Yesterday was the start of an amazing “trial” in Federal court challenging Proposition 8, the California proposition outlawing gay marriage (after gay marriage was allowed, then, ZIP, gone, whoosh!). The outcome will end up going to the Supreme Court but in the meantime, if you’re married, I’d suggest calling your attorney.
After all, if the ban against gay marriage is found to be unconstitutional, your straight marriage will be over. I know, I’m sorry it had to end like that, but there you are. I mean, everyone knows that allowing gays to marry means that “traditional” marriage will be destroyed. O.K. so there’s no evidence that that’s the case, but that’s been one of the main arguments used by the folks who supported Prop. 8. And in the January 18th edition of Newsweek, Theodore B. Olson, the “conservative” attorney (one of two) who’s bringing this lawsuit before the Feds, wrote: “Another argument, vague and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sexpartners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.”
So, who needs evidence in a court of law? Right. Nobody. So, that’s why I suggest you call your attorney. Never hurts to plan ahead. It takes time to divvy up a household, so it might be smart to start now to put little Post-it notes on the furniture, His, Hers, His, Hers, The Kids, etc. That way you’ll be ready to break up the household if the Supreme Court finds that “equal rights under law” actually means “equal rights under law.”
Criicckkk, crrrcckkk, criccckkkk in the quiet of the morning. Then the Black Screen of Death. Yup. Catastrophic Hard Drive Failure. Luckily, I had back up on my little Magic Information Stick so all was not lost. Luckily, my Computer Tutor, Steve Vandagriff was able to come by and together we gazed on the smoking wreck. And being a Luddite, Steve was available to begin the arduous task of getting the thing up and going and we’re still struggling with all the tweaking and add-ons and de-bugging that has to go on whenever you (in effect) get a new computer.
Love ‘em. Hate ‘em. Criicckkk, crrrcckkk, crccckkkkk…
Hey, I’m just askin’
Jan 10 Tribune editorial, “Los Osos sewer project needs to move forward,” which notes that “The project is in line to receive $80 million in federal stimulus funding from the U.S. Department of Agriculture, in the form of a $16 million grant and a $64 million low-interest loan.” And further notes that the Coastal Commission needs to approve “the project” and issue a permit for “the project” without delay at the Feb hearing. (“To qualify for USDA funding, however, the project must have a permit from the Coastal Commission – and if issuance of that permit is delayed beyond February, it may be too late. The money may be gone.”
What “project” are they talking about? Do they have a “design” that the CC can issue a permit for? Last I knew (the Planning Commission) the county had settled on three generic components: a gravity collection system (no “design” or blueprints or engineering schematics, just “gravity collection pipes”) and, I think, an oxidation ditch treatment component (no plans, specifications, blueprints,) and tertiary treatment with disposal at Broderson and other places, but I don’t think that included engineered plans or designs or anything the CC could look at to determine if this particular dispersal or even if this collection of components would meet various coastal plans & etc.
Also not known is, do USDA funds require an actual “plan/design” or can funds be allocated on the basis of a generic collection of components, none of which are actually nailed down? Sorta, Give us the money now and we’ll let you know later what we decide to build and where it will be built?
Does the Coastal Commission need an actual designed project to give a permit to, or can they also issue a sort of generic permit, i.e. Here’s a permit for some sort of collection system, placement and design to follow; some sort of treatment plant, size, placement, etc. to be determined later, and a water disposal system that will be detailed later?
And if they can issue a permit for a “component concept,” can the project (or a component) be changed later down the line without losing the permit or the funding, since the permit and the isn’t based on any specific designed project?
Well, maybe the Coastal Commission can answer those questions at their next meeting. As with all things sewerish, stay tuned.
It's 2150 in a sealed laboratory/work station on a planet called Pandora. The work station/ lab is sealed because the air on Pandora is deadly to humans. Into this (presumably) "clean" lab, wherein the humans are creating avatars for use in the deadly outside world, comes our tough, smart head scientist, played by Sigourney Weaver. We know she's tough because she's SMOKING A CIGARETTE, in a "clean lab" filled with all kinds of sensitive equipment in a sealed work area that has to manufacture and constantly clean the air that's being breathed by the humans because the air on the planet is poisonous.
So, we know she's tough on account of the cigarette. But we now know she's really dumb and all the people running the station are also dumb. In films there's "gratuitous violence" and now we have "gratuitous product placement."
Not Avatar's finest moment.