I'm wondering, if someone said in their acceptance speech, "Suck it, atheists! You're all going to hell!" would that get bleeped?

I feel like yes, what she said would offend some people, but...it seems odd to not allow it to be shown. And the the whole Catholic League thing just annoys.

My question is, what did they expect Kathy Griffin to do? I assume at least some of the people watched her show in order to vote for her. She's not exactly timid.

Best. Obituary. Ever!

Heh. I was just about to say "Whee! Just as good as that one a few months ago about the super-louche Continental count!" and then Tom went and posted that one too!

Both these men? Even with the short tempers and the accidental shootings and the general sloungey good-for-nothingness, just by existing they probably did more material good for the world than Bill Donahue has done with all his most vigorous efforts.

tommy, I think you should fear shrift, since her time in fandom will have given her an endless supply of ideas on how to make passive-agressive complaints.

I could run the Ministry of Complaints! And the Ministry of Getting Famous People To Make Out For Charity.

Pratt was generally ill at ease with modern technology, and even after his motor accident at Oxford he remained a demon car driver, terrifying passengers with his speed and overtaking technique, which he often employed on blind bends at speeds of more than 70mph.

Several years ago, in Italy, he had a miraculous escape when he overturned his car on the main road between Grosseto and Siena.

Pratt managed to escape prosecution by disarming the local police with his charm, wit and smattering of pidgin Italian.

Pratt was equally dangerous with firearms. On one drive he shot a fellow gun in the eye, and invitations to shoot dried up.

OMG, you know who this guy is? It's Toad of Toad Hall!

Interesting:

Exploring the neurobiology of politics, scientists have found that liberals tolerate ambiguity and conflict better than conservatives because of how their brains work.

In a simple experiment reported todayin the journal Nature Neuroscience, scientists at New York University and UCLA show that political orientation is related to differences in how the brain processes information.

Previous psychological studies have found that conservatives tend to be more structured and persistent in their judgments whereas liberals are more open to new experiences. The latest study found those traits are not confined to political situations but also influence everyday decisions.

The results show "there are two cognitive styles -- a liberal style and a conservative style," said UCLA neurologist Dr. Marco Iacoboni, who was not connected to the latest research.

Based on the results, he said, liberals could be expected to more readily accept new social, scientific or religious ideas.

"There is ample data from the history of science showing that social and political liberals indeed do tend to support major revolutions in science," said Sulloway, who has written about the history of science and has studied behavioral differences between conservatives and liberals.

He sounds a little like Lord Peter Wimsey, except I'm sure Lord Peter spoke fluent Italian and was a perfect shot.

I think the decaf coffee I just had wasn't. Getting all jittery...

I don't know enough science, much less about the study to really argue with it, but behavioral science usually strikes me as, well BS. I particularly hate the ones that tell me what I'm naturally supposed to be like as a girl.

Also Peter Wimsey COULD drive. And was actually, you know, intelligent.