>> ^Drachen_Jager:

"She has had ataxic cerebral palsy from birth that led her to a passion for technology, which was strictly forbidden by her father's backwards views."
What do you mean 'backwards views' she used that technology to upload this video to YouTube, thus proving his position correct right? I mean the technology he wanted to forbid was the very thing that will (likely) lead to his downfall.


Just to clarify, that was the description from the original video, written by the girl who was being spanked (I believe she was a teen when this video was taken, and is now in her twenties).

But yes, I agree, it will likely lead to his downfall. Which has led to things like this: http://i.imgur.com/J6Qg0.jpg

That's polite of Dawkins to say scientists follow the data, instead of letting ideology cloud their minds, but he knows firsthand from his participation in the sociobiology wars of the 80s that some scientists will go to great lengths to avoid inconvenient ideas, like that our evolutionary history influences the human mind.

Even today, those scientists are still fighting that war, accomplishing some positive corrections of course, but mostly just slaying straw-dragons.

Here's Squink. She's frequently snoring and farting at my side as I sift, unless the cord to my lap top is not positioned correctly - (it MUST be tucked under the laptop. Silly me.) She is a mixed breed marinated in friendly juice, chihuahua/pug but-in-the-backyard accident- not 'designer dog' manner. She is actually the pet dog of my pet dog Daisy, a 14 year old Chow/Shepard who brought me so much joy I thought I'd let her know how it feels. They lurve each other. In in the winter, when it's cold, Daisy's tail is Squink's designated seating area. Fine with Daisy.

http://www.flickr.com/photos/critttter/

"allow all taxpayers to sue in all manner of claims...."
The court did so on the rationale that there is much that the executive branch can do to violate the establishment cause, but there is much that all three branches of Government could conceivably do to violate the establishment clause, and that has never been thought a sufficient reason to extend taxpayer standing to all Government action, nor has it been thought a sufficient reason to relax the irreducible minimum requirements of Article III.
JUSTICE SCALIA: If I understand your position correctly, if Congress enacts a program that favors religion over non-religion, which is supposedly what the establishment clause prohibits, that's bad; but if Congress enacts a perfectly valid general program and the President implements it in a fashion that favors religion over non-religion, that's okay, insofar as the ability of anybody to challenge it is concerned. Is that an accurate description?"


Great site man, running commentary and mp3 judge talk.....here's the play by play of the demise of society this go 'round....!!
*quality