (excepting cases like mastectomies), other cosmetic items - buy it yourself if you want it that badly. Not greatly enthused by lap-band and other bariatric costs, but will to pay them if it means less medical costs down the road. Some things like gender reassignment surgery are harder to call: one the one hand, it seems elective, on the other I can't imagine someone without a serious psychological need for it ever pursuing such a radical option. In any event, it's rare enough that the costs disappear into the noise.
I still don't get this. The employer offered health plan is basically an incentive to work somewhere. Not liking your work health plan is like not liking your salary. If you want a better healthplan work somewhere else.
If they have a religious objection to offering health care to Jews, black people and liberals (however they choose to define them), you still okay with it? I mean hey, they can always choose to work somewhere else, right?
Being part of a free society under democratically elected government (another argument, not to digress) means having to play by the same rules as everyone else. You don't get a free pass just by waving a and saying you want to opt out. No one ever said the employees have to take them up on it, and I would assume the truly devout practitioners of would not, but they have to cover it like everyone else.
Note: I strongly suspect, based on available evidence, that "truly devout" covers a single-digit percentage of the congregation for most religions in America. I cite the fact that the average Catholic family size in the U.S. is 2.6 people, the same as the overall average. http://ncronline.org/news/faith-parish/us-catholic-parishes-growing-size-and-diversity You can claim a lot of things, but claiming a organization called the National Catholic Reporter is biased against Catholics seems to be a stretch to me.
Obviously this isn't strictly children, but overall family size. But if you are assuming devoutness, we have to assume no or few divorced parents, and statistically speaking few widows/widowers. I'm not seeing the 5-7 children more normal in Catholic societies outside the U.S. So unless we're drastically less fertile than average, it looks like birth control is pretty widely used by Catholics. Mainstream Protestants are even more relaxed about birth control. Evangelicals are all over the map, so it's hard to characterize their views briefly.
Don't take this wrong, but you're a fool.
"Minority", in this case, refers to the fact that she was a witness for the Democratics, the minority part. It has nothing to do with her ethnicity. Try reading the actual article next time. Feel free to ask if the big words confuse you. If all else fails, try looking at a picture of Sandra Fluke and telling us all how you came to the amazing conclusion that she's black. Really, I'd like to know.
Re: expert witness. Do you consider a random group of *male* religious figures more expert in the area of health care than someone who actually has experience using contraception? I'm curious as to why you're not opposed to their presence at the hearing. Also, I'm pretty sure that anyone affected by a proposed law does (or should) have standing to testify as to how it would affect them.
Finally, those religious organizations don't seem to have a problem with paying for Viagra prescriptions, which they've been doing for a number of years. I have no proof, but I very strongly suspect that few if any of the recipients of that particular drug only use it when they are having a sexual experience strictly for procreative purposes.
Despite their efforts at re-framing this as a matter of religious persecution, it's health care. We don't allow people to have juveniles handle rattlesnakes (even if their parent's religion says it's important), and it's okay (or mandatory) to provide medical care to badly injured kids despite Mom & Dad's belief that a little prayer will fix that arterial bleeding right up, so religious belief does not trump the law. The legislation *never* said that a religious organization had to provide it to their members, but had to make it available to their employees. Or do you believe that every employee of the Catholic health services (650+ hospitals) is a member in good standing of the Catholic church?
To run one, you need qualified staff (supposedly Three-Mile was hiring high-school students (or someone equally unqualified) to run their plant, at the time of the incident, I imagine as a cost-cutting measure)
Friend, I'm as much of a critic of ignorant cost-cutting by corporations as anyone, but if you believe this, you're an idiot.
My dad was a Reactor Operation at a civilian nuclear plant, and my brother was an RO in the Navy. Even if they wanted to do something that stupid (doubtful), the NRC would have crucified them, and there's zero chance that the NRC wouldn't have found out. You honestly believe they'd have untrained high school graduates running a nuclear reactor? Take off the tinfoil, it's not working.
Here's free clue: when you start a comment with "supposedly", you're very likely to be talking shit.
Mea maxima culpa. *I* think you're an asshole. Better?
Empathy and idolization are not synonyms, you know. It's mindboggling that people get seriously upset about some soewhat silly and negative comments about a dead person, yet are first to call the living posters of such comments all sorts of names. Apparently plenty of people have the dead higher on their priority list. Now that's an interesting observation. Thinking "less" of a dead person because that person was an MCE or whatnot is taboo, but classifying plenty of alive-and-feeling-it posters somehow inhumane just because they dare talk down a dead person is fine and dandy? The fuck? Do they deserve less empathy simply for being apparently wrong and alive? How dare they, right?
I'm not arguing that most of the talking-down posts are borderline trolling or flamebaiting, but the visceral response they elicit is truly uncalled for. I know empathy allright and I dare say you don't know me enough to know otherwise (a few posts is not enough). Yet the visceral trigger-happy speakers-for-the-dead are demonstrably confused about demonstrating theirs. Just to make it clear: it doesn't work that way.
Just to make it clear: yes, it does. Empathy isn't all-or-nothing (few things are). We have empathy and compassion for the unfortunate loss of a young girl, more so because she showed such potential in life. Strictly speaking, our empathy is for her family and the wrenching sense of loss that they are most probably feeling, as is our compassion.
I, at least, have empathy for idiots who troll around casting rude aspersions on her. I think I have a pretty good grasp as to how they feel. They're still insensitive assholes with a sort of keyboards-only version of Tourette's and an incredible sense of entitlement to spout gibberish that comes from anonymity. I'm all for internet anonymity, but do you think any of these dipshits would have the nerve to show up at the funeral and tell random mourners that the deceased wasn't that smart, it's only a Microsoft certification, blah, blah, blah? I don't, although I'd pay damn good money plus airfare to good and watch if it were to happen.
And, fyi, the posts were begging for a visceral response. That's why they were posted in the first place. Having gotten exactly that, I'm curious as to how it could possibly be "uncalled for"?
That's because attacking the defenseless is repugnant to most people, and a dead teenager is about as defenseless as it gets.
Most people, to a greater or lesser extent, base their self-image partially on being a "good" person. Definitions of "good" are almost as varied as the number of people in the world, but certain basic tendencies tend to be common. One of them is that a good person doesn't hurt others simply for amusement, like pulling the wings off of a fly. I love a good snark as much as the next guy (maybe more so), but I'm not indiscriminate as to targets. I favor the pompous, the arrogant, the hypocritical, the non-believers in science, the obnoxiously religious, and people who simply lack any degree of empathy with others and take pride in that lack. (Hint: you're in that last group, as far as I can tell from your postings.)
It's not that she's dead; it's that she died young, before she had a chance to fulfill her early promise. I don't have a crystal ball, so maybe she'd have ended up designing a killer robot that destroyed the last dolphins and ran on ground-up puppies. But that's not likely, more likely she's have been a successful and more-or-less decent person, like many of the rest of us. The loss of that potential is what we mourn.
So, be amused if you must. No doubt in your mind you're superior to all of us who think it's unfortunate that she died, because you only feel amusement at others who think this is tragic. To reiterate: you're an asshole.
Mille grazie. My bad.
I agree that people don't become immediately immune to criticism the minute they die. I fully intend to go to the first bar I can find and buy a round for the house the instant I hear Dick Cheney is dead.
However, the argument that she hadn't yet done much is a two-edged argument. If her actual accomplishment were small because she was young, her ability to cause offense is equally small. It's tragic because a bright young person full of potential has lost their life due to a medical problem. Bog knows we can use all the bright young people we can get. And as a parent I cannot but sympathize with her family.
And for the required ad hominem attack: if you don't understand why this is a tragedy, climb up out of the basement and ask your mom. Asshole.
Wow, what a bunch of badasses we have here. Way to slam a dead teenager for not being as cool as you are. Real men, you are.
Kleeneness is next to Godelness.
