Yep, son. We have met the enemy...

(C) 1996 - O.G.P.I.

File this under Igorance can be deadly.

HT Blogenfreude, Apologies to Walt Kelley

~~

Harry, Pepper, and Linda

A story like this could happen somewhere besides San Francisco, but somehow it seems likely it would have had somewhat less impact.

Harry, Pepper, and Linda - A tale of selfishness and infidelity

For the past six years, visitors to the San Francisco zoo could see a mated gay pair of penguins, frolicking together and occasionally caring for and protecting nests of eggs abandoned by other penguins. These were Harry and Pepper, and they seemed very happy together. To the San Francisco gay community… they were an example that even in the non-human world there were displays of homosexual traits.

But all of that has come to an end. Harry left Pepper to take up with the recently widowed Linda. In a copyrighted story on Friday [apparently available only to subscribers], the Los Angeles Times reported that Harry had indeed moved into Linda’s nest.

The sphere is aquiver with this story, with bits of the LAT piece appearing in rags around the world. As could be expected, the gay blogs are quite active, with one calling Linda a selfish home wrecker, another calls Harry a callous lout, and one commenter saying that he is "heartbroken" about the split, and that he hopes Pepper "finds another male penguin that is ten times hotter than Harry!"

Of course the social conservatives must have something to say about this, and the Christian website OneNewsNow.com takes the split as a sign that "nature prefers heterosexual relationships." I’m actually surprised I haven’t seen more.

Harrison Edell, a curator of birds at the San Francisco zoo, is a bit pragmatic in his explanation of the events. He notes that Linda's recently-deceased partner was somewhat of a leader in the local penguin community, who actually had two nests; one more than your average penguin.

"For penguins, real estate means a lot," Edell told the Los Angeles Times, so "as far as penguins go, she was a pretty attractive prospect." In other words, Harry was in it for the money and just took advantage of an opportunity. I’m sure they will be quite happy together.

Which is well and fine, but I do feel sorry for Pepper, who is now relegated to the ranks of the lonely unattached. For a social animal like the penguin… that has got to be difficult.

~~

Something you don't see often...

An Oscar Meyer Wienermobile crashed into the home and outdoor deck of Racine, Wis. home on Friday morning. A witness said the vehicle was parked in the driveway, and that the driver lurched the vehicle forward instead of backing out of the driveway. It struck the deck and cracked the foundation.

~~

Res Ipsa Loquitur

Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009 (Introduced in Senate)

S 1435 IS
111th CONGRESS
1st Session

S. 1435

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human-animal hybrids.
IN THE SENATE OF THE UNITED STATES

July 9, 2009
Mr. BROWNBACK (for himself, Ms. LANDRIEU, Mr. BUNNING, Mr. BURR, Mr. CHAMBLISS, Mr. COBURN, Mr. CORKER, Mr. CORNYN, Mr. ENSIGN, Mr. GRAHAM, Mr. INHOFE, Mr. JOHANNS, Mr. KYL, Mr. MARTINEZ, Mr. MCCAIN, Mr. RISCH, Mr. THUNE, Mr. VITTER, Mr. VOINOVICH, Mr. WICKER, and Mr. DEMINT) introduced the following bill; which was read twice and referred to the Committee on the Judiciary

A BILL

To amend title 18, United States Code, to prohibit human-animal hybrids.
Be it enacted by the Senate and House of Representatives of the United States of America in Congress assembled,

SECTION 1. SHORT TITLE.
This Act may be cited as the `Human-Animal Hybrid Prohibition Act of 2009'.

SEC. 2. FINDINGS.
Congress finds that--

(1) advances in research and technology have made possible the creation of human-animal hybrids;

(2) human-animal hybrids are grossly unethical because they blur the line between human and animal, male and female, parent and child, and one individual and another individual;

(3) human dignity and the integrity of the human species are compromised by human-animal hybrids;

(4) the uniqueness of individual human beings is manifested in a particular way through their brain and their reproductive organs/cells; and

(5) with an increase in emerging zoonotic infection threatening the global public health, human-animal hybrids present a particularly optimal means of genetic transfers that could increase the efficiency or virulence of diseases threatening both humans and animals.

SEC. 3. PROHIBITION ON HUMAN-ANIMAL HYBRIDS.

Part I of title 18, United States Code, is amended by inserting after chapter 51 the following:

`CHAPTER 52--HUMAN-ANIMAL HYBRIDS

`Sec.
`1131. Definitions.

`1132. Prohibition on human-animal hybrids.

`Sec. 1131. Definitions

`In this chapter the following definitions apply:

`(1) HUMAN-ANIMAL HYBRID- The term `human-animal hybrid' means--

`(A) a human embryo into which a non-human cell or cells (or the component parts thereof) have been introduced to render the embryo's membership in the species Homo sapiens uncertain;

`(B) a hybrid human/animal embryo produced by fertilizing a human egg with non-human sperm;

`(C) a hybrid human/animal embryo produced by fertilizing a non-human egg with human sperm;

`(D) an embryo produced by introducing a non-human nucleus into a human egg;

`(E) an embryo produced by introducing a human nucleus into a non-human egg;

`(F) an embryo containing at least haploid sets of chromosomes from both a human and a non-human life form;

`(G) a non-human life form engineered such that human gametes develop within the body of a non-human life form; or

`(H) a non-human life form engineered such that it contains a human brain or a brain derived wholly or predominantly from human neural tissues.

`(2) HUMAN EMBRYO- The term `human embryo' means an organism of the species Homo sapiens during the earliest stages of development, from 1 cell up to 8 weeks.

`Sec. 1132. Prohibition on human-animal hybrids

`(a) In General- It shall be unlawful for any person to knowingly, in or otherwise affecting interstate commerce--

`(1) create or attempt to create a human-animal hybrid;

`(2) transfer or attempt to transfer a human embryo into a non-human womb;

`(3) transfer or attempt to transfer a non-human embryo into a human womb; or

`(4) transport or receive for any purpose a human-animal hybrid.

`(b) Penalties-

`(1) IN GENERAL- Whoever violates subsection (a) shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 10 years, or both.

`(2) CIVIL PENALTY- Whoever violates subsection (a) and derives pecuniary gain from such violation shall be subject to a civil fine of the greater of $1,000,000 and an amount equal to the amount of the gross gain multiplied by 2.'.


~~

Never leave home without it

The Church Key

Rob Kasper bolgs about beer. Today he writes about the noble church key. Apparently there are those, in this pop-top culture of ours, who fail to recognize the term. It seems that one of Rob’s sons was puzzled by the slang for a bottle opener, which caused Rob to feel like a failure as a parent.

I sympathize. The term has all but lost its meaning, and one of the 20th century’s most indispensible items, once found in any kitchen drawer and the trouser pocket of many American teenage boys, is becoming a thing of history.

The Church key (or churchkey) is a slang term given to a variety of tools whose purpose is to open pre-poptop beverage cans with one end, and capped beverage bottles with the opposite end. Although some were sold, the most common means of obtaining one was an advertising gimme picked up at the package store.



The oldest of these, was intended only for bottles, and did not have the sharp wedge-like tip as in the above photo. These were intended to pry the metal cap off the mouth of a glass bottle. The “crown cork, as it was first called, was invented in the late 19th century, and the church key, originally called the “crown cork lifter,” was patented in 1894.

The shape and design probably led to the slang name, as they did resemble a large old style key. The American Can Company was the first to conceive of packaging beer in sealed, flat top cans, but this would work only so long as there was a simple means to access the contents, so a fellow named D.F. Sampson, in 1935, developed that little device Rob and I lament today.



There were still bottles to be opened, so the church key retained the original design on one end, but added the chisel-tip on the other.


Consumer beverages in cans are now sold in easy-open pull-top containers, and the bottles have twist-off caps. With limited exception, the need for the old, pointy church key of my youth… is gone.


Some home bars still keep a version of the church key, albeit slicked up with chrome and fancy handles.

The restaurant and bar industries still make use of the bottle opener end of the device, and the old church key has seen some evolution. My son is a waiter at a restaurant where I can’t afford to dine, and he carries something like this in his pocket:



Behind the bar you might still find one of these:



… and Ambulance Driver might have one of these:



Holding out from extinction, the lowly church key has evolved into a gewgaw of various and interesting designs:





Rob’s twentish year-old son failed to understand the term, which is somewhat of a shame. The church key is a nostalgic piece of Americana, much like another archaic item... the buggy whip.

I'd bet Rob's son wouldn't know what that was either.

~~

The Irritating Ben Stein

Ben Stein just irritates me. His attempts at humor over the years have left me flat, and his game show was a real dud. A few years ago, Ben did a science-bashing documentary called Expelled – No Intelligence allowed, which he demonized Charles Darwin and promoted improvable, faith-based creationist thought. Maybe that was it, or maybe the fact that he wrote speeches for Nixon has something to do with my animosity, but the little twerp just gets under my skin and always has.

Now we have something new, and a fresh reason to despise Ben Stein. The New York Times financial columnist is now endorsing FreeScore.com, a “service” that offers to provide your credit score for free. But of course, it isn’t free at all.

Reuter’s blogger Felix Salmon has a good bit at issue with old’ Ben:

How far has Ben Stein sunk? Far enough that I feel compelled to resuscitate the Ben Stein Watch, just to share this unfunny and positively harmful TV ad which is now being aired:



“I went to freescore.com and found out my score for free”, says Ben, while an annoying squirrel holds up a sign with the word “FREE” in some horrible brush-script font.

A few points are worth noting here. First, the score itself is not very useful to consumers. What’s useful is the report — if there’s an error on the report, then the consumer can try to rectify it. Secondly, and much more importantly, if you want a free credit report, there’s only one place to go:

annualcreditreport.com. That’s the place where the big three credit-rating agencies will give you a genuinely free copy of your credit report once a year, as required by federal law.

You won’t be surprised to hear that freescore.com is not free: in order to get any information out of them at all, you have to authorize them to charge you a $29.95 monthly fee. They even extract a dollar out of you up front, just to make sure that money is there.

Stein, here, has become a predatory bait-and-switch merchant, dangling a “free” credit report in front of people so that he can sock them with a massive monthly fee for, essentially, doing nothing at all. Naturally, the people who take him up on this offer will be those who can least afford it.

The level to which Stein has now sunk is more than enough reason — as if the case for the prosecution weren’t damning enough already — for the NYT to cancel Stein’s contract forthwith. It’s simply unconscionable for a newspaper of record to employ as its “Everybody’s Business” columnist someone who is surely making a vast amount of money by luring the unsuspecting into overpaying for a financial product they should under no circumstances buy.

It’ll also be interesting to see whether the new Consumer Financial Protection Agency will have the authority to regulate this kind of advertising. If it doesn’t, that’s a significant hole in its mandate.

Ben Stein represents the worst of what caused the current financial downturn. He is part of an establishment that would promote expensive but useless products and services to Americans already down on their luck.

Ben Stein is a dick, and he irritates me.
~~

Guts for Brains

or… How Bar-B-Cue made us Smarter

A couple of million years ago the brains of our ancestor, Homo erectus, suddenly started growing larger, while their guts started shrinking. At about the same time, the structure of their teeth changed from sharp and fanglike, to smaller, duller things more like those of modern Home sapiens.

This is curious. Something prompted the rapid change in organ size, but what? We have an evolutionary quandary with few supportable theories, and inquiring minds want to know.

Enter Bar-B-Cue.

One of the more valid theories involves the discovery of fire and the consumption of charred flesh. Our ancestors discovered the benefit of eating more and better meat, thereby beginning the long process of swapping gut for gray matter.

Cooked meats are easier to chew, meaning we could eat more with less effort. The effect was higher percentages of protein delivered more quickly to the brain; leading to enhanced intellectual growth, language and motor skills development, more leisure time, and the eventual discovery of the pleasures of beer.

So, AD... we’re in good company.

~~