Steve made a post about AFI's top 100.  I want to know what your top 10, COMEDY movies are?  What movies will turn your day from bad to good?  What movie can you quote endlessly and have people laugh?  What movies shaped your sense of humor?  Please list the movie and a  quote that makes you laugh from each movie.

My top 10 would be:

10.  Men In Black

Jay: Unlimited technology from the whole universe, and we cruise 'round in a Ford P.O.S.

9.  Caddyshack

Carl Spackler: This crowd has gone deadly silent, a Cinderella story outta nowhere. Former greenskeeper and now about to become the masters champion.

8.  Baseketball

Joseph R. Cooper: What is something you really want?
Joey: Chelsea Clinton.
Joseph R. Cooper: That's a tough order, dude.
Douglas "Swish" Reemer: You'd have a better shot at Bill.

7. Airplane

Reporter: What kind of plane is it?
Johnny: Oh, it's a big pretty white plane with red stripes, curtains in the windows and wheels and it looks like a big Tylenol.

6.  Dogma

Bethany: Sex is a joke in heaven?
Metatron: The way I understand it, it's mostly a joke down here, too.

5.  Office Space

Milton Waddams: Excuse me, I believe you have my stapler...

4.  Any and all Monty Python

3.  A League of Their Own

Ernie Capadino: Hey cowgirls, see the grass? Don't eat it.

or

Jimmy Dugan: Because there's no crying in baseball. THERE'S NO CRYING IN BASEBALL! No crying!

2.  Ferris Bueller

Cameron: He'll keep calling me, he'll keep calling me until I come over. He'll make me feel guilty. This is uh... This is ridiculous, ok I'll go, I'll go, I'll go, I'll go, I'll go.

1.  Fast Times At Ridgemont High

Jeff Spicoli: So what Jefferson was saying was "Hey! You know, we left this England place because it was bogus. So if we don't get some cool rules ourselves, pronto, we'll just be bogus too." Yeah?

There were many others,... but, I had to choose 10.

I received the following e-mail, via the e-mail address here on bako.com. 

I'm posting it for two reasons; a) It's just THAT funny. b) It's just that asinine.  But, judge for yourself.  I've also included my response (in red) and the final e-mail in the exchange...following my reply. 

How are you suggest that our heavenly father does not exist? You should be ashamed of yourself. 

I'm not sure "how" I dare do it... but I do.  And, I'm rarely ashamed of myself. 

Your sad and pathetic attempt at gathering atheists in Bakersfield is sad and pathetic.

And, redundancy is redundant. 

When God finds out about what you are doing, he will be very angry and will send nothing but bad your way.

Are you suggesting that your God is unaware of the actions of the people?  Or, am I just that good that I can subvert the omniscience of GOD.  By the way, I think your God might be a wee bit perturbed when he sees your insolence.  How dare you not capitalize the name of your Lord and Savior?!  And... so much for a perfectly just God, huh?  If your God exists, and he/she/it was perfectly just, then he/she/it would start a blog and question my existence...no t smote me with bad joo-joo. 

You will bow before him and ask for mercy.  Only if you are lucky will he show you such mercy.

You bow to your sensei, I'll bow to mine.  And,... your slip is showing again.  "Only if I'm lucky"??  Since when is the will of God about luck?  Are you placing limitations on your deity's powers?  

You worship yourself above the Lord and your heavenly father.  How angry the Lord will be when the atheists stand before him on judgment day.  How scared you will be when you realize the true power of the holy spirit.  Woe unto you.

If you're right, then we will be as God made us. No?  Would he really be angry that a group of humans examined his existence using the brain he made and the natural laws he provided?  Would an omnipotent deity be so petty?  If God exists, I think such a power would find your using him as a weapon of fear to be patently absurd and wasteful of the time HE has given you on this earth.  How angry will he be when he finds you have ignored one of his commands: judge not, lest ye' be judged?  How angry will your God be when HE finds that you have taken the yoke of his authoritay' upon yourself.  Woe indeed.

I hope that your pathetic group of atheist friends are treated with the same disrespect that you are showing god.

How very Christian of you.  Peace be with you. 

I am confident that God will make your life one of misery and suffering as long as you continue to defy him. 

Then your God is not deserving of worship.  If the God that you worship exists, and he's that petty, and he's a God of suffering and misery, then I do not see any reason for setting such a deity up to be worshiped.  Would you worship the bully who tortures cats because the cat doesn't bow it's head in his presence?  Would you worship an abusive parent who allows their child the choice to follow them, but then beats the child when said child chooses a different path? You might want to rethink your portrayal of God...because, frankly, you officially suck at Public Relations. 

May god have mercy on your soul and the souls of all atheists.  Friends in Christ.

Go in peace, dude.

So...the response to this?? 

"F*@* You.  Rot in hell."

What would Jesus do, indeed?  Can you all feel the love?  Gee... with friends-in-Christ like this, who needs enemies?

I am continually amazed when I meet an evangelical, right-wing homeschooler  who insists that "America was meant to be a Christian nation!" and prayer belongs in school because "that's what our forefathers intended."  To them, and undoubtedly some of you, I submit the following words from Thomas Jefferson. 

"...instead of putting the Bible and Testament into the hands of children at an age when their judgments are not sufficiently matured for religious enquiries, their memories may be stored with the most useful facts from Grecian, Roman, European and American history." - Notes on the State of Virginia, in regard to education of minors.

And, to his nephew (Peter Carr), Jefferson said the following in a letter dated 1787:

"In the first place, divest yourself of all bias in favor of novelty and singularity of opinion. Indulge them in any other subject rather than that of religion. It is too important, and the consequences of error may be too serious. On the other hand, shake off all the fears and servile prejudices, under which weak minds are servilely crouched. Fix reason firmly in her seat, and call to her tribunal every fact, every opinion. Question with boldness even the existence of a God; because, if there be one, he must more approve of the homage of reason, than that of blindfolded fear. You will naturally examine first, the religion of your own country." - Thomas Jefferson, a founding father.

Funny - that passage never seems to make it into Christian Homeschooling curricula.

Jefferson continues... "But those facts in the Bible which contradict the laws of nature, must be examined with more care, and under a variety of faces. Here you must recur to the pretensions of the writer to inspiration from God. Examine upon what evidence his pretensions are founded, and whether that evidence is so strong, as that its falsehood would be more improbable than a change in the laws of nature, in the case he relates."

 "Examine, therefore, candidly, what evidence there is of his having been inspired. The pretension is entitled to your inquiry, because millions believe it. On the other hand, you are astronomer enough to know how contrary it is to the law of nature that a body revolving on its axis, as the earth does, should have stopped, should not, by that sudden stoppage, have prostrated animals, trees, buildings, and should after a certain time gave resumed its revolution, and that without a second general prostration. Is this arrest of the earth's motion, or the evidence which affirms it, most within the law of probabilities?"

Again, Jefferson is repeating the admonition that we not sacrifice reason and observable, empirical fact to enable a belief in God. 

"Do not be frightened from this inquiry by any fear of its consequences. If it ends in a belief that there is no God, you will find incitements to virtue in the comfort and pleasantness you feel in its exercise, and the love of others which it will procure you. If you find reason to believe there is a God, a consciousness that you are acting under his eye, and that he approves you, will be a vast additional incitement; if that there be a future state, the hope of a happy existence in that increases the appetite to deserve it; if that Jesus was also a God, you will be comforted by a belief of his aid and love. "

Please note the "ifs".  The entirety of the letter can be read here:

http://www.infidels.org/lib...

Thomas Jefferson was not a fan of controlled religion.  He was NOT a believer in the Christian "God".  Jefferson was a believer in reason and rational thought, above comfort in faith.  He, in many writings, openly defies Pascal's Wager and discredits the Watchmaker argument. 

It doesn't surprise me that my Christian, homeschooler friend is ignorant of the full and complete picture of Jefferson.  It doesn't surprise me that she'd never heard, or taught her children, about Jefferson's vehement disapproval of, what he saw as, a "dogmatic, orthodox Christianity."  It didn't even surprise me that she had no idea that Jefferson routinely exposed the ridiculousness of Christ's divinity and/or a virgin birth.  What DID surprise me was that, after all of this exposure that she's now been given, her response was: "Well... he used the words "divine creator" in the Constitution.  WRONG!  Not only wrong -but,... not even remotely true.  The Declaration of Independence uses that term, but our Constitution does not.  The Declaration of Independence was never intended to be a governing document- that's WHY we drafted a Constitution in which there is no mention of a Judeo-Christian God (or any god for that matter) and there IS mention of the need for the separation of Church and State. 

I've been following this case since its inception.  I'm not sure why I'm so drawn to it - I'm normally not the type who gets focused on kidnappings.  Maybe it's because I have a four year old, blond cutie of my own?  Maybe it's because I just can't fathom the actions of the parents?  Maybe it's because I'm bored?  In any case, I start and end my days by google searching the latest news on the case.  Unfortunately, as the days pass by, my questions only mount upon the questions of the day before... and, here I am, more than a month later, feeling cynical beyond all rights.

The latest blow is the parental response to the Dutch letter stating that Madeleine's body could be found "under the rocks", in a place denoted by a map sent to a Dutch Newspaper.  The authorities in the Netherlands took the letter seriously because it is frighteningly similar to a letter which disclosed the location of two missing girls last year.  Gerry and Kate McCann were upset that the letter received press.  They were/are, reportedly, "angry" that the police would consider the letter as evidence.  WHY!? 

The Portugese police sent "officers" to "search the area".  How many officers would you send to search an area that was 6 miles by 6 miles (approx) in scrub that appears to be very simliar to the scrub and brush in our own mountains?  Just ballpark a number of officers?  100?  50?  20?  How about 7?  Seven!  Would you send cadaver dogs?  Just on the off chance that the letter was credible?  I would.  The police didn't.  After four hours of "searching" (which, by the way, local residents of the Luz and the two nearest to the alleged body site couldn't even determine was taking place), the police determined that the letter must be bogus because they hadn't located the body.  What. The. Heck!   Seven officers.  Four hours.  No search dogs. 
Journalists, covering the case in Luz, pulled together enough money to get cadaver dogs to search the area (which, by the way, the authorities have left wide open and unprotected...even after a towel, sold by the resort, was found in the scrub).  Madeleine's parents are said to be "livid" that the journalists would do this.  WHY!? 

These are parents who have jet-setted to eight different countries to look for their daughter!  They've asked for the help of millions.  They've had an audience with the Pope.  They've befriended football players, famous authors, and billionaires.  Yet... they're ANGRY that a group of journalists have done what the police should've done in the first place?  If the letter isn't credible and the dogs find nothing, then it's another avenue ruled out.  If they find Madeleine, then....as sad as that will be, it will undoubtedly give the family some closure and unearth clues to her captor.  Why are they so opposed to this search?  It just doesn't add up.

My other questions are in a similar vein and have been on my mind since the beginning.

1.  As difficult as it might be to imagine, parents do hurt their children.  Why have Gerry and Kate, the people who discovered the child was missing, not been subjected to separate interviews?  Why were they never suspects? 

2.  Why have they not been investigated or charged with child neglect?  And, why, when people point out the obvious - that the McCann's behavior was less than responsible- would they shoot the messengers?  They're "furious" and "confused" by a petition that asks the British police to perform an assessment of the neglect??  THEY are furious?  As doctors, they must surely understand that the rules of mandatory reporting of neglect applies to them as well?  Britain has a very similar set of rules when it comes to the duty of doctors and teachers to report potential abuse and neglect.  So...why act shocked?

3.  Why did they lie about the window having been "forced open"?  The window was found to be totally intact and showed "no signs of forced entry or even having been opened."  The patio doors, on the other hand, that the McCanns had been using to enter and exit the apartment (on the night of the disappearance) were left unlocked and found "ajar".  Why lie about the window?  Why turn the focus from the doors to the window?  Could is be because the McCanns know more than they are letting on? 

4.  The time-line.  The parents have one.  The friends of the parents had another.  The police have another.  How long was it between the "check-in" times?  The parents say they check on their children every half hour.  The staff of the restaurant and hotel say that it was more like every forty-five minutes to an hour.  The friends said "it varied, but was between every thirty and sixty minutes".  Is this important?  YES!  Luz is within two hours of an international border and twenty minutes from a marina in which one can catch a boat to another continent.  It matters! 

5.  Why did the police not announce this was an abduction from the first moment?  Why did they say that their belief was that Maddy had "wandered off"?  I submit that it was because the window was not forced, but the door was ajar.  If a set of french doors was ajar, it's likely that a child wandered out.  If the window, that faced a RESIDENTIAL STREET OFF THE PROPERTY, was forced open, then you have an obvious entry that doesn't lend itself to a child wandering off. 

6.  Speaking of that "resort" and it's layout.  It's not really a resort, in the same vein that we think of "a resort".  It's not a motel, totally segragated from the surrounding community.  The properties that make up the resort are strewn about in the remains of a small, fishing town.  The restaurant that the parents dined at was AROUND A CORNER, over a wall, across a pool, and through a hedgerow.  Line of sight to the apartment (as the parents claim)? I  think not.  This was not a fenced property... the "room" is an apartment in an apartment complex.  Remember, these parents originally said that they were "in the line of sight" and at a distance where "(they) could've heard the kids cry." 

7.  Madeleine's eye problem has been linked to a congenital heart defect.  Her dad is a cardiologist.  Could Madeleine have succumbed to an irregular heartbeat?  Could her parents have returned to find Maddy dead (of a heart issue or slipping on a wet bathroom floor, or 100 other possibilities)?  Might they have panicked and disposed of her body?  As horrible as that is to contemplate, it's not without precedent.  Two doctors who've left their child, with her two year old sibs, untended while they dined at a swanky eatery, return to find that one of the children has been injured... maybe they correctly assumed that that would raise some eyebrows?

8.  Your child goes missing.  You blog.  Do you blog about your running time?  Do you blog about your international travels?  Do you blog about the beauty of the countries you've visited? Would you even notice the beauty?  Do you blog about all of the notable figures who have added money, and a jet, to the cause?  What good does that do?  Is someone going to return Maddy so that they can barter for the ending of the last Harry Potter book?  Is someone going to give information they might be holding because a soccer star has determined that she's a really cute kid?  Does it matter where the reward money came from?  Are we supposed to care more about Maddy because she's got the backing of an ex-Spice Girl and a billionaire?  We shouldn't.  We should care about Maddy because she's a four year old girl who is missing.  Would you accept the reward money if a tip you had led authorities to her?  I couldn't.  I wouldn't.  Do we really live in a world where people only care if your kid can inspire million dollar rewards? :(

9.  Your child has gone missing in Portugal.  You say you "can't leave Portugal" until she is found.  You can't return home.  You can't go back to work.  You're devestated!  And, with good reason.  You can't even "think of going back to England without Madeleine."  But, you can spend 14 days on a European tour? 

10.  Are Portugese cops always this hackneyed when it comes to investigations? 

11.  Why would someone approve the use of psychics before the use of, the already offered, cadaver dogs or search team? 

This case just doens't add up.  :( 

ETA: And my last question: WHY IS THIS RESTING SO HEAVY ON MY MIND AND HEART?  I need a hobby or soemthing, I know.

I was thinking about our movie night and decided that we should try getting this together (again!).  Woof's house, while having an amazing back yard, has parking issues.  But, my house is in a cul de sac and would be okay.  So... how about the second weekend in July?  Potluck?  I have Jesus Camp on DVD.  Woof, do you think your wonderful hubby would be willing to haul the projection equipment here? 

Also...topic for discussion:  What's the best book, about atheism, that you've ever read? 

My money is on Dan Barker's "Losing Faith in Faith" or Richard Dawkins', "The God Delusion."

Wow!!  I have to point out something that struck me as amazing, after watching the video on the homepage.  Time and time again, on THESE BLOGS, and in the Californian, we are told that we are living in a "God fearing" society.  In fact, the fear is so prominant that people, supposedly, go to Church every week to "be good people" and follow the Bible because they fear Hell. 

So... how many people said that they feared God or hell?? 

NONE!!  Big.  Fat. Zero. 
Most of the responders said that they feared something tangible (war, their kids being harmed, snakes, water, fire, people who lie, public speaking, etc.,.) and one teen even said, "death!"...  but, no one feared the deity (or the hell)  that our country is, allegedly, mortally afraid of. 

Interesting, indeed.