Too high is $1.01.

I recall paying $0.89 to $0.99 per gallon, not too many years ago.

When I was growing up, less than 50 years ago, the gas station on our corner had gas for about $0.27 per gallon all year long. A pack of cigarettes cost that same amount.

You youngsters should try to imagine what I am going through now. It is torture.

It's good to see that some people have come to realize that there is no such thing as "manmade global warming."

This is RIDICULOUS! The recent media intoxication with race (inspired by B. Obama and his ex-pastor) -- and exacerbated by other sickos (such as A. Sharpton) is just depressing. It's sad to see that some bloggers are just as unencumbered by brain power as the ultra-left-wing reporters.

The fact is that there is no shame, no bias, no racism ... involved in shooting so-called "blacks" more or more quickly than so-called "whites." It is not done out of hatred, but out of wisdom and a sense of self-preservation. Anyone with a lick of sense knows that an average "black" man is FAR more likely to be a perpetrator of a violent crime than an average "white" man. It's only natural to use self-defense against him with less hesitation.

Grow up, people!

Too bad there's one falsehood at the linked site. It's pretty stupid, since the author contradicts him/herself in the same paragraph. Here is what is stated:

"So, that's why men have nipples because at some point (for a very short amount of time) everyone is a girl!"

The above is an "old radical feminists' tale" (an updated form of an "old wives' tale"), invented [c. 1970] to make women and girls feel superior to men and boys!

The truth is that it is NEVER the case that "everyone is a girl." As the article itself states, a human being has either an "XX" or an "XY" sex chromosome from the moment his life starts (at fertilization = conception). A person with "XX" is a girl from the very first cell until death, while a person with "XY" is a boy until death.

I'm going to give you the three shortest known pangrams. However, these require permission to use "proper nouns," such as people's names:

BRONZE MEDAL (29 letters:)
"Quick wafting zephyrs vex bold Jim."

SILVER MEDAL (28 letters:)
"Waltz, nymph, for quick jigs vex Bud."

GOLD MEDAL (26 letters:)
"J. Q. Schwartz flung D. V. Pike my box."

Biblical references to lions are irrelevant to this thread, Sean. The original post intended to say that common housecats are not mentioned in the Bible.

The reason for this (I believe) is that the pagan Egyptians of the biblical era (stupidly) regarded cats as sacred. I think that they even had a cat god or goddess. God's "chosen people" -- the Hebrews/Jews, and the "new Israel" (the Church that Jesus founded) -- wisely avoided speaking positively of things Egyptian. Egypt was the land of slavery, idolatry, and sin.

She is not a "man" and never could be.
Time to snap out of it.

UNI+brow = MONO+brow

UNI comes from "unus" (Latin for "one")
MONO comes from "monos" (Greek for "one")

They used to teach things like this in school.

Let's be grown-ups and face it. He is a psychologically disturbed man. And any medical personnel who would pretend that they could do anything about that are criminals. Case closed.

The ignorance exhibited in the original post and in some of the comments is just mind-boggling! It drives me crazy to see that so many people who are reading Neatorama know little or nothing about Catholicism and have little or no grasp of Judaeo-Christian morality, based on the "natural law" (which God has "written" on every person's heart).

All of this is going to take some work to refute.

First of all, this whole thing is a misunderstanding, and everyone here has fallen for the stupidity of the (non-Catholic) media. The Church did not publish a list of new sins! Instead a certain Vatican-based archbishop gave a newspaper interview in which his purpose was to encourage Catholics to confess their sins during this penitential season of Lent. He mentioned some behaviors that people may or may not have known are considered sinful -- contrary to God's commandments. What was then published was subsequently misreported by ignorant people, resulting in this current, misleading Neatorama thread. A British newspaper (Daily Telegraph) had with the most sensational and misleading coverage, making the preposterous claim that the sins mentioned by the archbishop replaced the traditional Catholic understanding of the seven deadly sins!


(1) The original post here at Neatorama said that one of the sins named was "'Bioethical’ violations such as birth control."

Dear blogger, why must you lie -- or foolishly get this wrong (if you didn't intentionally lie)?
The Church does not teach that ALL birth control is sinful, but only the ARTIFICIAL forms (aka "contraception"). Why the distinction? Natural birth regulation [which, by the way, is not "rhythm"] allows God to be God. Artificial birth control places a barrier between God and man and tells God, "I will not let you create a new soul."


(2) The original post said that one of the sins named was "'Morally dubious' experiments such as stem cell research."

No! How could you not know the truth about this? The Church is very much in favor of all use of human stem cells that does not result in the killing of the person donating the cells! The valid forms of stem cell research (using cells from adults, placentas, and umbilical cords) have already resulted in cures of over 70 diseases. What is forbidden (because sinful) is the use of EMBRYONIC stem cells, because, in order to get hold of them, the researcher must KILL the embryo (an innocent, defenseless, living human being)! It is unjustifiable homicide. What's more, embryonic stem cells have produced ZERO cures (thanks be to God).


(3) Turning now to subsequent comments:
Ben said: "This coming from the richest sovereign state in the world. Typical Hypocritical abuse of power."
In a similar vein, bazik said: "lol this is just way too funny! the vatican saying excessive wealth is a sin! LMAO"

I say to both of you: You need to keep your mouth shut when you are ignorant. The Holy See (aka Vatican City State) is not wealthy, in terms of disposable cash. It has even run deficits in your lifetime. Listing sins is not an "abuse of power." The Pope has every right (and duty) to teach or remind his flock about human morality. What he did is not "hypocritical," because he is not guilty of committing the sins listed. [And even if he were guilty (and repentant), he would still have the duty to teach the truth.] Why, Ben, could you not have figured these things out? From now on, keep quiet and learn, instead of insulting innocent people.


Anthony said: "The Vatican, violating the last three? Never!"

I say: You are right, Anthony. You have NEVER witnessed the Vatican committing any of the last three sins, because it does not do so. I have been following, in a meticulously detailed way, what the Vatican has been doing since 1985 -- and in a less detailed way since the early 1960s. Thus, I know, Anthony, that you are wrong. You too should keep quiet and learn.


alison says, "oy vay," and Sofar says, "This will certainly help the Catholic church be taken seriously."

I say: The correct name is the "Catholic Church" (with two capital Cs). Contrary to your sarcasm, the truth is that many people will be pleased to read this list of sins. Too bad you are not one of them, Sofar. Maybe you don't know that the Church has 1.3 billion members and (with Eastern and Oriental Orthodoxy) is the original Church that Jesus founded. She is not concerned about being "taken seriously" by ignorant people. Her job is to teach what Jesus taught, not to be popular.


I also say: I won't even bother to respond to "joker" (who is an aptly named moron) nor to the lying, demon-possessed Scotto and Chris. But I will respond to Lasse: Lasse, you too are ignorant of the facts. The Catholic Church NEVER said anything about "Judas not being the guy who did it." That garbaginous theory came from some non-Catholic ignoramus who did the devil's bidding by trying to "rehabilitate" Judas Iscariot. Also, Lasse, the Church is not inventing "new sins." Instead, she is identifying various human behaviors (some of them being rather recent) as violations of the same old Ten Commandments that God gave to mankind.


ann says: "... As if they/he are/is THE authority on this".

I say: Yes, that's right, ann. The Pope is the Vicar of Christ, so he is "THE authority" on Catholic faith and morality. He is the successor of St. Peter, who was given (and passed down) THE authority to be the chief visible shepherd of Jesus's flock. If you don't believe that, then just clam up and follow your own religion (if any). You (and others here) have NO right to tell Catholics what to believe or how to live. It's none of your business. Neither I nor the pope tell Jewish people what to believe or how to live.


JamesM sarcastically says: "While we’re still faced with the issue of many starving children in this world, you’re right… it would be horrible if anyone actually were to do the responsible thing and prevent conception if they were not willing to conceive a child."

I say: This is yet another example of a person showing his ignorance about Catholicism. The Church is in favor of every form of preventing starvation -- except for sinful actions. The Church has NEVER taught that married couples should procreate all the children that they can produce -- but rather that they practice RESPONSIBLE parenthood, having only as many children as they can properly raise. Like so many people (left ignorant by the anti-Catholic media), you seem to be totally unaware of NFP (Natural Family Planning), a series of ways that couples can responsibly (and morally) "space out" their babies, if they have a serious reason for delaying pregnancies.


Miss Cellania says: "... wouldn’t #5 make #6 and #7 redundent?"

I say: Please realize that what is listed as #1 through #7 is NOT a full quotation from the Vatican, but an incomplete and erroneous one, so you must expect it to be confusing (as it was to you). [PS: The word is spelled, "redundant."]


casey says: "Jesus calls us to be pick up our crosses, and become more like him! I certainly feel that these social sins are keeping us from doing just that. Proud to be Catholic!!!!"

I say: Thank you, Casey!!! May God bless you!


Street Attack says: "So when you take your heart medicine is that also bioethical?"

I say: There is nothing wrong with taking medicine that is designed to heal or to alleviate pain! There is no entity in the world that does as much to help human beings be freed from physical pain than the Catholic Church (through its worldwide array of hospitals).


john.k says: "LOL at the Vatican saying excessive wealth is a sin! What hypocrisy! How can anyone be Catholic"

I say: In responsing to Ben and bazik, above, I also responded to the first part of your improper comments. Now I'll respond to your closing question. The 1,300,000,000 Catholics can be Catholic because they know that you are wrong about the Church. You (and so many other people, young and old) have fallen for the lies/errors of a huge anti-Catholic propaganda machine that exists within the pagan media and academia -- and within some bigoted non-Catholic religious bodies. When the day comes that you realize that you are wrong, you will have an open mind and heart, making you too capable of becoming a Catholic. [PS: It's hard to understand how you could have observed the lives of Mother Teresa of Calcutta and Pope John Paul II and still post as you did, john.]


Tony LaRocca says: "The church’s idiotic stance on birth control is probably one of the main reasons for overpopulation in the world. Perhaps now they’ll make 'Every Sperm is Sacred' an official hymn."
L says: "The 'go forth and multiply' idea wasn’t conceived (ugh… sorry) when the population was pushing toward 7 billion, that’s for sure."

I say: Your words are further examples of ignorance of the facts, Tony and L. The Church does not have a "stance" on birth control or anything else, Tony. (Politicians have "stances.") The Church instead has a 2000-year-old, error-free TEACHING, given to her by Jesus Christ (her founder) against contraception and in favor of legitimate natural birth control. The Church's teaching is not the cause of overpopulation in the world, and she is against overpopulation. In fact, the U.N. now admits that the world is NOT overpopulated AS A WHOLE -- and that some parts of the world are UNDERpopulated and shrinking in numbers, while only certain limited regions are too densely populated. Did you know that the populations of EVERY traditional ethnic group in Europe (Irish, Italian, German, French, Russian, etc.) is shrinking in a hurry, due to UNDERpopulation (too few babies to replace their dying parents? Moreover, the regions that are overpopulated now are NOT heavily Catholic regions. Everything I've just mentioned is a fact that the ultra-liberal media has been hiding from folks like you for quite a few years. [PS: On your (unfunny) comment about sperm ... No. Sperms are just cells, not living human beings, so they are not treated as "sacred" by Catholicism. How could you not have known this? Being so ignorant of facts, you too should keep quiet.]

I sincerely hope that at least some people who read my post will be open to learning the truth, will discard the errors that they have been believing until now, etc.. If anyone has an open heart and mind, please learn more of the truth about Catholicism at www.catholic.com.
AUS

Thank you for telling the truth, Max V. True hermaphroditism (with genetic abnormality) is incredibly rare. Pseudo-hermaphroditism (aka sexual ambiguity) is also rare (about 1 in 2500 people), and it is correctible by surgery right after birth, so that a baby's organs agree with his/her chromosomes.

This extreme rarity tells me that this blog thread should not exist. It is just here to titillate some readers. It is almost a certainty that we who are reading/writing here will never meet a true hermaphrodite.

Also, it is not God who "creates intersex persons," NiteWhite. God does not have a "sick sense of humor." God is pure love and never imposes diseases and physical problems on people. These things happen due to the imperfections and accidents in "nature." God could step in and stop them miraculously, but He prefers to let the laws of nature take their course; then He helps people to overcome problems (as we have seen time and again in the marvelous victories by handicapped folks).

I'm glad to see that Ben, Scotter, and others realize that this court decision is dead wrong. This is just another example of Kalifornia proving itself to be the "Land of Fruit and Nuts."

Those who spoke against home-schooling, above, don't have any idea what they are talking about. Home-schooled kids, on the average, do FAR, FAR better scholastically than kids in public schools (and better than kids in private schools too). They are much sought after by the best universities as applicants.

Also, they are VASTLY less likely to be abused by their parents than are non-home-schooled kids. Home-schooling parents are, on the average, MUCH more concerned about their kids than other parents, and they make more sacrifices for the kids. The parents want the kids to excel academically, spiritually, etc., so they give up the opportunity to have two incomes.

A couple of "old wives' tales" are that home-schooled kids do not "socialize" as well as public/private-schooled kids -- and that they do not excel in sports. These two "whoppers" have been discredited by researchers.