Will someone please explain how this furthers the interests of national security and/or airline safety?:
A Texas woman who said she was forced to remove a nipple ring with pliers in order to board an airplane called Thursday for an apology by federal security agents and a civil rights investigation.
“I wouldn’t wish this experience upon anyone,” Mandi Hamlin said at a news conference. “My experience with TSA was a nightmare I had to endure. No one deserves to be treated this way.”
Hamlin, 37, said she was trying to board a flight from Lubbock to Dallas on Feb. 24 when she was scanned by a Transportation Security Administration agent after passing through a larger metal detector without problems.
The female TSA agent used a handheld detector that beeped when it passed in front of Hamlin’s chest, the Dallas-area resident said.
Hamlin said she told the woman she was wearing nipple piercings. The agent then called over her male colleagues, one of whom said she would have to remove the jewelry, Hamlin said.
Hamlin said she could not remove them and asked whether she could instead display her pierced breasts in private to the female agent. But several other male officers told her she could not board her flight until the jewelry was out, she said.
She was taken behind a curtain and managed to remove one bar-shaped piercing but had trouble with the second, a ring.
She said she heard male TSA agents snickering as she took out the ring. She was scanned again and was allowed to board even though she still was wearing a belly button ring.
I think the whole kerfuffle over Expelled is pretty well-known by now, so there’s no need to reinvent the wheel there (vague pun intended). The latest observation from Bad Astronomy bears mentioning, though. It seems that an Expelled supporter has already invoked Godwin’s Law. It’s sad, really. I want the implosion of the ID movement to continue at its present rate of gemoetric growth, but I almost feel bad for the people who have permanently hitched their wagon to the movement. Almost.
Receptionist Bettina performs oral sex on Christian as he reads his phone messages. Her head briefly pops up as he asks her a question. Christian grabs the back of her neck and shoves her face back into his crotch, just below camera range.
Bettina has sex with Christian on the couch. Both are clothed, though she leans back, displaying her cleavage.
Christian is shown having sex with Bettina from behind, as she kneels on his desk wearing a bra and panties.
Bettina: “God, you’re in great shape!”
Christian spanks her.
Christian has sex with Bettina who is lying on a desk wearing only a bra on top. She answers the phone while having sex. He buries his face in her breasts.
Bettina lies on the couch, her legs over Christian’s shoulders as they have sex. Both are naked. No breasts or genitals are seen. Both scream as they climax.
Shortly after they’ve finished, Christian fires Bettina for mispronouncing Julia’s name.
I guess if there’s gonna be a bombardment of smut anyway, it might as well come from a “parents’ advocacy group.
Excellent post at Skepchick about what a particular atheist does believe in. Assuming I have time, I want to add my own positive beliefs, but for now I’m going to carry one commenter’s belief around with me for a little while:
I believe that we were put on this earth to take care of dogs. I believe our reward for that is that we get to take care of dogs.
Clarke also was credited with the concept of communications satellites in 1945, decades before they became a reality. Geosynchronous orbits, which keep satellites in a fixed position relative to the ground, are called Clarke orbits.
His non-fiction volumes on space travel and his explorations of the Great Barrier Reef and Indian Ocean earned him respect in the world of science, and in 1976 he became an honorary fellow of the American Institute of Aeronautics and Astronautics.
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.
I’m not sure there can be as fertile an imagination as his anytime soon. I hope the first people to venture beyond the moon do so at least partly in his honor. I’ll bid him farewell with a little Also Sprach Zarathustra:
I have been following the renewed ID/creationism/evolution “debate” with much interest, mostly so I can further educate myself about science and the fascinating array of knowledge and experience to be found in the natural world, but also to marvel at the colossal waste of time and energy expended in an ever-increasingly-desperate effort to keep evolution out of children’s minds. The particulars of the “debate” have been discussedad nauseam, but for me it really comes down to one, simple, painful conclusion.
Intelligent design is supremely, fantastically boring.
The basic premise seems to be this: This biological mechanism is so apparently complex that I cannot conceive of a natural means by which it may have evolved; therefore, an Intelligent Designer must have created it.
That’s it. Whatever science has not yet been able to explain (and in most cases of supposed “irreducible complexity,” already has explained) must be the work of some supernatural desginer. End of story. Go grab some chips & queso and see what’s on TV.
Seriously, what’s the point? How does this help anything?
The purity test (h/t Kerry Howley), which guided my way through college, is back, and it’s grosser than ever. (The bar is way lower at Rice, as I score a 25% on that test.) This was something all Rice freshmen were supposed to take during orientation, to be used for comparison with your score upon graduation (I dropped by about 67% in four years!)
I’m now 17.48 points less pure than the average test taker, as it turns out.