kanske inte så ockult, men.. rassehumor, i.a.f.! : )
Almost half the country would back a far-Right party if they gave up violence, an astonishing new poll revealed today.
A total of 48 per cent said that they would support a group that vowed to crack down on immigration and Islamic extremists.
They would also restrict the building of mosques and order the flag of St George or the Union Jack be flown on all public buildings.
Anti-racism campaigners said the findings were a clear sign that Britain’s mainstream parties were losing touch with many voters on the issue of race.
American religion is remarkably stable and quite surprising in its diverse beliefs, practices and realities, according to the latest findings from the Baylor Religion Survey, one of the most extensive surveys ever conducted on American religious attitudes.
During the past 63 years, several polls show the percentage of atheists has not changed at all, holding steady at only 4 percent of Americans who say they do not believe in God. Not only is atheism not growing in the United States, the majority of Europeans are not atheists (Ch. 14, ”Atheism: The Godless Revolution That Never Happened”). Russia now claims 96 percent of its population believes in God, while a recent poll of China showed that atheists are outnumbered by those who believe in God(s).
In both the 2005 and 2007 Baylor Religion Surveys, researchers found than 11 percent of the national sample reported they had ”no religion.” [...] Delving into the actual religiousness of those who report having no religion, the Baylor Survey found that a majority of Americans who claim to be irreligious pray (and 32 percent pray often), around a third of them profess belief in Satan, hell and demons, and around half believe in angels and ghosts.
If anything, these experiences are an overlooked aspect of America’s national religious life. The Baylor Religion Survey asked respondents about: hearing the voice of God, feeling called by God to do something, being protected by a guardian angel, witnessing and/or receiving a miraculous physical healing, and speaking or praying in tongues. The ISR researchers found that such experiences are central to American religion.
Bader was stunned by the percentage of Americans – 55 percent – who said they were protected from harm by a guardian angel. ”That was something that was a complete surprise because this is not a question, do you believe in guardian angels or do you believe in angels. This is a very specific question: Do you believe you have been protected from harm by a guardian angel? Do you believe you avoided an accident through the agency of a guardian angel? To find out that more than half of the American public believes this was shocking to me. I did not expect that.”
The survey found that 45 percent of Americans report having at least two religious encounters (Ch. 6, ”Religious Experiences: God Told Me to Go to Church”).
Serendipity denotes the property of making fortunate discoveries while looking for something unrelated, or the occurrence of such a discovery during such a search.
Examples in science and technology:
The German chemist Friedrich August Kekulé von Stradonitz having a reverie of Ourobouros, a snake forming a circle, leading to his solution of the closed chemical structure of cyclic compounds, such as benzene.
Lysergic Acid Diethylamide (or LSD) by Albert Hofmann, who found this potent hallucinogen while trying to find medically useful derivatives in ergot, a fungus growing on wheat.
Rayon, the first synthetic silk, was discovered by French chemist Hilaire de Chardonnet, an assistant to Louis Pasteur. He spilled a bottle of collodion and found later that he could draw thin strands from the evaporated viscous liquid.
The possibility of synthesizing indigo, a natural dye extracted from a plant with the same name, was discovered by a chemist named Sapper who was heating coal tar when he accidentally broke a thermometer whose mercury content acted as a catalyst to produce phthalic anhydride, which could readily be converted into indigo.
Another sweetener, cyclamate, was discovered by graduate student Michael Sveda, when he smoked a cigarette accidentally contaminated with a compound he had recently synthesized.
Penicillin by Alexander Fleming. He failed to disinfect cultures of bacteria when leaving for his vacations, only to find them contaminated with Penicillium molds, which killed the bacteria. However, he had previously done extensive research into antibacterial substances.
Bioelectricity, by Luigi Galvani. He was dissecting a frog at a table where he had been conducting experiments with static electricity. His assistant touched an exposed sciatic nerve of the frog with a metal scalpel which had picked up a charge, provoking a muscle contraction.
X rays, by Wilhelm Roentgen. Interested in investigating cathodic ray tubes, he noted that some fluorescent papers in his lab were illuminated at a distance although his apparatus had an opaque cover
The Slinky was invented by US Navy engineer Richard T. James after he accidentally knocked a torsion spring off his work table and observed its unique motion.
”Just because you do not take an interest in politics doesn’t mean politics won’t take an interest in you!” — Pericles, 430 B.C.
”One of the penalties for refusing to participate in politics is that you end up being governed by your inferiors.” — Plato, c. 428-348 B.C.
den dödsrosslande musikgenren ‘hårdrock’ överraskar ibland med tecken på möjligt fortsatt liv.
hela klippet: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cgnRKyPLxng
Not so long ago, the average American man in his 20s had achieved most of the milestones of adulthood: a high-school diploma, financial independence, marriage and children. Today, most men in their 20s hang out in a novel sort of limbo, a hybrid state of semi-hormonal adolescence and responsible self-reliance. This ”pre-adulthood” has much to recommend it, especially for the college-educated. But it’s time to state what has become obvious to legions of frustrated young women: It doesn’t bring out the best in men.
”Guys talk about ‘Star Wars’ like it’s not a movie made for people half their age; a guy’s idea of a perfect night is a hang around the PlayStation with his bandmates, or a trip to Vegas with his college friends…. They are more like the kids we babysat than the dads who drove us home.”
Men, our long twilight struggle with the opposite sex is over. Our victory is total.
Can you believe the way things used to be? Remember when our fathers and grandfathers would drag themselves to mind-numbing jobs every day, having the sole responsibility for the feeding, clothing, and housing of their entire family?
And things were no easier before marriage, when men’s quest for sexual satisfaction was all too often hampered by the widespread moral code which taught women not to give out the “milk” for “free.”
Well, that state of affairs just wouldn’t do. So we men came together and did what we do best — formulate and implement a plan. First step, design the perfect world, the perfect male world. We decided such a world would consist of two things: less responsibility and more — and no-strings — sex.
Brothers, have we succeeded.
But that was only a start. To really fix things, we had to root out that old bourgeoisie mentality that had in previous times kept girls frustratingly modest and chaste. And what better way to do that than to convince women that the most reckless elements of our sexuality — the promiscuity — were in fact the correctbehaviors, which had to be imitated in order for them to be “liberated”?
Amazingly, they bought that, too.
Unfortunately, our sister selves are less suited to such behavior, which can cause painful and lasting tears in the feminine soul. But no matter — we were also able to convince them that there was no such thing as a “feminine” soul, any more than there is a “masculine” soul, and that both sexes are equally suited to all things.
(Many of you said that women would never buy this, that the accumulated history of our species speaks to the deep and abiding difference between the sexes, a difference which has benefited both sides from time immemorial. But I was sanguine about our ruse — have I not been vindicated?)
No — it is men who now have it all.
Congratulations, brothers. Our day is at last at hand, a day of no responsibility and easy mating access as far as the eye can see. Best of all, women are convinced that they have done this themselves, and for their own good.
Sure, there are downsides. Civilization has now entered into free fall; those masterpieces of art and science and literature, for which men have been almost exclusively responsible, have ceased to issue forth from our minds and hands — and is it any wonder? Such pyrotechnics are no longer necessary to impress women, which, really, was the only reason we bothered. High culture seems a small price to pay, though, for the loosening of morals and duties which has brought our present Sex and the City-fueled bounty.
So sit back, men, and enjoy the slide. It’s Miller time.
Hela stan är tapetserade med nedanstående affisch som gör reklam för någon värdelös teaterpjäs med samma namn:
Varje gång jag ser den tänker jag på att jag vill byta ut ett ord, men jag har inga saker för att göra det, så det får bli här istället:
vettejävulen hur många gånger jag försökt sälja in deadwood till nära och kära, folk och fä jag tycker om, och som jag vill ge 3x12x45min fantastisk underhållning.. utan framgång. : (
nappar Ni(<Busschaufför Alvar(från högstadiet)>Ni vet vem Ni ääär.. </Busschaufför Alvar(från högstadiet)>/Allajagpredikat för hittills), så kan Ni tacka mig i ca$h eller natura efteråt, men dethär är fan sista chansen.
kontra gärna med en tv-serie där man just-så-pass (but really, you don’t) fattar vad som händer, första gången man ser den, och just-så-pass fattar orden (but, honesttoKRST, you don’t) som används, första gången du ser serien, och som har 9.2(bara för att några nötter som inte fattat nåt alls lyckats rösta 0) på imdb.
intellektuell poesi i Western-setting, med betoning på intellektuell och poesi.
enda orsaken till att HBO lade ned serien är med stor säkerhet att folk är för dumma för att kunna uppskatta vokabuläret och händelseföroppet. for shame, hoomanity, for shame..
larry king säljer deadwood -> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dpjoEK_nlSk
It never ceases to amaze how Richard Dawkins, P. Z. Myers, and their clones in the blogosphere routinely display exactly the sort of ignorance and bigotry of which they haughtily accuse their opponents. How might one get them to see themselves as others see them? Perhaps the way Nathan got David to see that he was guilty of adultery and murder. Let’s give it a try. If you’re a “New Atheist” type, consider the following hypothetical exchange between a scientist and a science-hating skeptic:
Skeptic: Science is BS. Physicists believe in these things called “quarks,” which are little flavored particles that spin around and work like magic charms. Their evidence is that they read about them in a James Joyce novel. Some of them think the universe is made up of tiny shoelaces tied together, though they admit that they have no evidence for this and have to take it on faith. Einstein said morality is all relative – which is why he stole his ideas from this guy who worked in a patent office, and why Richard Feynman stole atomic secrets during WWII. Meanwhile, the chemists contradict the physicists and believe instead in little colored balls held together by sticks. Biologists believe monkeys can give birth to human beings. What a bunch of crap! It’s child abuse to teach kids about this stuff in schools.
Scientist: Are you joking? If not, I suggest that you actually read some science before criticizing it.
Skeptic: I’ve already read a lot about it, in blog comboxes like this one. And why should I waste my time reading anything else? I already know it’s all BS! Didn’t you hear the examples I just gave?
Scientist: No, you’re missing my point. You’ve completely distorted what scientists actually say. It’s not remotely as silly as you think it is. In fact it’s not silly at all. But you need to actually read the stuff to see that.
Skeptic: So you deny that physicists believe in quarks? What flavor are your quarks, chocolate or vanilla? Do you deny that they think we came from monkeys? Which monkey was your mother?
Scientist: No one says that monkeys gave birth to humans. That’s a ridiculous caricature. And of course I don’t deny that physicists believe in quarks, but you’re badly misunderstanding what they mean when they attribute “flavor” to them. They don’t mean that literally…
Skeptic: Oh so it’s just empty verbiage, then. See, you’re just proving my point for me.
Scientist: No, it’s not empty verbiage. It’s technical terminology.
Skeptic: I see, like magic spells. That’s why they talk about “charm.” Really, you’re just digging the hole deeper.
Scientist: Actually, it’s you who is digging your own hole deeper. That’s not what they mean by “charm.” If you knew anything at all about physics, you’d realize that.
Skeptic: See, every time I debate people like you, you always whine about how everyone misunderstands what you mean. You always say “Go read this shelf of books and come back when you know what you’re talking about.” It’s like one of the naked emperor’s sycophants telling the kid who sees that he’s naked that he needs to read the learned works of Count Roderigo concerning the fine leather of the emperor’s boots, etc.
Scientist: What a ridiculous analogy. You’re just begging the question. Whether science is really comparable to the naked emperor is precisely what’s at issue.
Skeptic: OK, I’ll bite. Explain it to me, then. Prove to me here and now in this combox that science is worth my time, as opposed to being the tissue of superstition, lies, and bigotry that I already know it to be. And don’t get long-winded like you people tend to do, or start throwing around references to this scientist I should know about or that book I should have read.
Scientist: What is this, an invitation to the Star Chamber? How am I supposed to explain fields as complex as quantum physics, or evolutionary biology, or chemistry to the satisfaction of someone as hostile to them as you are in a combox comment, or even a blog post or series of blog posts? Besides, there are so many things wrong with what you’ve said I don’t even know where to begin! And if I keep it short, you’ll tell me that I’m dodging whatever issue I don’t address, while if I respond at greater length you’ll tell me I’m a windbag. I can’t win! But why are you wasting time in a combox anyway? Why don’t you just read the work of some actual scientists? It’s right there in the library or bookstore if you really want to understand it.
Skeptic: I knew it. You won’t defend yourself because you know you can’t. But then, arguing with people like you just gives you credibility. That’s why you uneducated, irrational fanatical bigots need to be shouted down by reasonable, open-minded, well-read, tolerant people like me. Science is BS, and you know it. It’s just so obvious. So why don’t you go back to eating your tasty flavored quarks and tying your vibrating 11-dimensional shoestrings over at your Uncle Monkey’s house, OK? I’ll be here in the reality-based community reading my copy of The Science Delusion.