These cartoons perfectly sum up this blog...

Damn Brookline

So how was Boston?

Very cool...even cooler that I traveled there with my babydoll.

Yes, I have a "cute pet name" for my beloved girlfriend. Deal with it.

Other than the driving and parking in Boston, Boston was a good time. Let me tell you about the little town of Brookline, MA. It's a nice suburb of Boston, quiet and close to downtown. The problem is with the parking. They have parking available on the streets, free of charge, except from 2AM to 6AM. If you're caught then, you are towed.

You CAN buy a parking pass for the night from the Police station, and then park in one of the approved lots. But the lots become public parking at 9AM and you have to move your car, or it will be ticketed. And of course, you cannot buy multiple days worth of parking passes from the police station.

So every night after 9PM, I would have to drive the car to the Police Officer Station, buy my pass, find a free spot in one of the few parking lots, and then walk back 15 minutes to the B&B we were staying at. In the morning, before 9AM, I'd have to walk back 15 minutes to the car, park it in front of the house, and then walk to the green line T stop.

UGH!

I'm writing this so maybe someone who's thinking of going to Boston and staying in Brookline...doesn't.
Or doesn't take a car to Boston at all.

....grumble....damn Brookline....

Can't let this one go by...

In an interview with London's Sunday Times Paris Hilton has declared herself this decade's 'iconic blonde'.

The hotel heiress tells the newspaper: "There's nobody in the world like me. I think every decade has an iconic blonde - like Marilyn Monroe or Princess Diana - and right now, I'm that icon."

There are way too many jokes to make, so everyone please make up your own...although I will post this one I saw on SFGate.com: "We can only hope that she follows in their footsteps with an untimely death..."

I agree with Bill Mahr, who said "Paris Hilton should no longer be allowed in the news unless she OD's or marries J.Lo."

Yep, I called it...

I don't know if I should be proud that I could see the obvious tactics of the right-wing a mile away, or just sad that I could...(see Mawwiage is what bwings us togedduh twoday..)

From the Washington Post:

Flag Burning Redux
If this is an election year, it must be time to amend the Constitution.

Wednesday, June 21, 2006; A20

WITH CONGRESSIONAL elections coming, the Republican leadership has found a pivotal issue. Terrorism? Hardly. Entitlement reform? Don't be silly. We're talking about the grave threat to America known as flag burning. Yes, that election-year favorite is back: the proposed amendment to the Constitution of the United States allowing Congress to criminally punish the "physical desecration" of the American national banner. If you haven't noticed a rash of flag-burning incidents sweeping the nation that's because, well, there isn't one. But that doesn't stop Republicans from trotting it out as a more-patriotic-than-thou card.

They are, as always, close to having the votes to send it to the states for ratification. The House of Representatives has passed the measure and the vote will be tight in the Senate, where the Judiciary Committee approved the amendment 11 to 7. We hope the amendment will fall short of the needed two-thirds majority on the Senate floor; it's depressing enough that a majority of senators will support it.

The amendment would soil the First Amendment's command that Congress shall "make no law . . . abridging the freedom of speech." Flag burning is an odious form of expression. But there are lots of odious forms of expression the First Amendment protects: Holocaust denial and swastikas, racist rants and giant Confederate flags, hammers and sickles. The amendment's power is in its self-confident sweep: Speech, including expressive acts, will not be censored. Government cannot punish ideas. Members of Congress who would protect the flag thus do it far greater damage than a few miscreants with matches.

You can't take the sky from me...

I think Firefly is probably the best show that's aired on TV in the last 5 years.

Sci-fi, with a western feel, funny as all hell, characters that you love and feel for...Fox TV didn't know what the hell to do with it, so they put it on at 9PM on Fridays, sealing its fate...and after airing about a dozen episodes, Firefly was cancelled.

When it appeared on DVD, I grabbed it, and have lent it to at least 6 people, every one of which thought it was amazing.

I've now hooked my girlfriend Alex on it. One episode is all it took. Her first comment was "I can't believe they cancelled this!" after about half of the pilot.

Seven and counting...No power in the 'verse can stop me...


Take my love...take my land...
Take me where I cannot stand...

I don't care, I'm still free...

You can't take the sky from me...

Take me out to the black,
Tell 'em I ain't comin' back...

Burn the land and boil the sea,
You can't take the sky from me...

There's no place I can be,
Since I found Serenity...

But you can't take the sky from me...

Mawwiage is what bwings us togedduh twoday..

...but not if you're gay or lesbian.

This issue bugs the piss out of me. Why the extrememe right doesn't just get over this I cannot fathom.

I do have a few gay friends, but I myself am not gay. (My girlfriend is very happy I'm not!) In my opinion, there should be no barrier to same-sex couples getting married. None.

Here are some (most) of the arguments (and my very simple rebuttles in parenthases) against gay marriage:

1. The Bible says that marriage is a union between a man and a woman. (The Bible also says I can sell my youngest daughter into slavery - Exodus 21:7...and I can stone someone who insists on working on the sabbath - Exodus 35:2.)

2. Marriage has ALWAYS been between a man and a woman...so it's traditional. (Wasn't this the argument for slavery in the 18th and 19th centruries and for women not having the right to vote in the 19th and 20th?)

3. Marriage is for the purpose of procreation...same-sex couples cannot have children. (By this logic, heterosexual couples who for one reason or another cannot have children shouldn't be allowed to marry. And by the way, adoption, hello?)

4. If gays and or lesbians are allowed to marry, they will diminish the concept of marriage. (Excuse me? If you are married and think any less of your loving relationship because of what ANYONE else does, your marriage doesn't seem to me to be that strong to begin with.)

5. Condoning gay marriage, according to Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA) would be akin to legalizing incest, beastality, polygamy and adultrey. (I don't think I need to argue this one...I would love to see his logical progression from step A to step B though. This is like saying "he owns a gun - therefore he's going to kill someone!")

BTW - don't get me started on Santorum. ;)

Any other arguments?

So then let me see if I've got this right. Marriages of conveinence to get a green card are okay. Hollywood style marriages to make the newest "power couple" and last only a couple years are okay. Marriages made with no love between the man and woman but because the woman is pregnant are okay. 85 year old men who marry 21 year old busty strippers are okay. People marrying and re-marrying every couple of years are okay. But two men or two women who love each other cannot.

And now, the Bush Administration is calling for a constitutional amendment defining marriage as one-man and one-woman. Fortunately, this is election-year political pandering and stands very little chance of making it out of the Senate.

Remember the last time the Constitution outlawed something? Alcohol, wasn't it? Boy, that worked well, didn't it?

Coming up next on the GOP Hit Parade, I'm sure, is the Desecration of the Flag Ammendment.

But that's a blog for another time though...

The Luther

So, I'm watching an old TiVo'ed episode of "The Boondocks." If you haven't seen it, the show is hysterical...

Check it out here.

Anyway, on this particular episode, called "The Itis," Grandpa opens his own restaurant, with a signature piece..."The Luther." (Named for Luther Vandross, who Grandpa claims invented it.)

The Luther is the ultimate in hamburgers...the ingredients are: 4 pounds of beef, covered in cheese, fried onions, and 5 strips of bacon. And if that weren't enough, the buns were replaced with donuts...Krispy Kreme Donuts. Oh, and put a couple of bacon strips on top of that too...

When Riley took two bites of it, he passed out. The last thing he said before going under was "Whoa. This is what crack must feel like."

For about 5 seconds my mouth watered...mmmmm...my goodness....what a burger....

Then, in a crystal clear moment of sanity, I realized I had never wanted a salad so bad in my life.

Maybe there is hope for me.

Huey's comment about the entire menu was: "Grandad, you can't feed this stuff to people. It'll cause....death!"

Indeed.