Conan and Leno cross the picket line.

[Jakebert]

They both did new episodes last night. I watched both, out of curiosity. In solidarity with the writers, they didn't use scabs and each did the show by themselves.

Leno sucked, like he usually does. Not much difference, except he took a few potshots at the writers that I really think were kind of iffy seeing as he also crossed the picket line.

Conan, on the other hand, actually did better than he does with writers. The lame Paris Hilton jokes were absent, and a lot funnier than most of his shows. I also enjoyed his strike beard, because at least he's doing something to show the writers he's on their side.

[calichix]

damnit I can't believe I missed conezy. oh the agony.

[coke_a_holic]

I missed Conan, but I saw Leno and I didn't think it was that bad. He wasn't funny, but I enjoyed his interview with Huckabee. I haven't been paying much (any) attention to the campaign trail because I will not be old enough to vote this year, but I found Huckabee very personable and enjoyable to listen to. Though I don't agree with his views on taxing, I found them very interesting and I generally liked him as a person.

[wheelchairman]

On a different note. I hate how elections seem* to be about personalities, like personalities seem to supercede politics.

Not that I'm accusing you of anything.

*ARE

[coke_a_holic]

Well, like I said, I don't really agree with a lot of his ideas, but charisma is a huge part of being a leader of a country, and I think that Mike Huckabee seems like a pretty awesome guy. Even though his idealistic policies would probably create a huge black market in America.

[TBD]

This is America personality always supercedes policy.

If someone can plz tell me why Dick Cheney has a lower approval rating than Bush other than personality that the average american knows about I'd like to know.

[Endymion]

he shot a guy in the face.

[XYlophonetreeZ]

Huckabee's a douche. His tax plan will discourage sales and probably put retail companies out of business, he doesn't believe in evolution, he claimed that we are currently in World War III and need to accept it, and he called a press conference to release a negative advertisement while simultaneously denouncing negative politics.

[wheelchairman]

Well, like I said, I don't really agree with a lot of his ideas, but charisma is a huge part of being a leader of a country, and I think that Mike Huckabee seems like a pretty awesome guy. Even though his idealistic policies would probably create a huge black market in America.

Well really you're just flat out wrong. charisma has a lot to do with being a dictator of a country. If you're a dictator and you have charisma, well then you got a chance for a long career. However in a democracy you should be voting for a set of policies. Charisma should involve very little of the decisicive factor. And the addition of voting for personalities is only relatively recent. In Europe personality was a small factor until less than a decade ago, and we call it the "americanization of politics." depressing.

In America, to be honest i haven't got a clue how elections were based. I know that Wilson wasn't elected for his personality or based on how he marketed his personality. But was roosevelt? Was that when the change was made? I personally don't know. But by Kennedy personality had a lot to do with it I think. And Reagan was pretty much ALL personality before he was elected. Now he's remembered only for the policies his advisors chose (which are called Reagan policies. Man I would hate to be an employee working in foreign affairs in America. Poor Zbigniew.)

Those are my quick thoughts on the subject.

[nieh]

Well really you're just flat out wrong. charisma has a lot to do with being a dictator of a country. If you're a dictator and you have charisma, well then you got a chance for a long career. However in a democracy you should be voting for a set of policies. Charisma should involve very little of the decisicive factor.

I disagree to a point. A charismatic president would be much more capable of turning others towards their opinion which (provided they don't suck in every other respect) could result in more friendly foreign relations, persuade previously opposing people to support them so it's easier to carry out their policies as originally planned, etc.

[wheelchairman]

I disagree to a point. A charismatic president would be much more capable of turning others towards their opinion which (provided they don't suck in every other respect) could result in more friendly foreign relations, persuade previously opposing people to support them so it's easier to carry out their policies as originally planned, etc.

The popularity of a president has no connection to foreign relations really. Perhaps with the exception that the administration might not have second thoughts about making an unpopular choice.

However seeing as the American government is not a parliament, the popularity of a president is more or less irrelevant with regards to carrying out plans. That depends largely on the popularity of the party he is from (seeing as the representative institutions are controlled by the parties.)

And even that is questionable. With the political balance a politician must face in Congress or the Senate, he must balance his constituency, lobbies, political opponents, a professional public life, and refrain from hurting the party line in any significant way. The charisma of a president would largely be irrelevant, unless it can be used as way to further a career or something like that.

I really don't see the connection between foreign policy and a president's popularity though. Maybe you can explain that more, I probably have misunderstood you.

[nieh]

I wasn't speaking of popularity, just charisma. A decent amount of the president's job consists of dealing with people (and I mean more than just voters/citizens/media) so having charisma would give them more potential to woo people to their side, whether they be senators, representatives, or foreign leaders, which would make carrying out their plans a whole lot easier. This should be far from the only thing that's taken into consideration while voting because someone with charisma and bad ideas could really mess things up, but if there's two candidates with similar stances on most things I'd be more likely to vote for the one with more charisma.

[Homer]

Anyways, yeah.

How about that Conan?

[Lizardus]

Anyways, yeah.

How about that Conan?
Rock Band looks pretty cool, too bad it's out of my budget.

[Homer]

My friend bought it, and him and I spent a great deal playing it yesterday.

I played the drums... on expert!!!:eek:

[wheelchairman]

I wasn't speaking of popularity, just charisma. A decent amount of the president's job consists of dealing with people (and I mean more than just voters/citizens/media) so having charisma would give them more potential to woo people to their side, whether they be senators, representatives, or foreign leaders, which would make carrying out their plans a whole lot easier. This should be far from the only thing that's taken into consideration while voting because someone with charisma and bad ideas could really mess things up, but if there's two candidates with similar stances on most things I'd be more likely to vote for the one with more charisma.

I simply disagree, I believe that it would take much more than charisma for him to convince other people to join him. (It would take a common interest in the very least.)

[Mota Boy]

Huckabee's a douche. His tax plan will discourage sales and probably put retail companies out of business...Oh, I wouldn't go that far. And by "go that far" I mean bother discussing the potential ramifications of his plan. It's flat out duplicitous in its assertions that 23% would be needed. The WSJ (http://opinionjournal.com/extra/?id=110010523) breaks it down a bit. They also get another great dig at him in anther piece.

Mr. Huckabee nonetheless writes that "when" his reform is enacted, "it will be like waving a magic wand releasing us from pain and unfairness." That glib naiveté should provide some indication of how seriously the former Governor has thought through the political and policy complications of his biggest idea--and also explain why, until recently, Mr. Huckabee was considered an implausible candidate.

Though the Journal is the type of "big business" Republican than Huckabee is bashing on his way to the top, their points about the "Fair" tax are good ones. Essentially, it's bullshit, and people that buy into it are stupid.

/I didn't catch the teevee

[arak0r]

hes a christian fundamentalist, enough fucking said. hes a fruitcake, he had chuck norris up in his shit, and he thinks canada has some kind of giant igloo. hes an idiot.

im sure most "christians" seem all friendly and nice when you first talk to them. have a real conversation with them, especially when it comes to their beliefs, and then yours. that guy is a cunt with a capital fuck off.

if you want charisma, check this out.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yqoFwZUp5vc

[no_fking_hero]

I hate the writers and actors and all of those guys on strike!
They have very easy jobs and lead rich famous lives and now they want MORE?!?!?

What assholes do u have to be to be so selfish as to ruin entertainment for the everyday majority just because u dont think ur "rights" are being met?!
Ur rights are fine u idiots!!!

[Sham]

I hate the writers and actors and all of those guys on strike!
They have very easy jobs and lead rich famous lives and now they want MORE?!?!?

What assholes do u have to be to be so selfish as to ruin entertainment for the everyday majority just because u dont think ur "rights" are being met?!
Ur rights are fine u idiots!!!

First of all, the writers were the ones who called the strike. The writers do not lead rich, famous lives. That's the actors, and since there is no writing, they can't act. And by striking they are making a point. They don't want to ruin entertainment, and that shows how important they are. They just need more money.

Also, I think if a political leader has charm and charisma, they have a much better chance of getting ahead. I mean, just look at Hitler. Or I thought George Bush was a lot more charismatic than Kerry was. George Bush looked confident. Karry didn't. It tells you a lot about a leader.

[Jakebert]

You have no idea what you're talking about. Here's why:

1.) Writing funny, entertaining stuff is a lot more difficult than you'd think.
2.) Work hours for television writers go on much longer than most "normal" jobs. Some writers work 15 hour days 7 days a week during the season.
3.) Writers are famous? Since when? And rich? Bulshit. Your average writer makes less than most white collar workers. The only ones that make a large sum of money are showrunners, but that's only because they're doing about 5jobs at once.
4.) How would you feel if you worked your ass off on something, only to make millions of dollars for a company that does nothing but buy advertising and slap a little "NBC" bug in the corner of the screen, while you're barely making any money off of your own work? How is it fair that FOX, ABC, NBC, CBS, Comedy Central, and ect. make millions selling advertising for streaming versions of their shows online, while the writers only make 11 cents per so many millions of downloads? (I can't remember the exact number, but I remember that it worked out that most of the writers would make around 33 cents per month on those episodes).
5.) Learn to spell.

[no_fking_hero]

Im sure the actors went on strike too, and they have no reason to.
The only writers that aren't famous are the ones who write minor films for festivals and stuff and they HARDLY write CONSTANTLY! and they must have other jobs to keep them going, the writers for big films are famous. and anyway, its not as if its ONE writer for loads of films at once, there's a huge team usually, and when there isn't the writers are the guys who came up with the idea for their own film and know exactly what to write. Oh, and why haven't book authors gone on strike recently?? Their publishers are the ones who get most of the money, and they do alot more work than script-writers but they don't complain.

And where did i spell wrong?? are you talking about wen i used "u" instead of "you"???

[0r4ng3]

The actors aren't on strike, the writers are. That's why it's called the Writer's Guild.

Also, films aren't the only thing in existence to need writers. Most of this is based in television, anyway.

[HornyPope]

I never read about in the news. So how much the writers do make and how big of a raise do they want?

I'll decide the case.

[coke_a_holic]

NFH, you clearly know nothing about what you're talking about. Please stop, for your own sake, it's getting ridiculous.

[Jakebert]

Im sure the actors went on strike too, and they have no reason to.
The only writers that aren't famous are the ones who write minor films for festivals and stuff and they HARDLY write CONSTANTLY! and they must have other jobs to keep them going, the writers for big films are famous. and anyway, its not as if its ONE writer for loads of films at once, there's a huge team usually, and when there isn't the writers are the guys who came up with the idea for their own film and know exactly what to write. Oh, and why haven't book authors gone on strike recently?? Their publishers are the ones who get most of the money, and they do alot more work than script-writers but they don't complain.

And where did i spell wrong?? are you talking about wen i used "u" instead of "you"???

1.) The actors on strike are part of a sympathy strike. They get no rewards for striking, and in fact, are losing millions of dollars doing so. That's not being selfish at all. The actors on strike aren't asking for anything for themselves, but asking that the writer's get what they want.
2.) The strike mainly concerns TV, not movies. Screenwriters for movies get compensated fairly well, television writers do not. The fact that you're getting the two confused once again shows that you have no idea what you're talking about.
3.) Name some of these writers that are famous. And I don't mean directors or actors who also happen to write. Name some of these writers.
4.) Authors and screenwriters are completely different things, and the fact that you're using that as an argument completely illustrates how little you know. Authors work independently, writers do not. Authors are not all part of a union that got screwed over by a giant group of publishers, screenwriters are. Authors negotiate their saleries independently, screenwrtiters do not. Authors do not do more work than screenwriters, because most authors have other jobs in addition to writing books. Screenwriters, especially TV writers, can't do that because their workload, as I mentioned earlier, is a lot and consistantly a lot.

[HornyPope]

So how much are they making then?

[Jakebert]

It depends. But the majority of average writers are usually lower class, maybe the bottom of the middle class if they're lucky. Which doesn't sound horrible since many people are off worse, but you have to take in to account the fact that the products they're creating are making millions of dollars.

[Endymion]

the major issue with the writers is getting money for new forms of media. the writers make nothing on stuff streamed online, even though it drives visits to the broadcaster's webpage. the execs argue that since they're not charging anything and don't include ads in the stream, they shouldn't have to pay the writers.

i think they also want to see 8 cents per dvd sold, up from 4 cents.

[Jakebert]

The thing about the ads is BS too, because they do advertise on the streaming material. Yeah, the ads aren't technically in the shows themselves, but you have to watch them before you can watch the show.

[Jakebert]

DOUBLEPOST KIND OF.

Stewart and Colbert were back tonight! Anyone else watch?

I thought Stewart seemed pretty awkward and uncomfortable for most of the show. The stuff he did about the strike, though, was pretty solid. The interview seemed kind of off too, which doesn't make sense since he does interviews by himself.

I thought that Colbert seemed off aswell, but at the same time, he seemed more comfortable than Jon did. I'm wondering if his show will keep using that many clips from older episodes to fill time. If so, that could get old. The other thing I noticed was that he seemed very scripted, which could get him in trouble with the WGA.

[wheelchairman]

The interview seemed kind of off too, which doesn't make sense since he does interviews by himself.


There are actually scripts for interviews. Yeah I know, super depressing.

[Vera]

Saw the new Conan but was cleaning so I missed the parts that would've been written... Loved the interviews (well, the one of Saget) as usual.

[One to the right]

Letterman still sucks with writers and Leno, Conan and Kimmel have been doing decent without them in my opinion. Honestly it wasn't a hard decision for them to cross them, keep striking to support the writers and let hundreds of other workers on their staff get fired or go back to work and save all those other workers jobs. The writers are picketing their shows, c'mon, thats just being greedy. The rest of the staff shouldn't have to suffer for your decision to strike.

[Jakebert]

There are actually scripts for interviews. Yeah I know, super depressing.

I know, but it always seemed like Jon strays from the script quite a bit once he gets onto a topic with more substance than what's written.

It's disappointing that it's scripted that much, but oh well.

[wheelchairman]

I know, but it always seemed like Jon strays from the script quite a bit once he gets onto a topic with more substance than what's written.

It's disappointing that it's scripted that much, but oh well.

I don't know, I've never been able to tell where it was scripted and where it wasn't. It gives a person disdain for celebrities though, how pathetic do actors have to be. How can they be so boring? I mean I understand it for the Rosie O'donnell show (which I guess hasn't been on the air for the past 7 years.)

[ruroken]

I think that Mike Huckabee seems like a pretty awesome guy.
I didn't think it was possible for anybody to like that faggot. You bastard.

[Little_Miss_1565]

Huckabee does not believe in evolution.

Fuck charisma.

[XYlophonetreeZ]

Huckabee does not believe in evolution.

These six words, alone, should be repeated, displayed, shouted, whatever ad nauseam all across the country if Huckabee gets the nomination. Really, what more reason do you need to decisively NOT vote for him?

[coke_a_holic]

Right, I mean, that's what I was saying: I don't agree with him on many (most, if not all) of his points, but he was personable. Again, not necessarily a reason to vote for anyone, but he still seemed like a nice enough fellow. If any Republican is elected, I hope it's John McCain, solely because everyone else on the right hand side is utterly terrifying. Ron Paul scares me.

Also, I'm kinda bummed out that I missed The Daily Show and Colbert Report, but if Jakebert's right than it probably isn't that bad that I missed it. Here's to hoping the writers get what they want and everything goes back to normal.

[Lodat225]

Obama ftw. literally. I need to support my black brother.

[ilovellamas]

Huckabee does not believe in evolution.
ugh ugh ugh ugh wtf. I hate it when people use the phrase "not believe in evolution". It's not a belief. It's the same as saying "I don't believe in cars". It's a FACT. It's scientific knowledge. It really drives me crazy that people think it's okay to accept science 99% of the time. Science is a package deal. You can question a theory, sure. I'm not sure that I accept the big bang theory. But evolution isn't theory- it's fact. And the worst part is, these people who "don't believe in evolution" DO believe in it. They believe that bacteria evolves, viruses evolve, etc. But humans? No way. It can't be possible. Where is this invisible line between what can evolve and what can't?
[/rant]

These six words, alone, should be repeated, displayed, shouted, whatever ad nauseam all across the country if Huckabee gets the nomination. Really, what more reason do you need to decisively NOT vote for him?
This works for people with a functioning brain. But sadly, the US is second in the world for not "believing in" evolution. Right below Turkey. Those six words you speak of are exactly the opposite of what you'd logically expect- they'll likely help him get votes in this country. :-/

------

Also, I agree with WCM. Personality is way too much of a priority in this country. I do believe that it MATTERS, but in very minor amounts. I mean, I'd have a problem voting someone that I consider a huge dick into office. But still, the policies outweigh that. I'd vote for that dickhead if I agreed with his politics.

[calichix]

where are all these people who don't believe in evolution/global warming hiding? I've never met one in real life and I'm really anxious to. it'll be like seeing a unicorn.

[nieh]

In high school, my physics teacher didn't believe in evolution.

[killer_queen]

In high school, my biology teacher didn't believe in evolution. I win.

It was kind of sad when he refused to teach anything about that subject. I went to the principal and made a complaint about it and he said "don't fuck with your teacher" and sent me away.

[nieh]

Yeah, you do win.

I got into an argument on my other board a couple weeks ago about presidential candidates not believing in evolution. I really don't care if someone doesn't believe in evolution or if someone believes in intelligent design provided it doesn't affect how they teach (my physics teacher never said anything about his beliefs until a trail of questioning by certain students lead up to it and even then he didn't preach his beliefs, he was just answering questions about his own) or how they run other things. When someone is taught from birth that evolution is wrong and for the rest of their life they're in an environment where belief in evolution is dicouraged, it's hard to break out of that. If all of a sudden it leaked out that Obama believed in intelligent design, but that he didn't plan on making it so it's taught in schools because it's just his personal belief, would it turn any Obama fans off from voting for him if it doesn't change anything about his policies? I just don't think evolution in and of itself is a big enough reason not to vote for someone, even though it does make me cringe that our current president doesn't believe in it.

[Endymion]

I'm not sure that I accept the big bang theory.

how is the big bang theory on any less solid ground than the theory of evolution?

on a side note, one of the guys who developed the inflationary period theory stuff, andy albrecht, is a prof at davis. his office is on the 5th floor. my office is in the basement. we've got a vending machine in the basement. the coke guy who stocks it fucked up a while back and put orange fanta in the mr. pibb thing, and this was bugging a few grad students. however, it also seemed to have been a big issue for dr. albrecht, as he printed off a note explaining to the coke stocking guy that the mr. pibb wasn't working and in very polite terms asked him to fix it.

i don't know, but thinking about how some big-wig physics guy loves his pibb so much that he'd go all the way down to the basement to try to get it, get burned by orange fanta at least twice, and get so pissed about it that he makes a sign to put on the machine makes me laugh too much.

[wheelchairman]

The Catholic Church supports the Big Bang theory...

[ilovellamas]

where are all these people who don't believe in evolution/global warming hiding? I've never met one in real life and I'm really anxious to. it'll be like seeing a unicorn.
I live with two people who don't believe in global warming. Keep in mind that you live in an extremely liberal area. I don't.

In high school, my biology teacher didn't believe in evolution. I win.

It was kind of sad when he refused to teach anything about that subject. I went to the principal and made a complaint about it and he said "don't fuck with your teacher" and sent me away.
My high school biology teacher didn't, either. But she still taught about it. I didn't find out she didn't believe in it til I approached her after hours and asked her.

how is the big bang theory on any less solid ground than the theory of evolution?
Evolution is factual. There is so much evidence that things evolve, particularly smaller things like bacteria, viruses, etc.

[ruroken]

Scientology.

[nieh]

Evolution is factual. There is so much evidence that things evolve, particularly smaller things like bacteria, viruses, etc.

Evolution is only factual to you because you believe in it. There's lots of evidence supporting the big bang theory as well and in the general pool of scientific ideas, those are two of the most generally agreed upon as fact. People have lots of different ideas based AROUND the big bang theory, such as where the speck came from, but the core idea is always the same.

[Endymion]

Evolution is factual. There is so much evidence that things evolve, particularly smaller things like bacteria, viruses, etc.

the big bang is factual too. the cosmic background radiation is pretty clear on that, so is the hubble expansion, etc. evolution is also factual. it's been directly observed in bacterial populations (in addition to the heaping piles of indirect evidence).

[Sham]

Yes, evolution is factual, for animal species. However, human beings are a special species; one that has a mind full of idea, full of passion, full of intelligence, full of love...And there is NO scientific proof that we come from apes or anything. People question evolution because humans are a whole level above your average animal. They are the dominant species. When peoplem say a politician "doesn't believe in evolution" they are talking about human evolution. Unless people can prove otherwise, I will not say for a fact that we are the product of evolution. HUMANS evolve, but no one knows if humans evolved from ANIMALS. I also don't say for a fact that we are created by God; I am agnostic in that sense.

[Endymion]

Yes, evolution is factual, for animal species. However, human beings are a special species; one that has a mind full of idea, full of passion, full of intelligence, full of love...
there's nothing special about humans. our particular niche in the environmental fitness space involves more complex thought, that is all.
And there is NO scientific proof that we come from apes or anything.
no one said we "come from apes". evolution shows that primates and humans share a common ancestor, in particular the chimp. the proof is the vast similarity in dna. apes, chimps, etc are modern animals, just like humans. humans did not descend from them.
People question evolution because humans are a whole level above your average animal. They are the dominant species. When peoplem say a politician "doesn't believe in evolution" they are talking about human evolution. Unless people can prove otherwise, I will not say for a fact that we are the product of evolution. HUMANS evolve, but no one knows if humans evolved from ANIMALS. I also don't say for a fact that we are created by God; I am agnostic in that sense.
you obviously know nothing about evolution. try studying something before you critique it.

[Little_Miss_1565]

Yeah....Sham should probably retake biology class.

[ilovellamas]

Yes, evolution is factual, for animal species. However, human beings are a special species; one that has a mind full of idea, full of passion, full of intelligence, full of love...And there is NO scientific proof that we come from apes or anything. People question evolution because humans are a whole level above your average animal. They are the dominant species. When peoplem say a politician "doesn't believe in evolution" they are talking about human evolution. Unless people can prove otherwise, I will not say for a fact that we are the product of evolution. HUMANS evolve, but no one knows if humans evolved from ANIMALS. I also don't say for a fact that we are created by God; I am agnostic in that sense.

Eek. A few key points.

1) Human is an animal species. Humans are animals.
2) Humans didn't come from apes. Evolution doesn't claim this.
3) Nothing separates humans from other animals in that kind of a way.

Endy. Yeah, you make a good point. I suppose that, from my perspective, there is enough factual evidence that evolution can not be denied, while the factual evidence for the Big Bang isn't nearly enough for me to accept it as fact. I believe it's a very viable theory, but yeah it's a personal thing I suppose. Maybe this makes me a hypocrite...

[T-6005]

Yes, evolution is factual, for animal species. However, human beings are a special species; one that has a mind full of idea, full of passion, full of intelligence, full of love...And there is NO scientific proof that we come from apes or anything. People question evolution because humans are a whole level above your average animal. They are the dominant species. When peoplem say a politician "doesn't believe in evolution" they are talking about human evolution. Unless people can prove otherwise, I will not say for a fact that we are the product of evolution. HUMANS evolve, but no one knows if humans evolved from ANIMALS. I also don't say for a fact that we are created by God; I am agnostic in that sense.
As Endy pointed out, it's a common ancestor - hence the genus Homo. Going back in time through population movements you find that humans become smaller and their brain cavities become smaller, that brow ridges become thicker and that some species of early human even had an edge to the tops of their heads very similar to the ones great apes have (on early humans it's known as a keel, whereas on apes it's a crest).

h. neandethalensis, h. erectus and h. habilis are in order while descending into the past, which has been established thanks to modern dating methods such as radiocarbon and dendrochronology (tree-dating), or farther back with lava rock dating, although I'm not certain what that's called. EDIT - It's potassium-argon dating. When you look at their structures, there's no question that they get more and more similar to what we would consider a more "common" primate shape - apes, but also with relations to prosimians such as lemurs and such.

There's only so far coincidence can stretch credulity.

[XYlophonetreeZ]

And there is NO scientific proof that we come from apes or anything.
Um... we ARE apes.

[Little_Miss_1565]

Okay, Huckabee is a fundamentalist nut, but his performance on the Colbert Report last night is fucking golden. I'm watching it on the DVR right now. I mean, damn. Amazing.

[Jakebert]

Thank you for bringing the thread back to it's original topic.

But yeah, that was brilliant. I loved how even when he's joking around, he talks in such an official sounding voice.

[Sidewinder]

In high school, my biology teacher didn't believe in evolution. I win.

Same.

"God gave us dinosaurs so we could have fossil fuel"
"Then why did he give it all to the Muslims?"

[Moose]

I hate the writers and actors and all of those guys on strike!
They have very easy jobs and lead rich famous lives and now they want MORE?!?!?

What assholes do u have to be to be so selfish as to ruin entertainment for the everyday majority just because u dont think ur "rights" are being met?!
Ur rights are fine u idiots!!!

someone basically said it, but you're an idiot. writers have very little control over their work, especially in the film industry...and like the other person said, they dont lead glamorous lives...you are just a self-absorbed idiot who watched too much mindless television.

[calichix]

it's so weird how humans all end up doing the same things naturally and we attribute it to culture. like getting rid of our dead or worshiping a higher power. hmm.

anyhoo, anyone can say something is a fact. I can say, "I put this chimpanzee in a petri dish for 3 weeks and it became a human." and even true facts can be assembled in such a way that they seem to prove something.

so in biology classes where they don't teach evolution do they just avoid the subject altogether or do they teach that god made the world and rested on the 7th day or teach both leaning toward the creation version or what? I'm so jealous of you guys with your evolution-hating teachers. That would've made school infinitely more awesome.

[killer_queen]

so in biology classes where they don't teach evolution do they just avoid the subject altogether or do they teach that god made the world and rested on the 7th day or teach both leaning toward the creation version or what? I'm so jealous of you guys with your evolution-hating teachers. That would've made school infinitely more awesome.
Nah, he just avoided the subject. Fortunately, we had two more teachers who didn't believe in evolution. One of them was the religion teacher, obviously. He believed that evolution was something that Christians made up for bringing Islam down. Which wasn't so shocking because that guy also thought sitting next to someone of the opposite sex counts as adultery.

The second teacher was responsible for teaching stuff about army and being a good citizen. He wasn't a real teacher, he was just someone who went to military school so he wasn't religious at all. But when anyone mentioned the word evolution he was all "do you believe that you evolved from monkeys? DO YOU BELIEVE THAT YOU EVOLVED FROM DOGS? WELL, I DON'T YOU FILTHY DOG!" He even prepared a slide show about it for us.

[Endymion]

i don't see how it's possible to really deny evolution. which particular element of it do people find fault with? there really aren't all that many axioms that need to be in place to allow for evolution.
- our phenotype is determined by our genotype (the physical form and biological functions of an entity are determined by it's dna)
- genotypes of equivalent phenotype exist, and neutral drift within these basins occurs (dna can have small mutations that do not directly effect phenotype)
- limited resources will be capitalized upon by the phenotype more able to do so ("natural selection")

and that's about it. which one of those does someone take issue with?

[ilovellamas]

it's so weird how humans all end up doing the same things naturally and we attribute it to culture. like getting rid of our dead or worshiping a higher power. hmm.

anyhoo, anyone can say something is a fact. I can say, "I put this chimpanzee in a petri dish for 3 weeks and it became a human." and even true facts can be assembled in such a way that they seem to prove something.

so in biology classes where they don't teach evolution do they just avoid the subject altogether or do they teach that god made the world and rested on the 7th day or teach both leaning toward the creation version or what? I'm so jealous of you guys with your evolution-hating teachers. That would've made school infinitely more awesome.

Mine taught evolution as in the book, but just made sure to be clear that it's all theory. She didn't make it publicly known that she didn't believe in it.

[T-6005]

Yeah? Well mine painted the pinky nail on his hand a different color every week.

[Vera]

Are the writers back on Colbert yet? Bumpity fuckin' bump because y'all really need to see "Better Know a Lobbyist - The Gay Lobby": http://www.comedycentral.com/shows/the_colbert_report/index.jhtml

I haven't laughed this hard at TCR in a while. XD