DEBRIS.COMgood for a laugh, or possibly an aneurysm

Thursday, May 13th, 2004

profiting from gay marriage

California assembly bill AB 1967, the California Marriage License Non-Discrimination Act, “would define marriages in California as a civil contract between two persons, allowing same sex couples access to the same rights and responsibilities of marriage as heterosexual couples in the state” (according to the legislation summary from the bill’s author, Mark Leno).

The issue is wildly contested, as you can imagine.

Benjamin Lopez, a lobbyist for Traditional Values Coalition, said foes of same-sex marriage weren’t taking any chances, despite forecasts that the bill won’t get very far this year.

“We are marching on, ready for a complete showdown,” said Lopez, who missed the hearing in order to prepare a mass mail campaign against the bill. “We’re stopping at nothing to kill it.”

I can only imagine the junk mail piece his group is designing. “Beware the gay invasion!” It will show the US flag, and cite threats to the principles on which America was founded, I’m guessing. God is an American.

Had Lopez attended the hearing on this bill that he’s so hot to destroy, he might have heard the startling new evidence from the Williams Project (which is “the nation’s first think tank dedicated to the field of sexual orientation law and public policy”). According to their new study, titled (apparently by someone who spent more time studying Stats than English) The Impact of Allowing Same-Sex Couples to Marry on California’s Budget:

Allowing same-sex couples to marry in California will result in a net gain of $22.3 to $25.2 million each year, for the State budget.

Lopez, predictably, dismissed the study.

“It’s a matter of who you’re going to believe. Are you going to believe a professor on a liberal campus who wants this garbage crammed down the throats of Californians?”

Well, if you ask me who I’m going to believe, I’d want the choices spelled out:

With all respect to the lobbyist, I’m definitely going to have to go with the “professor on a liberal campus” on this one. I disagree that anything is being crammed down my throat — my mouth is closed, preventing stupid shit from flying out unannounced. Perhaps that’s a lesson lobbyists everywhere can benefit from.

What the heck is a ‘liberal campus’ anyway?


Tags:
posted to channel: Politics
updated: 2004-05-13 18:13:51

Wednesday, May 12th, 2004

Porn 101

The best line I’ve seen in the newspaper this year:

I nod and leave, thinking: “I’m on a lube run for a porn movie.”

This is a must-read: Porn 101 — A beginner’s class sheds light on a low-budget, down-and-dirty industry thriving behind closed doors.


Tags:
posted to channel: Personal
updated: 2004-05-12 15:54:53

Tuesday, May 11th, 2004

vehicle crashworthiness

Automobile crash test results and safety ratings can be researched at the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety. Click the “Vehicle Ratings” link to access a form where you can search for specific models.

Our old Golf, it turns out, offers only “marginal” protection against frontal impact. Good thing I never drive it.

My Kawi isn’t listed. Presumably it wouldn’t fare very well either.


Tags:
posted to channel: Personal
updated: 2004-05-12 15:46:44

Monday, May 10th, 2004

truth therapy for your lizard brain

In January, Malcolm Gladwell (author of The Tipping Point) wrote an article about SUV safety, or really the lack thereof, in the New Yorker. I didn’t read it at the time, for the same reason that recovering heroin addicts tend not to get involved on “Syringe Cleanup Day” at the beach.

But I’m feeling OK. I’m breathing deep, practicing biofeedback, keeping the heart rate low. Here we go: Big and Bad: How the S.U.V. ran over automotive safety.

[Automotive] industry market research concluded that S.U.V.s tend to be bought by people who are insecure, vain, self-centered, and self-absorbed, who are frequently nervous about their marriages, and who lack confidence in their driving skills.

Gladwell’s article isn’t as inflammatory as that one quote might lead you to believe.

This one is, though.

(Just kidding.)

Gladwell’s mission isn’t to trash SUV owners, but to point out the enormous contradiction between marketing and reality. S.U.V.s are designed to make drivers feel safe, but all the height and attitude and steel do not make the vehicle safe. SUVs are less safe than many passenger cars. Look at the deaths per million vehicles:

Make/ModelType Driver Deaths Other DeathsTotal
Toyota Camrymid-size412970
Volkswagen Jettasubcompact472370
Ford Windstarminivan373572
Nissan Maximamid-size532679
Honda Accordmid-size542782
Mazda 626compact702999
Chevrolet Malibumid-size7134105
Chevrolet SuburbanS.U.V.4659105
Jeep Grand CherokeeS.U.V.6144106
Honda Civicsubcompact8425109
Toyota Corollasubcompact8129110
Ford ExpeditionS.U.V.5557112
GMC JimmyS.U.V.7639114

Car makers are lying to consumers. Or, consumers are allowing themselves to be deceived. SUVs provide a false sense of security. Sit inside one, and it’s like a womb. It was designed to feel that way: quiet, soft, round, with cupholders so you can keep your warm liquids at hand. I’m not making this up; they did studies!

But the kill rates prove that it’s an illusion. As Gladwell puts it,

[Volkswagon] Jettas are safe because they make their drivers feel unsafe. SUVs are unsafe because they make their drivers feel safe. That feeling of safety isn’t the solution; it’s the problem.

(See more about vehicle crashworthiness.)


Tags:
posted to channel: Conservation
updated: 2005-03-08 18:23:40

Sunday, May 9th, 2004

household toxics roundup

This coming Saturday, May 15, you can dump your leftover “household toxics” in Rohnert Park. (Honestly, I can’t think of a better place to dump all my leftover toxic chemicals than Rohnert Park.)

Examples of household toxics accepted:

antifreeze, brake fluid, fluorescent light bulbs, oil filters, gasoline, waxes & polishes, auto batteries, engine cleaners, brake fluid, paint, paint thinner, wood preservatives, wood finishes, glues, solvents, photo chemicals, ammonia-based cleaners, bleach-based cleaners, oven cleaners, aerosol sprays, polishes, nail polish & remover, medications & syringes, batteries, pesticides, fungicides, weed killers, pool chemicals

Sadly, the following common household items are NOT accepted:

The last time I went to one of these, the attendants wore Tyvek Hazmat suits. Seriously. It cast a new perspective on that trunkful of chemicals I had so casually loaded up.


Tags:
posted to channel: Conservation
updated: 2004-05-10 16:03:10

Search this site


< May 2004 >
            1
2 3 4 5 6 7 8
9 10 11 12 13 14 15
16 17 18 19 20 21 22
23 24 25 26 27 28 29
30 31          


Carbon neutral for 2007.