July 3, 2012

Why did the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration bother to deny the existence of mermaids?

"After all, there are many mythical things that the government doesn’t explicitly deny exist. The United States Bureau of Mines doesn’t issue statements clarifying that no dragons or trolls have been discovered in underground caves or mines, for example."

72 comments:

TosaGuy said...

Can Mermaids be taxed if they do not exist? John Roberts may say YES!

ndspinelli said...

It was a slow news day and the press person wanted to bust her young daughter's balls.

bagoh20 said...

Trolls? Shirley, you jest.

Moose said...

Same people we depend on for climate change data. You know - just sayin'...

Pogo said...

It's all part of the conspiracy.

First Area 51, now this.

Them Illuminati are everywhere.

Patrick said...

Bagoh, You had to expect this.

traditionalguy said...

The UN's new World Religion of Gaia Goddess worship is very jealous of pretty women.

Gaia it seems is ugly as sin and has a deep hatred towards all descendants of Adam and Eve that are polluting her Earth... she has an Hawaiian Certificate of ownership.

Even human appearing sea creatures looking attractive to sailors on long voyages is no longer acceptable. Get with the program, you Gaia Deniers.

West Town said...

But we are in the age of miracles and the "lightwalker", so anything is possible.

I remember reading somewhere that a large proportion of Swedish(?) adults (maybe 50%) believe that trolls exist.

Shanna said...

I remember reading somewhere that a large proportion of Swedish(?) adults (maybe 50%) believe that trolls exist.

Trolls do exist. We see them every day.

EDH said...

The United States Bureau of Mines doesn’t issue statements clarifying that no dragons or trolls have been discovered in underground caves or mines, for example.

Why the silence?

One word: Molemen.

Marshal said...

"West Town said...
But we are in the age of miracles and the "lightwalker", so anything is possible.

I remember reading somewhere that a large proportion of Swedish(?) adults (maybe 50%) believe that trolls exist."

Have you never seen Ron Jeremy or Helen Thomas?

EMD said...

Trolls exist. There's even a documentary about them.


WV: knotmen. Pretzelmakers are knot men.

Ken said...

Ann,

Why did the the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration bother to deny the existence of mermaids?

My guess is because of this bit of idiocy.

AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
AllieOop said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Chip Ahoy said...

Look, I'm totally cereal, there are trolls down there, dangerous ones too. You guys gotta believe me. You gotta believe me

RARRR RARRR RARRR

AllieOop said...

Under the Sea

The seaweed is always greener
In somebody else's lake
You dream about going up there
But that is a big mistake
Just look at the world around you
Right here on the ocean floor
Such wonderful things surround you
What more is you lookin' for?

Under the sea
Under the sea
Darling it's better
Down where it's wetter
Take it from me
Up on the shore they work all day
Out in the sun they slave away
While we devotin'
Full time to floatin'
Under the sea

Sorry, just got done watching The Little Mermaid with my three year old granddaughter.

Original Mike said...

"The United States Bureau of Mines doesn’t issue statements clarifying that no dragons or trolls have been discovered in underground caves or mines, for example."

And what does that tell you?

Chip Ahoy said...

BBC Merlin did a great troll. A horrible woman uses magic to make the king think she's beautiful and marries her. Merlin fixes it. The scenes of the woman as troll are fantastic. They really know how to go for it. One scene her helper comes straight from the stable with a bucket of steaming fresh horse biscuits. She smashes them into her eyeballs and lets them crumble into her dress. And other ghastly habits that as a writer were imaginative and had to have been a lot of fun.

ndspinelli said...

Allie, If your grandkid is like my daughter was @ that age you've watched that flick 53 times.

Coketown said...

It's because mermaids are sea creatures, so questions of their existence are handled by the NOAA. If mermaids were thought to be freshwater creatures, inquiries into their existence would be forwarded to the Department of Interior, who would then send you through to the BLM, who would in turn transfer you to the Fish and Wildlife Service.

Like duh.

Coketown said...

The bigger question is why Animal Planet featured a fake documentary on mermaids. People watch Animal Planet to learn about animals, not to be duped into thinking mythological creatures actually exist. Has Rick Steves visited Hogwarts? Has Steve Irwin--

Oh, wait. He died...conveniently, while studying creatures in the ocean. And now the NOAA is denying the existence of mermaids. The pieces are all coming together. Which is bad news because conspiracies are handled by like four or five different agencies.

AllieOop said...

Spinelli, yes countless times between the three grandkids, I know the songs by heart.

Triangle Man said...

and what does that tell you?

@Original Mike

Well done! LOL!

DADvocate said...

Well did they get that stunt mermaid for "Splash" then? Huh!?

leslyn said...

"My guess is because of this bit of idiocy."
Crminy, Animal Planet's Monster Week is "idiocy," and there's a problem with NOAA talking about mermaids? You're no fun at all.

Dave said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
edutcher said...

Since ancient times, horny seamen have verified bare-breasted women following them.

At which point, the seamen lost their semen.

West Town said...

But we are in the age of miracles and the "lightwalker"

That's lightworker.

And he lied about that, too.

Chip Ahoy said...

Look, I'm totally cereal, there are trolls down there

Up here, too.

Too bad there isn't a bounty on them.

PS No dragons?

Don't tell The Blonde!

PPS Was that sexual?

leslyn said...

I'd worry about this:

"A biology textbook used by a Christian school in Louisiana that will be accepting students with publicly funded vouchers in the fall says that the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland is real."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/loch-ness-monster-real-in-biology-textbook/2012/06/26/gJQAPhwr4V_blog.html.

Now why didn't we get a post about that, hmmmm?

Unknown said...

Of course mermaids exist. I saw them at Weeki-Watchi.

PatCA said...

Why? Because fascism will come with a smiley face, as Jonah Goldberg would assert?

Rusty said...

leslyn said...
I'd worry about this:

"A biology textbook used by a Christian school in Louisiana that will be accepting students with publicly funded vouchers in the fall says that the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland is real."
http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/answer-sheet/post/loch-ness-monster-real-in-biology-textbook/2012/06/26/gJQAPhwr4V_blog.html.

Now why didn't we get a post about that, hmmmm?



At least the kids will be able to read it. Chicago public school high school graduates are still reading at an eighth grade level. Those that can read at all. Their teachers want a 30% raise.
Since my tax money doesn't go to private christian schools WGAF, but I'm footin the bill for CPS illiteracy.
Why don't we get a post about that,hmmmmmmmmmmmmmm?

gk1 said...

Just a reminder of where our tax money is going to. Remember this in October when there is a budget showdown and obama threatens to slow down the S.S and Medicaid checks because of those mean old republicans and "fat cats"

Shanna said...

A biology textbook used by a Christian school in Louisiana that will be accepting students with publicly funded vouchers in the fall says that the Loch Ness Monster in Scotland is real."

Nessie is totally real. For shame, leslyn! She is a plesiosaur. There is a whole wiki article about it :)

leslyn said...

Rusty:
"At least the kids will be able to read it."

Louisiana (where this is occurring) has a reading composite score of 20.1. Illinois's is 20.6. Neither is great, but I wouldn't count on the "able to read" part.

I do object to tax money going to religious schools. If you prefer your kid to have a particular type of religious education, pay for it yourself.

Salamandyr said...

Leslyn,

Those Christian parents sending their children to private schools are still paying for your secular education, and they probably object to that too.

furious_a said...

Because the science on mermaids ("sirenology") isn't settled.

leslyn said...

Salamandyr said... "Leslyn, Those Christian parents sending their children to private schools are still paying for your secular education, and they probably object to that too."

Why bother objecting when they can get vouchers to indoctrinate however they wish?

Ever heard of separation of church and state? Outmoded concept, I know, and certainly won't be taught in those religious schools.

I can see Rick Perry making nice money on the lecture circuit preaching theocracy.

MadisonMan said...

Of course, if you read the link, you see exactly why NOAA issued the presser.

Synova said...

There's a lot of the "science" programming that makes me cringe. It's not just Animal Planet (though Animal Planet is rife with "psychic" shows) but the other Discovery network shows.

Everything is so dramatized and twisted to make it exciting. Talk about lying! Of course, if you understand this is what they DO you don't for a moment think that anyone has scientific evidence of Ghosts, Mermaids, Past Lives or Aliens. But it's presented as if this is real, real, real.

Compared to it, it bothers me not at all if the science course at some Christian elementary school suggests that Nessie is a contemporary dinosaur.

When the OMG Science! sorts do the *least* thing to shut down yet another Ghost Hunter show on a "science" network, I'll consider the possibility that they care more about science and reason than they do about hating religion.

Synova said...

"Ever heard of separation of church and state? Outmoded concept, I know, and certainly won't be taught in those religious schools."

Bigot much?

Sorry to be rude, but seriously!

The more fundy Christians get the more they absolutely care about the separation of church and state. After all, stick religion in the state and the feared (bum bum BUM!) Theocracy is not going to be YOUR denomination. Not. A. Chance.

So why the prejudice that *of course* someone who believes different than you will try to force it on everyone else? Projection?

Besides which, accepting persecution from secularists is not "separation" any more than if the persecution was coming from a Theocracy not your own. There is still an imposition of ideologies and this is *wrong*.

leslyn said...

Synova:

"So why the prejudice that *of course* someone who believes different than you will try to force it on everyone else? [Emphasis added.]

What have you decided I believe?

" Projection?"

Nope. Rick Perry, his wife, and his enthusiasts. Scary.

"Besides which, accepting persecution from secularists is not "separation" any more than if the persecution was coming from a Theocracy not your own. There is still an imposition of ideologies and this is *wrong*."

Where did "persecution from secularists" come from? Did you read a different comment? Or are you just defensive?

I'm not imposing an ideology on anyone. But it must be nice for you, being so sure who's *wrong.*

Marshal said...

"leslyn said...

I can see Rick Perry making nice money on the lecture circuit preaching theocracy."

I see leslyn is auditioning for one of the coveted academic activist positions the primary qualification for which is being willing to make a fool of yourself in public. Nobody is this stupid by happenstance.

ed said...

Next up: gay oreo cookies.

Synova said...

You're talking about education.

Education is ideological. Christians object to the IDEOLOGY imposed by public education.

You made the bigoted statement that you KNEW that the small Christian school getting vouchers would not teach separation of church and state. That's prejudice. The school is, for example, far FAR more likely to teach the Bill of Rights and Constitution including religious freedom than any public school would ever do.

Saying but *this* is religious and *that* is not religious is looking at the issue in a self-serving and superficial way.

Being forced to pay for an ideology that is opposed to what a person believes is not "separation". The case is actually equivalent, paying for public "secular" education and having no choice about that, and having no choice but to pay for someone else's religious education.

Liberals are supposed to be so good at "walking in someone else's shoes" but frankly, I've never seen it. Try *imagining* what it's like to have to pay for an education that is ideologically opposed to what the Constitution guarantees will not be opposed?

Don't like the idea of your tax money vouchers going to ideologies you don't like?

Welcome to the club.

Marshal said...

"Liberals are supposed to be so good at "walking in someone else's shoes" but frankly, I've never seen it.

The liberals who earned this reputation aren't the same as the pathetic hateful fools who masquerade as their betters today.

leslyn said...

ed said... "Next up: gay oreo cookies."

That was YOU, ed.

Are you trying to come out of the closet or are you just trying to start an ass contest again?

leslyn said...

Synova:

The school is, for example, far FAR more likely to teach the Bill of Rights and Constitution including religious freedom than any public school would ever do. That's religious bigotry against secular schools--presumption (both definitions) as fact.

Saying but *this* is religious and *that* is not religious is looking at the issue in a self-serving and superficial way. Synova, your own words condemn you. Tax-paid vouchers are OK for religious schools and not a violation of church and state. Very funny.

Try *imagining* what it's like to have to pay for an education that is ideologically opposed to what the Constitution guarantees will not be opposed?

What, you're saying secular schools inherently teach religion? You must be, because you're throwing in a Constitutional guarantee about--something.

I think we should both agree that you assume I believe a lot of things I've never mentioned, and that you really don't know me.

But just out of curiosity, what kind of "bigot" am I, and why do you think it?

leslyn said...

Hey Marshal, you pathetic hateful fool said... "Liberals are supposed to be so good at "walking in someone else's shoes" but frankly, I've never seen it. The liberals who earned this reputation aren't the same as the pathetic hateful fools who masquerade as their betters today.

And just whose "better" are you? You whose heart is known by your words:

I see leslyn is auditioning for one of the coveted academic activist positions the primary qualification for which is being willing to make a fool of yourself in public. Nobody is this stupid by happenstance.

leslyn said...

Synova said,

"Bigot much?

"Sorry to be rude, but seriously!"

Seriously, why should I believe you?

Marshal said...

leslyn,

Why, I'm your better, as is everyone whose goal isn't merely to spread hate.

Synova said...

"What, you're saying secular schools inherently teach religion?"

Secular schools inherently teach ideology. It tends to be an ideology inherently hostile to religion. The constitutional guarantee is that the State will not behave in a hostile way toward religion. Trying to steal our children is hostile.

When you talk about "separation" it's not separation when it's enforced secularization. Nor is allowing equal treatment, as each parent sends their own child to the school of their own choice, an endorsement of one faith over another, or even over no faith at all.

Public schools are not *neutral* in relationship to the 1st Amendment and constitutional guarantee of freedom of religion. Advocates of public, secular, education over church sponsored education are not even particularly coy about the purpose of *impeding* religion. It's a feature, and one that a whole lot of people are proud to simply out and out advocate.

It's *important*, you see, to get children away from their parents wrong thinking. Using a tax funded, state mandated, school system to do impede religion is unconstitutional.

Now, sure, maybe not everyone sees it that way, but this idea that religious people who might object to paying for public schools have no grounds to do so, but secular people who don't want to pay for church schools through vouchers *do* is unsupportable.

"But just out of curiosity, what kind of "bigot" am I, and why do you think it?"

You can't see bigotry in your sure announcement that a church school would utterly fail to teach the 1st Amendment? On purpose? Hail the impending Theocracy?

Well, okay then.

leslyn said...

Marshal said... leslyn, Why, I'm your better, as is everyone whose goal isn't merely to spread hate.

Then, Marshal, you'd better get with your own program, or you'll be sitting at the bottom of the table with no one to invite you up.

Rusty said...

I do object to tax money going to religious schools. If you prefer your kid to have a particular type of religious education, pay for it yourself.



But you don't object to those parents simutaneously paying for public schools,yes?

Rusty said...

Ever heard of separation of church and state? Outmoded concept, I know, and certainly won't be taught in those religious schools


Now who is assuming.

The absolutism that the left want's to put on this is a diservice to teaching in general and the kids in particular. What is wrong with teaching the theological component of our history? Without that belief this country would never have been founded.
Hell without the Catholic Church
we'd never know of the writings of Aristotle, Plato, Ptoleme, Socrates, etc.
In a real school any subject should be open to inquirery and debate.
I find it sadly amusing that our high schools can give detailed and highly graphic instruction on being gay, but run in horror to the ACLU when a valedictorian mentions their faith in jesus at their graduation.

rick rogers said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
rick rogers said...

So, the absence of evidence is the same as evidence of absence? It is not for the NOAA to prove that mermaids do not exist; they can't prove a lack of existence unless they can examine the vast majority of the world's oceans and seas. The burden is on believers to prove existence. But, other than young girls, I imagine no one believes in mermaids. The scientists at the NOAA should have known better.

rhhardin said...

I've thought since early school that Sirens would be more likely to warn sailors about rocks than attract them.

rhhardin said...

Cern could check for a Higgs Bosom hypothesized to be the origin of human life.

I doubt the mermaid theory because how would women's love of shoes arise.

You'd think they'd go for gloves.

leslyn said...

What is wrong with teaching the theological component of our history?

You mean the part about how people came here seeking freedom from the imposition of religion, then promptly imposed their own?

The part how prayer in school wasn't one of the reasons we fought a revolution?

The part how suspected witches were burned?

The part how "one nation under God didn't enter the Pledge of Allegiance until the 1950s?

The part where the founding fathers were secularists? And Deists?

That Abraham Lincoln said "Christianity not my religion and the Bible is not my book?" Which, don't you think, in the end, was a good thing for civil rights, because the South used the Bible to justify slavery?

The Masonic symbols on our money?

That "In God We Trust" was printed on 2-cent by the North to gather support for the Civil War? That it was not placed on the rest of our money until the 1950s?

That "In God We Trust" was not made the country's motto until 1956, replacing "E Pluribus Unum?" (Now that's an interesting story!)

That theological history?

Why, nothing is wrong with teaching that at all.

leslyn said...

rhhardin said,

"I doubt the mermaid theory because how would women's love of shoes arise."

Brilliant. I wish I'd thought of it.

jms said...

My sister was a National Archivist, and people used to continuously write letters to the National Archives requesting copies of "The X Files." They had a standard letter explaining that it was a fictional television show and that no such actual files existed.

Probably a similar situation here.

MrMaryk said...

That's because the Bureau of Mines doesn't look under bridges: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fremont_Troll

axelhose said...

Don't forget Mothman!

leslyn said...

jms, that's a GREAT story!

Tully said...

Moose at #4, FTW.

Matthew Borcherding said...
This comment has been removed by the author.
Methadras said...

Isn't this the same as the CDC having to put out an official press brief that Zombies do not exist? But the fact that NOAA spent taxpayer dollars to research this is what the real story should be and they did it for a long time. Who was the director on this project and why aren't his balls being cut off at this point?

jms said...

Leslyn, the best story of all was when someone wrote a letter asking why so many famous civil war battles took place in national parks.

leslyn said...

jms,

Laughed out loud literally!

Mike said...

Why did they do it? Because these stupid government bureaucrats have only two modes of operation: Mode 1 is to create so many stupid regu7lations that they "fundamentally transform the USA" as Obama promised in 2008.; Mode 2 is to do absolutely idiotic make-work projects that do nothing but use the resources of hardworking Americans.
This has the added detriment (benefit? Depends on your POV!) of making any budgetary cuts problematic. You see, although bureaucracy excel at wasting resources and expanding their own spheres of influence, when it comes time to "cut waste" or "reduce duplicate efforts" the good folks at NOAA will be shielded from the public eye while loyal democrats -- er, teachers and firemen are held up as exemplars of Public Employment.
It's all a freaking stupid ruse.