Speaking of cats, our landlord is apparently claiming she didn't know we had one. This cat has been living there for three years, and overlapped with another cat who had been there for three before.

The gist seems to be that it's okay to disregard atheists and any religion without Moses.

While that's true, the selection is a bit more subtle than that. He's not *ruling* that he wants to permit discrimination against those groups, he's saying that that's already inherently allowed and the 10C case is no different.

It took me several reads of the passage to follow his logic (though I probably would have done better had I followed the link), but this is my interpretation of the steps in his argument:

• 1. Establishment of religion is what is unconstitutional.
• 2. But the Court has already ruled before that simply acknowledging a "God" does not go so far as establish a religion. In other words, we already permit some kind of reference to monotheism.
• 3. Therefore, we already permit some disregard of polytheists and atheists by saying that monotheism does not establish a religion.

• 4. All of the major monotheistic religions respect the 10C.
• 5. Therefore, reference to the 10C does not single out any particular monotheistic religion.
• 6. And it's the singling out that is unconstitutional.
  

• 7. Reference to all the monotheistic religions= constitutional therefore reference to all monotheistic religions via the 10C= also constitutional.

I'm hurt that you think I'd put ads like that up! I'm surprised you think Google would, but I admit I have no idea about their graphical ads.

By "I blame" I meant I blame the existence of those kinds of ads for people's (or at least my) reluctance to click through on ads in general.

I blame the "Prove that you can click on a moving thing/answer a pop culture question, win something we're obviously not going to give you!" ads. I don't click through on almost any ads. I don't trust them.

I keep accidentally clicking those new ones that expand when you roll over them. I don't roll over them on purpose, I swear!

Well, those and the evil transparent ones with moving parts and difficult-to-find close buttons.

The ones that drift across your screen are appalling.

I get why they need to advertise, really. And why people need to place them. But don't fuck with my ability to see what I came for.

I meant I blame the existence of those kinds of ads for people's (or at least my) reluctance to click through on ads in general.

Ah, sorry. I've clicked through on a few. But the more it moves, the less likely I am to do so, because the more I feel I'm being sold a wack bill of goods.

I fear the cooling fan on my G3 iBook is getting close to failing. If I go to a web page with lots of animated ads, the CPU usage is close to 100%, and if I leave it at a page like that too long, the cooling fan starts up. Then I get mad at the marketing bastards who are threatening damage to my computer.

I s'pose the answer is to get a faster laptop. But... a 900 mhz G3 should be adequate for web browsing.

I actually really like cross-multiplication, because I feel like I understand it and can use it with confidence.

Hello?? I'm bored. Y'all are supposed to entertain me!!!

Please proceed with the entertaining.

Dumbass ID backlash:

Richard Thompson of the Michigan-based Thomas More Law Center, the "public interest law firm" cited in Jones' opinion, made clear that he didn't consider the debate to be a waste.

"This should be done in the scientific community, debating it out. ... The debate is still going on. It's a new debate," Thompson said on MSNBC-TV.

If you want this debate to happen in the scientific community, then submit some fucking scientific papers to fucking peer review.

Bastard.

(IIRC, ID advocates have yet to submit anything to peer review.)

eta: [link]

Those baby shoes are adorable! I want them!! It's probably too soon for me to stocking up for my as-yet hypothetical future child, right?

I almost never click through ads either. Say one out of 9790 times.