Scary old laws

CNN had a piece today about archaic laws on the books that are sometimes enforced, much to the surprise of some folks. The piece was overall light-hearted, talking about weird laws like this one:

A 1974 Tennessee law states: "It is unlawful for any person to import, possess, or cause to be imported into this state any type of live skunk."

However the article did cite several examples where someone has used archaic laws to pursue a personal agenda, such as the disturbing case below. I for one hope this lady wins and gets some kind of restitution:

Sheriff Carson Smith of Pender County, North Carolina, recently relied on a 1805 law banning the cohabitation of unmarried persons to give one of his employees an ultimatum.

He told Deborah Hobbs she could either marry her boyfriend, move out of the house they were living in together or get fired. Hobbs, 40, quit and went to the American Civil Liberties Union, which launched a legal challenge to the law.

The scary part is that similar laws are present in many states. Here's the original article:

Odd laws sometimes still have bite

"Crazy Old Coot"

Hilarious news report on CNN.com today.

An 86-year-old woman was jailed after police said she called emergency dispatchers 20 times in a little more than a half-hour -- all to complain that a pizza parlor wouldn't deliver.

Apparently the lady was mad because they wouldn't deliver to her, and someone at the store called her a "crazy old coot". When cops arrived at her house to arrest her, she attacked and bit one of them. The link is below.

Woman jailed after calling 911 about pizza man

Nepotism

While trolling through CNN.com, I came across a hidden, hilarious gem. CNN was interviewing Bryce Howard about her new movie, and talking to her about various things, including the (apparently) steamy sex scene in it. For those that can't remember her, Bryce is the woman that played the blind girl in M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village".

Anyhow, she's also Ron Howard's daughter. Those of us who don't live in a box know who Ron Howard is. For those that don't, he was Opie Taylor (Andy Griffith Show) and Richie Cunninghamn (Happy Days) on TV, and as an adult has become a very well known and successful director (Cocoon, A Beautiful Mind, Apollo 13, Splash).

The funny bit in the article was this:

Before her film career took off, Howard had focused on stage work after studying acting at New York University.

"Not that I wasn't interested in film," Howard said. "I just didn't have access to it."

How can Ron Howard's daughter not have access to Hollywood?

"In my opinion, there's no room for nepotism, because there are so many talented people. I just didn't have the opportunities," Howard said. "A couple of the film auditions I did go on were for very, very, very small roles, I'm talking like one line, and I was not extraordinary. So why would they have any reason to bring me back for bigger roles?"

Hah! "No room for nepotism" in Hollywood? No "opportunities" for the daughter of one of the more powerful men in Hollywood? Is she kidding? That town was built on nepotism. I'm sure folks can think of many, many examples, but if nepotism in Hollywood didn't exist there wouldn't be actresses like Tori Spelling on TV.

Other examples of famous kids using their name and/or parental influence to get in the door: Charlie Sheen, Keifer Sutherland, Michael Douglas, Kate Hudson, Liv Tyler, Jack and Kelly Osbourne, George Clooney, Brandon Lee. There are many more.

Don't get me wrong, I completely understand parents helping their kids getting a leg up in the world. It's seen in many industries. It's even seen in big business, including at Sprint. But claiming that her famous name and influential father wasn't a help to her and that nepotism doesn't exist, that's just absurd.

Here's a link to the article:
Rough experience for 'Village' actress

LARP fun

I was talking with some coworkers today at lunch, and the subject of Live Action Role Play (LARP) came up, and we all had a good laugh. Anyhow, I was reminded of the infamous "Lightning Bolt" video circulating on the Internet, and I was surprised that the other guys hadn't seen it.

Anyhow, to make sure this gem doesn't get lost and that the younger generation doesn't grow up without seeing it, I feel the need to post a link to it. Enjoy!

http://www.milkandcookies.com/article/2173/

YEE-HAW!

I just read a hilarious article about a race-discrimination case in Lawrence.

Apparently an interracial couple (black man, hispanic woman) were denied an apartment back in 2002. The couple claim that they were discriminated against because they weren't the same race, but the landlord claims that they refused their application because they weren't married and it was against their religious views (which I guess is legal - scary). Apparently the city did its own investigation and found that both before and after their application was denied the landlord accepted applications from unmarried white couples. The city sued on behalf of the couple.

None of that is funny. What is funny is the testimony Lynne Sander (the apartment manager) gave in the trial. The couple had testified that when the female first went by herself to apply, Lynne Sander was friendly and welcoming, but that when she came a second time to finalize the application with her boyfriend, the manager was distant, cold, and didn't acknowledge or talk to the male. Here's Lynne Sander's explanation:

Sander said the reason she didn't speak to Jackson during the visit was that she was having a religious experience.

"I was so much in prayer I just couldn't answer them," she said.

That's hilarious. It gets better.

She said that at the time she was so concerned about renting to unmarried couples that she would drive around the complex again and again, pretending it was the biblical city of Jericho -- and believing that the walls might figuratively come tumbling down.

"I earnestly believed that God would help me and just send me the people that he wanted," she said.

You can find the full story here:
http://www.ljworld.com/section/citynews/story/204460

Disturbing British memo

There's an interesting memo circulating about the lead-up to the war in Iraq that's causing quite a stir. Apparently it's a summary of a meeting of top-level British officials (Tony Blair, Jack Straw, Geoff Hoon, others), who are discussing the Iraq issue. The British government has not disputed the accuracy of this memo.

What's interesting about this memo is what they say about their American counterparts and their motivations. Here's a choice quote:

"Bush wanted to remove Saddam, through military action, justified by the conjunction of terrorism and WMD. But the intelligence and facts were being fixed around the policy."

"The NSC had no patience with the U.N. route, and no enthusiasm for publishing material on the Iraqi regime's record. There was little discussion in Washington of the aftermath after military action."

Later on, there was more:

"It seemed clear that Bush had made up his mind to take military action, even if the timing was not yet decided."

"But the case was thin. Saddam was not threatening his neighbors, and his WMD capability was less than that of Libya, North Korea or Iran."

This memo was dated July 23rd, 2002, about nine months before the invasion. It's a rather insightful look into the reality of the situation and it seems to reinforce what Bob Woodward revealed in his book.

I guess this kind of thing scares me. I agree with the conservatives that Saddam was an evil man, who mistreated and abused his neighbours. I also agree that removing him is a net good. What bothers me, though, are two things.

Why was Saddam a huge priority at that time? We were heavily involved in Afghanistan and elsewhere trying to chase down Osama Bin Laden and the rest of Al Qaeda - why divert valuable resources to toppling Saddam? Why Iraq? Why not North Korea, which has actual, verifiable, nuclear weapons and is a far far scarier country. They are more of a threat than Saddam ever was, yet we don't invade them.

Second, I am very disturbed by the apparent fabrication of evidence. Why do I feel like I was lied to by this administration? Now, don't get me wrong. I'm sure they strongly believed Saddam was a bad man and that he dabbled in WMDs, but that's no excuse for incompetence. They failed to do a good job in analyzing the information available, and even when real experts testified that they were heading down the wrong path, they were dismissed and branded as not having America's interests at heart (Scott Ritter is a good example - http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,351165,00.html is a good link).

I'm left with the feeling that either this administration is almost criminally incompentent (especially after seeing how they handled the reconstruction), or that they deliberately lied to us. I'm not sure which is worse, to be honest.

Here's the link to the original article:
http://www.cnn.com/2005/US/05/11/britain.war.memo/index.html

Paris unleashed

Here's a hilarious quote from Paris Hilton from an interview CNN did with her recently.

Q: What did you want to be when you were a little girl?

HILTON: A veterinarian, but then I realized I could just buy a bunch of animals.

Here's a link to the full interview: The real Paris Hilton

Gay sperm is bad... mkay?

In an unsurprising move, the FDA is banning gay men from being anonymous sperm donors. Instead of banning men that engage in high-risk behaviour (intravenous drug use, promiscuous and unprotected sex, etc), they instead are going after a category of people. As mentioned in the article below, straight men that have frequent sex with hookers would be accepted as a donor, but a gay man in a monogamous relationship would not be. Yet another example of our administration using persecution in the guise of good practice.

Here's the link: http://www.cnn.com/2005/HEALTH/05/05/gay.donor.ap/index.html

Nice summary

I was on the ACLU's website today, and I came across a really nice summary of what the Founding Fathers sought to do:

The American system of government is founded on two counterbalancing principles: that the majority of the people governs, through democratically elected representatives; and that the power even of a democratic majority must be limited, to ensure individual rights.

In the era of the Patriot Act and a resurgent Christian Right it bears remembering. Here's the link to the original page. http://www.aclu.org/about/

The Onion comes to LJWorld

The "On The Street" section of the Lawrence Journal-World went surreal today. Folks familiar with the news-spoof website The Onion will see an eerie similarity. Given the April 1st date I'm thinking it's a joke, but it's hilarious regardless. Here's the link:

http://www2.ljworld.com/onthestreet/2005/apr/01/childmolesters

P.S. My new handle is "Eqo"!