Friday, June 08, 2007

I'm sorry you're stupid.

Via Kos her's a link to an article describing one scientist's tour of the Creation Museum. Be sure to check out the pictures of the Velociraptor enjoying the company of Eve (wearing a baptismal dress apparently) or the Triceratops with the saddle (the producers of Dinotopia ought to sue.)

The whole thing seems to have a Disney/ theme park vibe to it which is appropriate considering both the world of Disney and the ideas of creationists are both grounded in fantasy. That brings to mind just a couple of ideas for attractions-

Devolution Revolution - Basically the teacups ride but instead of cups you're in baptismal fonts. You spin and spin until you're so dizzy that creationism actually makes sense.

Darwin's Monkey Island of Doom - Populated by all the strange creatures that truly would have come into existence had evolution been real. Dogs with opposable thumbs that would allow them to open the fridge, chickens with necks made out of solid steel so they wouldn't wind up on the dinner table and men with infrared vision that would allow them to see women's underwear would all terrorize the visitors to this island.

Dig Your Own Grand Canyon - For the wee ones. Dig your own 18 mile wide canyon in a sandbox with only a spoon.

Hall of Ugly People - Obviously natural selection and survival of the fittest would never have allowed the likes of Keith Richards or Dick Cheney.

Thursday, June 07, 2007

No cookie, I swear. I'm scared of you!

On the other hand this woman is so NOT my hero.

On Saturday at noon, a Portland woman was driving onto the upper level of the Fremont Bridge when she spotted a small, black ball of fur scoot across the highway.

At first, she thought it was a squirrel. But then she realized it was a kitten, so she slammed on her brakes right in the middle of traffic and scooped it up in her arms.

"I wanted to make sure it wasn't in harm's way," says Stephanie Schneiderman, who sings and plays guitar in the group Dirty Martini. "I would have preferred to have someone hit my car than hit the cat."

A cat lover, with two of her own, she took the stunned kitten to DoveLewis Emergency Animal Hospital where veterinarians thought it had an upper respiratory problem.

They suggested euthanizing it, Schneiderman says.

The 34-year-old, whom friends call "the kitty savior of the universe," took the male kitten to Tigard Animal Hospital for treatment.

Reading the article made me want Benny Hill slap her, and the two people who wrote it. The speed limit on the Fremont bridge is 55 mph. It's effectively a freeway. When she "slammed on her brakes" she put every other driver's life behind her at risk to save a cat. Nice that she would've "preferred someone hit her car other than the cat" but I'm not sure the person in the other car would see it that way. What she did is illegal, bad driving and a terrible display of common sense. No where in this article do they mention any of that.

Wednesday, June 06, 2007

Pam Davidson, my attorney, this is Bill Maxwell. We're in the superhero business together.

My new hero.

NewYorkCountryLawyer writes "The defendant in a Tampa, Florida, case, UMG v. Del Cid, has filed counterclaims accusing the RIAA record labels of conspiracy and extortion. The counterclaims (pdf) are for Trespass, Computer Fraud and Abuse (18 USC 1030), Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices (Fla. Stat. 501.201), Civil Extortion (CA Penal Code 519 & 523), and Civil Conspiracy involving (a) use of private investigators without license in violation of Fla. Stat. Chapter 493; (b) unauthorized access to a protected computer system, in interstate commerce, for the purpose of obtaining information in violation of 18 U.S.C. 1030 (a)(2)(C); (c) extortion in violation of Ca. Penal Code 519 and 523; and (d) knowingly collecting an unlawful consumer debt, and using abus[ive] means to do so, in violation of the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act, 15 U.S.C. 1692a et seq. and Fla. Stat. 559.72 et seq."

Do you have any experience in motion pictures?

When I first heard the idea for a new reality show that would pit aspiring directors against each other and was being co-produced by Steven Spielberg I was intrigued. The idea that some housewife from Des Moines who dreamed her entire life of being a director might have a shot was appealing. I watched "On the Lot" last night and am sorry to report that egalitarian concept seemed the last thing on their minds. The show should really be titled "Watch Good-looking Young Hollywood Residents Get Their Foot in the Door."

The contestants were predominantly male, under thirty and REALLY photogenic. This last bit was what really struck me. Were they models, actors or directors? I thought this show was suppossed to be about the latter category. Shows how much I know.

Turns out that in order to become a film auteur and director you need to be 24 years old and Brad Pitt handsome. Who'd of thunk it? Certainly not these guys-


Shame on you Steven for putting your name on this junk.

Tuesday, June 05, 2007

If you're not gonna be a part of a civil society, then just get in your car and drive on over to the East Side.

Of the many "reforms" that state anti-tax crusaders have given us I have to say the 3/5th majority rule in the legislature is just about the most egregious. Over at Blue Oregon Chuck Sheketoff does a good job of explaining how this stupid rule passed by the voters is mucking up true progress in the legislature-

If a majority of the Oregon Legislature thinks a tax is needed to support an important program, or that a tax break for a powerful interest ought to be stopped, or that an outdated tax should be updated, lawmakers should be allowed to make the change. That’s why we elect them.

If a majority of the Oregon Legislature think unanticipated revenues ought to be saved for a rainy day or devoted to a one-time investment that will reap long-term rewards for Oregonians, lawmakers ought to be allowed to take such action. That’s why we elect them.

But majority rule does not apply in Oregon on these important issues. Instead, a minority of the Legislature can hold the majority hostage. How can that be? Oregon voters gave the power to small factions of the Legislature when they voted to require a three-fifths (3/5) majority to raise taxes (36 instead of 31 in the House and 18 instead of 16 in the Senate) and a two-thirds (2/3) majority to spend unanticipated tax revenues (40 votes in the House, 20 in the Senate). In other words, fractions of the Legislature can hold a majority hostage.

Five and two. That’s how many more than a simple majority in the Oregon House and Senate can stop the majority in the Oregon Legislature from eliminating a tax break or fixing an outdated tax code problem like Oregon’s 76 year-old, $10-a-year corporate minimum tax.

Sheketoff thinks the legislature on to refer the 3/5th majority rule back to the voters. I think that's a good start. Further than that we need to send a message to recalcitrant Republicans in the legislature that elections have consequences. I believe an infamous Republican President was the first to make that observation.

Monday, June 04, 2007

Dead? No, madam. Not dead the way you know it. He is with us always.

A couple of things are bouncing around my noodle this morning.

Steve Gilliard - There isn't really much to add to hundreds of tributes to a great progressive blogger but I would just like to say that he was the only military historian I can think of who blogged and I'm really going to miss reading his informed rants on troop strength, equipment shortages, etc.

One of the frequently repeated remarks I'm seeing from right-wing bloggers on his passing is that Gilliard often pissed them off. Good. I'm sure he wouldn't of had it any other way.

Red Light Cameras - The Oregon legislature is set to pass a bill allowing more of these stupid things around the state. Great. Why not just install telescreens in our cubicles and make sure we participate in daily calisthenics? I remain aghast that these, along with their nefarious cousin photo radar, can be considered constitutional.

Democratic Debate - Can we put me down for "none of the above?" From what I saw they all handled themselves well, but so what? It's weird to me that we've reached a point where cultural and racial diversity has become commonplace but intellectual diversity is rare and far between. Pretty much the biggest difference between the Democratic and Republican candidates for President is a different skin tone and what "naughty bits" they happen to sport. It certainly isn't in ideas.
I'm not talking about Gravel but obviously Hillbama who the media tell us pretty much have the candidacy sewn up. Get us the hell out of Iraq, you weenis.