When you have to be told it's satire... and what follows is good satire:
Fresh off her groundbreaking sermon denouncing “the misogynist St. Paul” for depriving the demoniac girl
of her spiritual gifts in Acts 16:16, Presiding Bishop of the Episcopal Church Reverend Katharine Jefferts Schori has published another landmark piece of scriptural exegesis. In a new set of essays entitled The Great Amend, Schori highlights the systematic oppression, degradation, and misunderstanding of women throughout Holy Scripture. Prominent examples include Delilah, long viewed as a villain, actually a sexually-liberated freedom-fighter; Jezebel, a trailblazing political leader and forerunner to such modern figures as Hillary Clinton and Nancy Pelosi; and Eve, an independent, free-thinking woman who was ostracized by the all-male establishment because of her dietary preferences. “By far the most egregious example of the oppressive patriarchy within the Bible,” Jefferts Schori observes, “is a particular teenage girl, about three-quarters of the way through the book, who is forced to consent to an unwanted pregnancy. Any fair and just society would have provided her access to proper reproductive services — including safe, legal, state-subsidized abortion.”
In the bottom of the first inning against Houston, Cincinnati Reds second baseman Brandon Phillips pulled a cruel, cruel trick on Astros shortstop Jonathan Villar when he forced him to slide directly into his butt while protecting second base.
As if his head placement wasn't embarrassing enough, Villar was called out on the play.
Orange County deputies said a man accused of trying to rob the gift shop at the Catholic Basilica of the
National Shrine of Mary, Queen of the Universe didn't get far, thanks to a wardrobe malfunction.
Deputies said Anthony Garcia, 31, walked into the gift shop at the shrine, on Vineland Avenue in south Orlando, around 1:30 p.m. and demanded the cashier hand over all the money in the drawer.
Investigators say Garcia grabbed the entire drawer from the register.
But as he tried to run, his pants started to slip off his waist, deputies say.
“Now, remember: He’s holding a drawer," said Jane Watrel, with the Orange County Sheriff's Office. "Both hands are on the drawer. So, he tries to take one hand pull up his pants. Well, the director of maintenance saw his opening, caught up with him, pulled his pants down and then put him in a cradle.”
Two deputies who were near the shrine on Vineland Avenue in the area who were able to get to there quickly.
Ok, so technically, the director of maintenance depants him but hey, they were falling down on their own to begin with.
And Who do you think might've been involved with that?
I'm sticking with answering yes to the question asked in the title.
Attempting to quell criticism of his proposal for a limited military mission in Syria, President Obama
floated a more modest strategy today, saying that any U.S. action in Syria would have “no objective whatsoever.”
“Let me be clear,” he said in an interview on CNN. “Our goal will not be to effect régime change, or alter the balance of power in Syria, or bring the civil war there to an end. We will simply do something random there for one or two days and then leave.”
“I want to reassure our allies and the people of Syria that what we are about to undertake, if we undertake it at all, will have no purpose or goal,” he said. “This is consistent with U.S. foreign policy of the past.”
While Mr. Obama clearly hoped that his proposal of a brief and pointless intervention in Syria would reassure the international community, it immediately drew howls of protest from U.S. allies, who argued that two days was too open-ended a timeframe for such a mission.
That criticism led White House spokesman Jay Carney to brief reporters later in the day, arguing that the President was willing to scale down the U.S. mission to “twenty-four hours, thirty-six tops.”
“It may take twenty-four hours, but it could also take twelve,” Mr. Carney said.
“Maybe we get in there, take a look around, and get out right away. But however long it takes, one thing will not change: this mission will have no point. The President is resolute about that.”
So... when you've lost The New Yorker...
More of this sort of stuff at the link... just keep scrolling.
"According to the new laws, revealing or receiving confidential Vatican information is now punishable by up to two years in prison, while newly defined sex crimes against children carry a sentence of up to twelve years. Because all sex crimes are kept confidential, there is no longer a legal way for Vatican officials to report sex crimes."
This was startling stuff, and of course it wasn't long before Dawkins' devoteees began to chime in. One fan compared the Vatican to Islamic Sharia law:
"Catholic law, as with Sharia law, should NEVER be above the law of the land! If Vatican officials want to report the crimes of priests, surley [sic] if they leave the Vatican, they are no longer bound by their medieval laws, and can report with complete immunity to those barbaric laws?"
Apparently however, The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science was a little cracked:
The only problem is that this article came from a parody web site (similar to the Onion) called Newslo. The site describes itself this way:
"Newslo is the first hybrid News/Satire platform on the web. Readers come to us for a unique brand of entertainment and information that is enhanced by features like our fact-button, which allows readers to find the line between fact and commentary."
While a nude female swimmer in his Camelot subidivision home's backyard pool had him distracted, the woman's accomplice was inside the victim's home stealing his personal property. Both made a clean getaway.
The incident took place last Saturday on Canterbury Lane around 3 p.m. at the home of a 54-year-old man who told police that a couple who live nearby approached his home when the woman suddenly told her husband to go back and retrieve her cigarettes, according to Ptl. Camden Davis' report.
The woman then approached the victim and asked him about his pool, and if she could take a swim. He told the woman it would be OK and led her to the rear of his house where the pool is located.
The woman then asked if it would bother him if she swam in the nude, and he replied that it would not. She proceeded to take off her clothes and jumped into the pool, swimming for about 20 minutes. The home owner retrieved a towel from inside his home, the woman dried off, dressed and left.
It was at that point he re-entered his home to discover that he had been robbed of a handgun, jewelry and medication. Loss was placed at $1,195, according to Davis' report.
Several years ago, an ex-Catholic writer thought she would spend a year sampling all the different churches she could find, one per week. I haven't read the resulting book, but I do remember hearing her say that Catholics certainly don't smile very much during Mass -- and what a shame that was. I suppose it varies from region to region, but she's right about her observation. In all the Catholic churches I've been to, I've only seen smiles during Mass on a few occasions: during the sign of peace (which often feels like an interruption or intermission in the middle of Mass, rather than a part of it); during a homily, if the priest cracks a joke; when there is a "milestone" sacrament, such as First Communion or matrimony, during the Mass; or if something unexpected happens, like a squirrel wanders in or a kid yells out something cute.
In other words, Catholics do smile during Mass, but not, in general, because of what's actually going on in the liturgy itself. Isn't that kind of odd? I mean, if we're sitting there hearing the Good News and then lining up to be literally fed with the literal food of salvation. If that's not a time to rejoice and be glad, then when is the time?
Well, I said I agreed with the church-hopping author about her observation, but I don't agree that all this non-smiling is a sign of anything bad, or something that needs changing.
A couple of years ago, I was telling my brother about my plans for that year's vegetable garden. "Oh, why don't you just skip it this year?" he asked. I was baffled. Skip my garden? Why?
"Because you worry about it so much!" he explained. "It gives you so much anxiety and trouble." For a minute, I didn't even know what he was talking about. But then I had to admit that he was right. Most of the time, when I talk about my garden, I talk about the grubs, the beetles, the hassle of dealing with all those endless rocks that keep drifting up to the surface. Will there be a late frost tonight? I don't know what's gone wrong with my peas this year. I think I need a more gentle method for transplanting. I think I tied up the tomatoes too tight! Oh, gosh, it's time to thin the seedlings, which always makes me feel like such a monster. That's it, I'm going to try hand-pollinating those pumpkins one more time tonight, and if they don't get with the program, I give up. Stupid pumpkins.
But in my garden I am happy. So, so happy. All winter long, I think about my garden, and all through early spring, I suffer while I wait and wait for the last of the snow to melt. I sneak out back just to lean over the soil and sniff deeply when the evening dew is sinking in. I have dorky conversations with worms and grasshoppers. I know exactly how many leaves are on each pepper plant, and rejoice over each new one. When I see my little girls wandering into the yard, still in their nightgowns, and finding themselves a snack of string beans, I think I'm going to die of satisfaction. But no, I am not necessarily smiling -- especially when I'm actually working in the garden, digging, weeding, breaking up the soil, looking for something ready to pick.
Simcha Fisher's going somewhere and you should go with her.
You'll enjoy it. And you might not necessarily be smiling.