Monday, May 17, 2004

Legit?

Homosexual marriage in Massachusetts seemed to be the big news story of the day, both on the internet and in newspapers.  Lots of huzzahs and shouts of triumph, mostly.  A few comments were made that the world hasn’t ended because of this turn of events, directed at, of course, the conservatives, i.e. the anti-homosexual marriage folk, and Christians, who too literally interpret the Bible.

Ally, at Who Moved My Truth, has a few thoughts to share, preceded by an analogy, that are worth considering.  The post is titled “Can You Be Gay & Happy?" Two excerpts that I particularly enjoyed.

"2. You are crazy. Why do you want to be married anyway? Have you noticed how well it works out for heterosexuals? Ever hear of a pre-nup? That’s right, we get married while planning our divorce. We have attorneys advertising to keep them on retainer while you’re married, just in case. It is a broken toy, and you are demanding your right to it. We do have legal benefits that are handy, but you have to decide what they are worth. Many people discover that while they are nice, they are not worth the hassle. Welcome to the divorce world."

And this, for a solid conclusion.

"And stop looking to the government to legitimize your relationships. Your love, your attachments, and your obligations should not have to be defined by a government office. “This is the most important day of my life,” claimed one gay man who recently got married to another gay man in Massachusetts. Why? Because you went before a legal authority in order to prove you had a commitment to someone? What does that prove? That you needed the guilt inspired from a legal proceeding to maintain your commitment?

Yes, I am speaking from the stand point of someone who can go off and get married at whim. I neither take it likely, nor do I care to participate in it. I would like to think that someone could commit to me without the need of a legal document demanding it. That is my idea of true commitment."

Update: This post, titled “Sullilvan’s Misfortune," by Keith Burgess-Jackson, ties in nicely with Ally’s post.  From Burgess-Jackson’s post.

"Law cannot change attitudes. Law cannot mandate respect, esteem, or admiration. Law can enforce tolerance, but it cannot mandate acceptance. Does Sullivan really think that someone who believes that homosexual “marriage” is an abomination will change his or her mind about it simply because the law has changed? Sullivan says the “marriages” about to be effected in Massachusetts are not “gay marriages.” They are, he says, “marriages."

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 03:29 PM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Seems Fair to Me

Obfuscation.  I enjoy that word, though I don’t enjoy it when newspaper editors employ it as a means of confusing readers.  For example, My Way News utilizes this headline today.

“Hotel Charges $1,000 for Omelet."

For many individuals, reading that headline may lead them to feel that some hotel is charging exhorbitant prices for scrambled eggs with ham, cheese, and onion tucked away inside.  But, if I could afford spending $1,000.00 on an omelet, and I enjoyed caviar, and could sit down and eat an omelet bigger than my head, I’d gladly pay a thousand bucks for this omelet.

"It’s not made of gold - just eggs, lobster, caviar and a few trimmings. But an omelet on the menu of a swanky Manhattan hotel will set you back $1,000, plus tip.

“I couldn’t believe it was the price when I first saw ‘1,000’ on the menu. I thought it was the calorie count,” Virginia Marnell, a customer at Norma’s restaurant in Le Parker Meridien hotel on West 57th Street, told the Daily News for Monday editions.

The omelet, which debuted May 5 and is billed as the “Zillion Dollar Frittata,” has six eggs, a lobster and - here’s the kicker - 10 ounces of sevruga caviar. The restaurant pays $65 an ounce for the caviar, according to Norma’s general manager, Steven Pipes.

“Since we knew it was going to be a very expensive dish, we decided to have some fun with it,” Pipes told the News. “It’s not just a gimmick, though. It tastes good.”

Beside the omelet’s entry in the menu is the following message: “Norma dares you to expense this.”

No one has ordered it yet.

A “budget” version of the omelet, containing only one ounce of caviar, sells for $100."

Via Drudge.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 10:43 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Where There's Smoke, There's Fire

""There’s cleavage, but when you’re as big as Dannielle, there’s going to be cleavage,” Meyer said. “There’s nothing I can do about that."

That’s Kathy Meyer, the mother of the 13 year old girl sent home from graduation because, “Teen Sent Home From Ceremony For ‘Revealing’ Dress."

The story includes a video link on the story also.  Judge for yourself.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 06:02 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Monday Definition

"Reverence, n. The spiritual attitude of a man to a god and a dog to a man.

(Ambrose Bierce, The Devil’s Dictionary, c. 1911)

I’m going to go looking for Bierce’s dictionary at a few of my favorite book resellers.

Via Anal Philosopher.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 05:46 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

What's A Few Years, Plus or Minus, Among Friends

Science Daily reports that the age of the universe is older than previously estimated in an article titled “The Universe, Seen Under The Gran Sasso Mountain, Seems To Be Older Than Expected." As this is a topic that naturally draws my interest, I read the article, expecting to learn that the age of the universe is substantially misrepresented.  Nope.

"As a consequence, in the light of Luna’s new data, the age of our Universe passes from the previous estimate of about 13 billions years to that of about 14 billions years” explains Eugenio Coccia, director of Gran Sasso National Laboratories."

Via J. Orlin Grabbe.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 05:34 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

What the Actual Problem Is

The headline reads, “Russia Wants Faster Aid for ‘Rotting’ Nuclear Subs," and it describes the problem thusly.

"Russia faces grave environmental and terrorist threats unless donors accelerate a slow trickle of international aid for dismantling its rusting nuclear submarines, a senior official said.

Deputy Atomic Energy Minister Sergei Antipov said Russia would raise its concerns next month at a meeting of the Group of Eight (G8) leading nations in the United States.

He said Moscow was very worried at the slow rate of funding, despite a much-trumpeted G8 initiative at a 2002 summit in Canada to spend $20 billion over 10 years to secure stockpiles of nuclear, chemical and biological materials."

But, what the actual problems is,

"Antipov said a large proportion of the promised aid money was being spent ineffectively by donors in their own countries on “various experts, trips and discussions.”

“It’s a well known problem, it always arises with international aid. We understand they can’t help spending some of this money at home because this work has to be organized. But the question is what proportion—10, 20 or 60 percent?

“Ten to 20 should probably be the upper limit but there are actual facts today to show our partners are spending up to 60 percent at home,” he said."

Not that this type of problem is something new.

Via Drudge.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 05:24 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

A Humorous Question or Earning Your Science Degree at the Movies

"IF THE DAY AFTER TOMORROW means that we’re all going to suffer from instant global warming—and an ice age, at the same time!—did The Poseidon Adventure accurately predict a sudden epidemic of capsizing passenger ships?"

Reynolds preparatory comment/question, which links to a Patrick J. Michaels piece in the Washington Post, titled “Apocalypse Soon?"

A salient point from Michael’s piece.

"As Trenberth noted, the movie is pretty much devoid of basic atmospheric science."

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 04:01 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Sharp, Real Sharp

"A Southwestern Oregon Community College student suspected of robbing an area bank had a Sharpie pen that was misidentified as a knife when he was shot and killed Wednesday by a Coos Bay Police officer, according to officials investigating the incident."

“Pen mistaken for knife in arrest attempt on campus."

Be careful with those Sharpie pens, boys and girls.

Via LewRockwell.com Blog.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 03:48 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Asking the Wrong Question

USA Today reports on Virginia’s legislature voting to raise taxes to fund "education, roads and other needs." They also point out,

”...The tax hike had been approved by a Republican-controlled legislature with a tradition of fiscal conservatism. More remarkable: It was $360 million more than Democratic Gov. Mark Warner had requested."

Noting that Republicans are, supposedly, nomially against raising taxes, the paper then asks,

"The trend appears broad enough to ask whether the country’s two-decade entrancement with tax cuts may be easing."

A better question may be “When will Republicans and Democrats admit that they both are simply socialists and combine into the mega-coercive force?”

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 03:28 AM
(1) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Applauding Coercion

This is how The New York Times leads into an unsigned opinion piece, regarding the news that fewer New Yorkers are smoking, from their main page.

"The drop in smoking shows how effective government action can be in breaking a harmful addiction; gambling should be the next target."

The opinion.

“Kicking the Habit in New York."

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 03:12 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink

Social Welfare, Relative Preference, and Rule of Law

What effects do the above have on our lives?  Richard Epstein, in a piece published by the Hoover Digest, takes a look.

"In ordinary life, most people understand the tension between wealth creation and wealth distribution. In ordinary business, managers must always cope with massive income disparities within their workforce. Yet most Microsoft employees do not get terribly upset that Bill Gates is richer than they are. They live happy and rewarding lives even knowing that someone out there is worth north of $80 billion (much of which is devoted to charitable purposes in any event). On the other hand, if the good-for-nothing in the next cubicle earns five dollars more an hour than you do, that could be the source of great indignation, uneasiness, and unhappiness. What’s going on? Are people crazy?

“Are people crazy?” Somewhat, I’d say.

The piece is titled “Defining Social Welfare--And Achieving It."

Via Arts & Letters Daily.

Posted by John Venlet on 05/17 at 02:51 AM
(0) Comments • (0) Trackbacks • Permalink
Page 1 of 1 pages