Hodgepodge

To catch up.

The parking situation:

I was beginning to think that we would have to remain parking next to our funtwad of a neighbor, but to my delight last night we had a visit from our landlord. His solution was to have the funtwad move spaces with another tenant who doesn't use his car (it isn't running at the moment). This was supposed to happen some time ago, but for some reason (I'm not entirely sure what that may be) it hadn't happened. So, apparently the funtwad was home, but noone could figure out how to get a hold of her (she's deaf so knocking on the door and ringing the bell wasn't really working). So our landlord wanted us to temporarily switch places with the tenant who is switching spaces with the funtwad (I get some kind of gratification out of repeatedly referring to her as that). Basically, we don't park next to her anymore!! And I feel like celebrating baby!! Woo fucking hoo!

National News:

To be honest I was surprised and astounded by last week's ruling by New York's highest court regarding the same-sex marriage ban passed by the state legislature. If you hadn't heard, they ruled in favor of the state. Being that it is one of the more liberal courts in the nation, I was disappointed but not overly surprised by the ruling. However, I was dumbfounded by the legal reasoning behind the decision. What rationale do you think would leave me speechless for about ten minutes before my brain was even able to muster the most basic of ideas and thought processes? Apparently, the court found that straight couples may be less stable parents than their gay counterparts and consequently require the benefits of marriage to assist them. Just so you don't think I made some sort of typo let me reiterate that with italics this time, straight couples may be less stable parents than their gay counterparts and consequently require the benefits of marriage to assist them. Now let that seep into your consciousness.

Referred to by some as the "reckless procreation" rationale, this argument has been used successfully once before in Indiana in a similar case last year. "Heterosexual intercourse," the plurality opinion stated, "has a natural tendency to lead to the birth of children; homosexual intercourse does not." Gays become parents, the opinion said, in a variety of ways, including adoption and artificial insemination, "but they do not become parents as a result of accident or impulse." Consequently, "the Legislature could find that unstable relationships between people of the opposite sex present a greater danger that children will be born into or grow up in unstable homes than is the case with same-sex couples." To shore up those rickety heterosexual arrangements, "the Legislature could rationally offer the benefits of marriage to opposite-sex couples only." Lest we miss the inversion of stereotypes about gay relationships here, the opinion lamented that straight relationships are "all too often casual or temporary."

Yes you read that right. First homosexual relationships were too transitory. Now they are too stable. I just have one word for this: absurd.

And Finally some random shit from nature: a mutant lobster.

One side is the usual mottled dark green. The other side is the orange-red shade of a lobster that's already spent some time in the hot pot.The odds of this kind of mutation occurring are very rare - something like one in 50 million to 100 million. The chance of finding a blue lobster is far more common, at one in a million. (I'll post the pic once I get home as my computer at work won't let me upload pics to blogger.)