sometimes i notice that my friendslist is perhaps not as eco-focused as one might expect. maybe this is because we all avoid politics, or (even better) because it's just taken for granted.

but yeah, dudes. when it comes to the environment? we're fucked.

interesting environmental news: reid is hoping to get a climate change bill to the senate soon, and something signed into law this year. you may not quite understand how emissions trading works, or what global warming potential is, or why you might want to prefer a cap and trade program to a carbon tax (though, feel free to ask me if you'd actually like the answers to any of these questions), but you should definitely be interested and aware of global warming legislation getting out this year.

even if congress can't find its ass with two hands, it looks like the epa might finally act on the endangerment finding it was supposed to have dealt with under massachusetts v. epa two years ago. if it makes such a finding, it'll be obliged under the clean air act to regulate co2. and then things will get REALLY exciting.

so. harriet miers for o'connor's seat? hmm. i guess i don't have strong feelings one way or the other. smart of bush to pick an unknown element. we know she's in deep with bush himself, but that doesn't say much, if anything, about her politics. very smart.

one thing that would make me laugh if it weren't so sad, though? bush saying things like, ms. miers "will not legislate from the bench."

okay, not to be a craaaazy judicial activist or something, but. everything the court does is from-the-bench legislation. the only way it wouldn't be would be if the court always said, "yep, congress was so right on this one." and, no, that wouldn't work, because a lot of times they're working with unclear legislation. and whether they decide to be broad in the way they look at a law or the constitution or narrow, they're still "legislating from the bench." it's their job. so get the fuck over it, republicans! besides, it's not as if there's anything partisan about who does this "legislating from the bench." conservatives do it when it fits their views and the same for liberals.

i'm not going to say i don't want a liberal on the bench. but that's a partisan belief in how government should work and the eye i'd like taken towards what the court does, in addition to the fact that i believe the supreme court works at its best when it includes a variety of different view points.

but let's call a spade a spade, okay?

abuse of electroshock found in turkish mental hospitals.

::facepalm::

i'm a big advocate, and have been for a long while, for turkey's joining the european union. i think a great many turks would get behind me on this one.

but for christ's sake! turkey, keep your fucking eye on the ball.


eta. also, my mother and i both agree that this book is really fucking creepy.

deal is reached to put toilets on city streets.

public toilets in new york!

the whole article is worth it for the really spectacular quotes...

new york city transportation commissioner iris weinshall said of cemusa, the company contracted to build the toilets (and bus shelters! and newsstands!): "The toilets are not new to them. They've done them. A toilet is a toilet."

peter vallone, former city council speaker, went to athens once and took pictures of public toilets. he recalls: "I opened them, I went in, I used them. Then I came back and I said, 'Get off the pot and get it done.' "

ha! toilet humor. so funny.

barnes & noble is probably pissed. their foot traffic would surely decrease.

almost before we spoke, we swore.

to which one must obviously and embarassingly reply: well, i'll be damned.

cursing is fascinating. if i were a linguist, that's what i'd want to study. yes, indeedy.

challenged by creationists, museums answer back.

see, i can respect a lot of beliefs. i really can. even when i don't necessarily agree, i think we can coexist without bothering each other.

how-fucking-ever.

the biggest tragedy of this whole creationism/intelligent design thing is the number of people who keep spouting that "lots" of scientists find fault with the theory of evolution. um. that's just NOT TRUE. if there are any, they are very few, and even fewer of them participate in the fields that are directly related to the study of evolution (ie: cosmology, anthropology, geology). just because it's called a "theory" doesn't make it any less true. theory is a word that means something different in science than it does in colloquial usage.

there was a really great article in scientific american (july 2002) called "15 answers to creationist nonsense." oh! i found a copy. it's a very good article -- he doesn't go mealy-mouthed and start insisting that "you can believe whatever you want to believe." because you know what? if you insist that evolution isn't true, you're ignoring a HUGE wealth of scientific fact, the kind of scientific fact that a few minutes in a lab can allow you to see and touch and experience. the article also addresses the thorny questions of paley's watchmaker, behe's irreducible complexity, dembski's specified complexity, and entropy and evolution. you want to believe this was all guided by some sort of divine hand? go for it. want to believe that the ultimate origins of life were divine? be my guest.

but dudes. the world is NOT less than 10,000 years old. that's just a lie somebody told you to fuck with you.

sorry, articles like this tap into a fount of discontent within me, apparently!


on a lighter, happier note: no joke: egyptian comedy promotes peace with israel. hey, it's something!

the market mcdonald's missed: the muslim burger.

brilliant. they should build ten in new york alone! brilliant. and a long damn time in coming.