35 Comments
User's avatar
π”…π”’π”’π”©π”·π”’π”Ÿπ”²π”Ÿπ”Ÿπ”ž's avatar

"Pay for the girls to tease us" has potential.

Expand full comment
π”…π”’π”’π”©π”·π”’π”Ÿπ”²π”Ÿπ”Ÿπ”ž's avatar

I deduct all of my donations to my secular humanism church. The IRS seems to recognize it (American Museum of Natural History), so no problems.

Expand full comment
π”…π”’π”’π”©π”·π”’π”Ÿπ”²π”Ÿπ”Ÿπ”ž's avatar

"<i>Russell followed Comte in insisting that only empirically verifiable facts and logically valid mathematical equations can be true." </i>

Well, no, that's not what he said. But let's pretend it is, and ignore it. Beats the hell out of teaching it - what a timesaver! Likewise with Darwin.

Expand full comment
π”…π”’π”’π”©π”·π”’π”Ÿπ”²π”Ÿπ”Ÿπ”ž's avatar

He's regretting His promise not to do it again.

Although one has to wonder - who's going to hold Him to it?

Expand full comment
π”…π”’π”’π”©π”·π”’π”Ÿπ”²π”Ÿπ”Ÿπ”ž's avatar

"Don't pray in my school, and I won't think in your church."

-favorite bumper sticker

Expand full comment
FeloniousMonk's avatar

It seems likely that the study is a hoax. The Daily Kos <a href="http:\/\/www.dailykos.com\/story\/2012\/12\/09\/1168477\/-Average-Fox-News-Viewer-s-IQ-80" target="_blank">thinks so</a>.

Expand full comment
π”…π”’π”’π”©π”·π”’π”Ÿπ”²π”Ÿπ”Ÿπ”ž's avatar

There's rhesus. Now you have enough for a limerick.

Actually, "sees us" and tease us" are vastly more promising.

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

Also elected a Democrat to the White House who put more cops on the streets. But hey, "confounding factor" isn't a phrase you hear coming from the right when they find a correlation they like, and while correlation is not causation, the absence of correlation gives the argument for causation a much steeper hill to climb, and the presence of a correlation in the opposite direction makes it more of a cliff.

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

PS... while the <em>number</em> of guns may have been increasing recently (I don't believe even that was true during the Clinton years, especially after the AWB, but I can't find figures to support that assertion), the <em>percentage of households</em> owning guns <a href="http:\/\/www.vpc.org\/press\/1104norc.htm" target="_blank">peaked in 1977</a> and has been declining ever since.

I'd be somewhat interested to hear a proposed causal link that says crime should be lower if the gun nut next door owns 8 guns instead of 3. Oh hai, Javon Belcher.

Expand full comment
PubOption's avatar

Does not allow for American exceptionalism.

Expand full comment
SullivanSt's avatar

Yes, <a href="http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/deltoid\/1994\/03\/17\/international-00021\/" target="_blank">of</a> <a href="http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/deltoid\/2009\/01\/14\/more-guns-less-crime-hypothesi\/" target="_blank">course</a> we <a href="http:\/\/scienceblogs.com\/deltoid\/2007\/04\/18\/reynolds-claims-more-guns-less\/" target="_blank">would</a>.

Expand full comment
Dashboard Buddha's avatar

I've never been to the Human Events website. Is its unstated goal to Eventually make every American as numb as a hake?

Expand full comment
Dashboard Buddha's avatar

Maybe...maybe not. But...you can smell it. And so can the alter boy. You can hear him when he utters, "Oh no...not again".

Expand full comment