Oddities and Humor

Computer Glitch! $1-A-Gallon Gas! Fill 'Er Up!!

Man Armed with Plunger Tries to Rob New York Bank

UTICA, N.Y. (CBSNewYork/AP) – Police said a 49-year-old man tried to rob a central New York bank armed with a toilet plunger.

From the comments section (usually the best part of these kinds of stories)...

"He heard the banks were flush with cash."

HIPSTER DISNEY PRINCESSES
Hipster Disney Princesses take over the internet
http://m.io9.com/5770417/hipster-disney-princesses-take-over-the-internet/gallery/1
Don't let their cuteness fool you. Hipsters are dangerous. Using sass and sarcasm as a weapon.

I am sure bear does not mind my quoting him from anothe site:



So there you have it. Not even Ann Romney's husband believes staying at home to raise the kids is "work."

He said "Even if you have a child two years of age, you need to go to work." Uh, wait. I thought raising kids IS work. No?

See the hypocrisy for yourself.
...
​Romney: Welfare parents ‘need to go to work’
video.msnbc.msn.com
Video on msnbc.com: Before stay-at-home mom controversy, Mitt Romney said parents on welfare "need to go to work."

Here's the link for anyone who's interested.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/21134540/vp/47053757#47053808

Another oddity, Texas.



This is a stunning announcement given that it is coming from people of science.

Recently I read a story about The Shroud of Turin that got my attention. After a five year study, Italian scientists have confirmed that the Shroud is not some product of trickery, created during the Middle Ages by someone who wanted to fool the public. After all the testing and experiments, they have said that the Shroud is an authentic artifact. But they have gone even further, claiming that "The implications are… that the image was formed by a burst of UV energy so intense it could only have been supernatural."…

Oh, puh-lease!

Perhaps a burst of UV energy so intense it wiped out all common sense occured too?

I always wondered how a photographic image transfer imprints an image on cloth without a trace of any photochemical or residues. however, nothing can be proven of WHOM that image is a likeness. No proof can exist that the shroud is of the likeness of the person who was Jesus.

oops: I forgot this thread is dedicated to humor. Never mind!

letty, I don't see the science in your article. Anyway, the science I have read about it in the past indicates the shroud cannot date back to the time of Jesus. I don't recall all of the conclusions, but they did not at that time think it was genuine.

when they sampled it the first time, the douche bags sampled a section of the shroud that had been repaired in the 14 or 1500's . There was a fire that destroyed some sections. These sections were "rewoven" with 14 or 1500 string). DUHHH.
So, the recent "resampling was taken froma section that was NOT rewoven and was part of the roiginal cloth. This was dated to 60+ AD +/-120 yrs. (Ive seen several dates but all are in the realm of the ifetime of Jesus).

The "burst " of supernatural light and UV is more a result of (IMHO) symposia beverages than science.
The stains were subsampled and found to be organic Ferrous deposits (haem?) .

What I read was that the science indicated that only a PART of the cloth can't traced back 2000 yrs. The shroud might have been patched, it alleges.

{edit: Farmerman just covered this.}

From Dan Porter, who believes the shroud is Jesus':
- a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential.

I'd love to stand him blindfolded at the edge of the Grand Canyon. Not tell him where he is, but that Jesus loves him. Then repeat his quote.
"a leap of faith over unanswered questions is essential"
Byeeeeeee.

The shroud is a story yet to be told in its entirety, but to say the image is a specific person without evidence is just guesswork, not good science and not good religion either.

Not even very good guesswork, just a knee-jerk ID made by religious fanatics.

I don't see any hypocrisy in this. If a mother has a spouse who can take care of her and the child, or is independently comfortable financially, it is the choice of the mother to stay home and raise the children, if this is what she wants.

If a mother is alone, or the family does not have sufficient income, and it is a choice between her working outside the home, or going on welfare, IMO it is far better for the mother to work outside the home, than to live off the backs of other taxpayers.

IMO, in the best of all possible worlds, it is advantageous for the child to have a parent (mother OR father) at home, at least for his first few years of life. Unfortunately,
financial considerations often makes this choice untenable.

Because of economic circumstances, some parents do not have the luxury of that choice.

BTW, when my son was small, and I was divorced, I had to leave him at daycare, and go to work. I was very poor, but would not have even considered going on welfare. That simply was not an option for me.

When I remarried, I chose to stay home, with my son. When he was older, I went back to college, and then work. So I have seen the issue from both sides.

Some people can make it without assistance and some cannot. I applaud those who manage on their own. Not everybody has the same strengths or life situations. Some have got to be helped. I was on welfare as a child and I don't regret it or believe that I was a leach on society. If you help a child he likely will grow up to be productive. Leave him to the streets he may become a violent element until living for free off the penal system, or at best perpetrating the situation which produced him.

edgar- I have no problem with people who, through no fault of their own, are put into a situation where their only option is welfare. But I see it used appropriately as a stopgap............a bit of a help until the family can stand on its own.

My problem is with those individuals who use welfare as a way of life, often extending into multiple generations. I abhor those people who have learned to "work the system", to get as much out of the government as they can, without lifting a finger to become self-supporting.

There are less people doing that than propaganda suggests. The notion is too often used as a club to beat on the heads of all needy persons, indiscriminately. I don't know you that well. Don't know if you are that way or not. Not accusing you.

Didn't the welfare reforms of the 1990's eliminate most of that abuse?

Finn attempted to make this same argument a few days ago, but was unable to support his thesis with evidence.

(He did post something about folks on Social Security disability, but I think it was kind of a desperation move.)

Starbucks Vows No More Bugs in Bevs
http://chicago.grubstreet.com/2012/04/starbucks-wont-use-bugs-in-its-drinks.html