Ooh, that is exciting, Kat!

Being a babyface could be good for your health.

I feel like it's got to be the other way around.

Top Ten “Anti-Christian Attacks” of 2009

With commentary.

Gary Cass’s Christian Anti-Defamation Commission (CADC) lists the top ten attacks on Christians in 2009. Surprise, surprise . . . most have nothing to do with physical attacks or any infringement upon civil rights, but rather defeats in the Christian Agenda.

...

And finally, we end our countdown with an act far more heinous than any Cabinet appointment, or arrest, or even double homicide. That’s right, I’m talking about making it illegal to incite violence against homosexuals.

1. The Federal Hate Crimes Bill that attacks religious liberty and freedom of speech. For the first time in our history ministers are vulnerable to investigation and prosecution for telling the truth about homosexuality.

False.

Ministers are quite safe if they tell the truth about homosexuality. If they instead say that homosexuals are all pedophiles eager to give congregants’ little boys AIDS, they’re not safe.

They can say what their imaginary friend’s book tells them about homosexuality. If they instead urge their congregants to go stone homosexuals with stones that they die, they’re not safe.

See the difference?

If you got this far, I figured you would.

That’s right, according to CADC, expecting Christians not to incite violence against people who don’t share their beliefs is an Anti-Christian Act, and one far worse than murder! Why? Simple.

Murders make martyrs, and martyrs further the Christian Agenda. It doesn’t matter if the murderer was insane . . . they’ll take any convenient martyr.

Telling people they can’t use a minority within society as a scapegoat for fundraising and vote-gathering and lynch-mob-rousing purposes slows down the Christian Agenda. After all, without the ability to spout lies about homosexuals, how will they raise hundreds of millions for their political candidates? By promoting the merits of their own ideas??

Kathy, dang, Roger's quite the scribe...I never quite appreciated his *style* before. Maybe he never did either. But, I need to say something to all those "What doesn't kill you makes you stronger" that Roger may be too famous, polite, or Catholic, or mute, to say. FUCK YOU! FUCK YOU, and your able bodies, and weak, platitudinous brains with your lame, embarrassing thoughts that, nonetheless, probably nimble fingers were still able to spell out. People don't cope because they're strong(although I don't think Ebert's weak) they cope because some people get two choices: Cope or die. Like "cake or death" but different, although y'all aren't cool enough to get that either. Arrgh...well, I feel better now. Ebert's probably more even than I am, although he and Gene used to get pretty worked up. (I thought it was cute that most of the candy Ebert mentioned was movie concessions.)

I feel like it's got to be the other way around.

Why?

It's weird that the study focussed on twins. I wonder about people that are genetically young-looking, which is what my sister and I have inherited from my father. I don't really think it's a lifestyle thing that we share.

Holy crap, that's next month? Huh.

I got one too, Suzi, since it's an online company!

Me too! My sister and I were thinking about (finally) getting our act together and putting together a cookbook of our family recipes. Now I'm thinking maybe we actually *make* the stuff and take pretty pictures and do it like that. Cause there aren't a ton, really, and this would make it more special.

I hate being away from the computer when an earthquake hits. very short but intense jolt.

but I needed the number . ( 4.1)

Why?

Because I think in general, pain and sickness makes a person look older. (Clearly not so in your case...)

I think in general, pain and sickness makes a person look older

Which would often mean that you're closer to dying, right? So the younger you look, the further from dying you are.

My family is genetically young looking, but I think it is also because we are genetically fat. I wonder what that does to the statistics.

Sure, I guess that's fair. Note that I didn't actually read the article.