"Yeah, I've seen that before on the racks. Though usually it has an opaque wrapper around it."

Oddly enough, The Dead Man's Brother looks like a pretty straightforward noirish action novel -- which, upon consideration, seems like it would be just up Zelazny's alley, as many of his books were sort of noirish action novels in a fantastic setting.

And, yeah, I'll be picking it up when it comes out next February.

Usually it's just being lambasted by coffee aficionados, local business supporters, pop culture critics, American culture critics, or people who question their "Fair Trade" policies with coffee growers. Add to the list certain religious zealots. It seems that the temporary revival of the "classic" Starbucks logo has their knickers in a twist because it features ... wait for it ... boobies.

The Resistance says the new image "has a naked woman on it with her legs spread like a prostitute," Mark Dice, founder of the group, said in a news release. "Need I say more? It's extremely poor taste, and the company might as well call themselves Slutbucks."

The group, which claims more than 3,000 members nationwide and has found a place on the fringe advancing various conspiracy theories, is calling for a national boycott of the coffee-selling giant.

The revived image of a siren (or melusine) is actually less risqué than the original it was modeled from, in which the hair didn't cover the nipplage (and there was a navel, too) -- let alone the 15th Century Norse woodcut it was based on.

The more I read the article, and the underlying news release, though, the less sanguine I am that this is much more than an attempt to get fifteen minute of fundie fame. Still, I'm sure that some, somewhere out there, dislikes the whole female torso Starbucks thang, considering it lewd, lascivious, and sinful (because I am sure that there are teenage boys out there doing unspeakable acts as they gaze longingly at the logo on their Starbucks cup).

Crazy world. Though, for what it's worth, I'm not a big fan of the retro look, and am glad it's just temporary. Fact is, I find the original logo (and colors) just unattractive.

Nevertheless, when American law-enforcement agencies ask Dr Sommers if they should invest in VRA, he tells them he will build them a device “that lights up and has all kinds of bells and whistles”, for half the price. He is not saying that any agency has actually sunk that low, but it raises a tricky moral question: is it all right to detect a liar with a lie?

Jackie Chan's greatest fight scenes 

I don't know about the -est, but they certainly are freaking impressive.

(Somewhat NSFW due to a few admiring expletives from the narrator)

There are about eleventy-dozen other Chan YouTube videos you can get to from these.

Yes, my genetic progeny -- voluntarily getting on the phone! Calling people! Must have been switched at birth.

UPDATE: Katherine actually volunteered to call up her friends from whom she'd not heard about her birthday party on Sunday. Yikes! We discussed the things she should mention (her name, that she'd given the kid an invite, when the party is, what (if an answering machine) her phone number is) -- and she handled the whole thing like a pro.

She is such the extravert. Which is so not Margie and me. Changeling, that must be it.

We get cable and broadband outages way too often. If I can go a six months or a year without them, then I'll consider digital voice service. Meantime, I like having a dial tone whenever I pick up the phone. 

Which, if I do, I will. I mean, I'm no great fan of Comcast, but it's not like I'm profoundly loyal to Qwest, either ...

Which then made it amusing to see that blog entry show up in my Reader based on that saved Google search ...

What to do -- and not do -- when you get pulled over for a ticket. In most cases -- pretty much common sense and courtesy, leavened with a recognition of both the balance of power in the transaction and the perspective of that cop or trooper walking up toward your window ...

I.e., don't give them any reason to worry about you, and don't tick them off. Words to live by. And they might get you a smaller fine.

Things to do (read the article for explanations and further guidance):

1. Pull to the right at the first safe opportunity, then turn off your engine.
2. Stay in your car with your seatbelt fastened. Roll down your window. Turn off the radio. Don’t even think about touching your cell phone.
3. Place your hands on top of the steering wheel and sit quietly. Ask passengers to remain silent.
4. Retrieve license, registration, and proof of insurance only when asked to do so.
5. Answer questions succinctly. Avoid arguing, cursing, or interrupting when the officer speaks to you.

And things to not do (which are mostly the reverse of the above):

1. Don’t slam on your brakes when you see the flashing lights, and don’t continue driving for an extended distance.
2. Do not jump out of the vehicle, do not make any sudden movements, and do not approach the officer.
3. You can complain, you can proffer wild explanations, but not for long.
4. Do not lie. If you were speeding, admit it. If you honestly have no clue why you were stopped, wait for the officer to tell you.
5. Do not show your contempt by peeling away after the stop.

I will say two things.

First, this is pretty close to my own behavior, and I generally have had pretty good luck with the cops either letting me off with a warning or treating me what seems reasonably (I can only think of one time when it was not a righteous pull-over).

Second, on the first #1, during my one stint at post-ticket driving school, the instructor, a former CHP officer, said that when the lights go on, pull over then -- that it's the call of the officer to decide whether it's a safe place. I think it has to be a judgment call, though, and the tactics described above make sense.

Again -- honesty, civility, and not giving the cops any reason to think you're a threat (or someone who needs to be taught a lesson) are pretty safe rules to follow. Is that knuckling under to the Man? You could look at it that way -- but in most cases it's probably a smarter idea to go back to your computer and blog a nastygram about it than try to "stand up" right then and there. 

From the "other" side: Pam's House Blend:: Freeper, fundie heads exploding over CA marriage ruling 

No, I won't repeat any of it here, but ... well, when you listen to some of the comments, it makes me happy for the decision all the more, if only to lead to more exploding heads.

Well, I will say a couple of things:

1. The basis for the decision, in the face of the previously (eight years ago) initiative law voted in by the populace, was that the populace and their representatives had crafted a body of law regarding domestic partnerships that was close to marriage already, save for the name. Except that it couldn't be called that. Except the justices decided that was discriminatory.
2. Despite all the rhetoric of "every child deserves and needs a mother and father," a different ruling would have done nothing regarding California child custody laws.
3. It is, in fact, one of the most important jobs of high courts to stand up to the will of the people when that will, in law, is not in keeping with the (state or federal) constitution. That can be irksome. That can also be a critical protection of your rights, too. Idjits.
4. I don't insist on knowing and approving everything you do in your bedroom. I do insist you show similar courtesy to others. I didn't ask your permission to enter into a committed relationship with someone I love; ditto on the insistence of similar courtesy.
5. Oh, and, that whole "marriage is dooooooomed!" thing? Here's what I think.

(via Les)

Nearly since we've moved into the house, we've discussed doing some work in the front yard -- in particular, putting a stairway up from the sidewalk, probably with some terracing of the slope. But various things have kept us from making any advances on it, aside from doing some flower bed expansion preliminary to it.

Now it looks like we're going to be able to do it, with both a couple of nice bonuses and a smaller-than-expected sewer line replacement cost giving us some resources to spend.

We got the first estimate yesterday, and it looks like the prices will be lower than I expected for a bit better materials than I was expecting -- flagstone, replacing the "patio" on top, some retaining walls for the terracing and along the sidewalk, etc. Very cool and exciting.

More as developments develop.

(via Mary)

Think Hercules/Xena, only with fewer gods and more castles. In other words -- action/adventure with more attention to humor than historical accuracy or even very much drama. Nice enough video popcorn to munch from, but nothing to go seriously out of my way to watch every week.

It's an instant presidential campaign issue, for starters. It's not just California -- it now raises the issue nation-wide again. McCain -- who has made all the "right" noises about "protecting marriage" -- now suddenly risks alienating either his GOP conservative base or his moderate base if he comes out either too strongly or too softly. I suspect it's not as strong an issue to raise or pursue for most moderates as it is for the conservatives -- but if he comes out as forcefully as he'll be pushed to from the Right, it may seriously backfire.

Obama and Clinton have both taken a more center position on the issue -- not favoring gay marriage, but okay with civil unions. If the Left presses the Democratic candidate to take a stronger stand, again, the center might get turned off; if the candidate fails to take a strong stand, though, it might turn off some of the (ahem) younger generation that, as a whole, approves of the whole gay marriage thing.

I think the risks are greater for McCain than the Democratic nominee, but it does bring the whole "values" issue back to the fore, and maybe will help demonstrate that people to the left of Pat Robertson have "values," too.

For the moment, everyone's treading water.

 All three offered finessed responses Thursday, saying that defining marriage is best left to individual states.

In an apparent effort to assuage supporters, McCain reiterated his belief that states have a right to ban same-sex marriage. Obama and Clinton emphasized support for civil unions and equal rights for same-sex couples.

In California, where it looks like there will be a ballot proposition to constitutionally ban gay marriage, the question is whether that will draw more conservatives to the polls or not. A lot of that may depend on how the presidential campaign plays out. Though, notably.

Not surprisingly, the most definitive political statement Thursday came from someone not on the November ballot: California's Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger.

"I respect the court's decision and as governor, I will uphold its ruling," Schwarzenegger said. "Also, as I have said in the past, I will not support an amendment to the Constitution that would overturn this state Supreme Court ruling."

The actual decision goes beyond just this actual item.

The majority opinion, by Chief Justice Ronald M. George, declared that any law that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation will from this point on be constitutionally suspect in California in the same way as laws that discriminate by race or gender, making the state's high court the first in the nation to adopt such a stringent standard.

Good on them. 

The court's ruling repeatedly invoked the words "respect and dignity" and framed the marriage question as one that deeply affected not just couples but also their children. California has more than 100,000 households headed by gay couples, about a quarter with children, according to 2000 census data.

"Our state now recognizes that an individual's capacity to establish a loving and long-term committed relationship with another person and responsibly to care for and raise children does not depend upon the individual's sexual orientation," George wrote for the majority. "An individual's sexual orientation -- like a person's race or gender -- does not constitute a legitimate basis upon which to deny or withhold legal rights."

Looking at the actual decision, the court framed it interestingly. Given that California already had a strong statutory domestic partnership law for gay couples ...

Accordingly, the legal issue we must resolve is not whether it would be constitutionally permissible under the California Constitution for the state to limit marriage only to opposite-sex couples while denying same-sex couples any opportunity to enter into an official relationship with all or virtually all of the same substantive attributes, but rather whether our state Constitution prohibits the state from establishing a statutory scheme in which both opposite-sex and same-sex couples are granted the right to enter into an
officially recognized family relationship that affords all of the significant legal rights and obligations traditionally associated under state law with the institution of marriage, but under which the union of an opposite-sex couple is officially designated a “marriage” whereas the union of a same-sex couple is officially designated a “domestic partnership.” The question we must address is whether, under these circumstances, the failure to designate the official relationship of same-sex couples as marriage violates the California Constitution.

In other words, state law already made the status more or less equal -- the court was looking at whether it could then call it different things without getting into "separate but equal" territory. They decided not.

Meanwhile, the Right is fulminating.

"This is yet another example of why the people need to go to the polls in November to defend the historic and natural definition of marriage," said Ron Prentice, executive director of the Sacramento- and Riverside-based California Family Council, which opposes same-sex marriage.

Yeah -- it's all about "history" (and what's "natural"). As the court noted, the same was true when it struck down (in 1948) bans on interracial marriage, too. But, then, using Mr Prentice's arguments, maybe we can get a polygamy clause into his ballot measure, too -- that's not only natural and historical but Biblical as well.
 

1. It regularly times out while posting, throwing an error and never showing a post as finished and posted (even if it is). It may not fully be WLW's fault -- Flickr does the same thing when posting to my blog -- but some applications don't, which means it takes some blame (and it's annoying).
2. The image uploader doesn't allow for any hand-crafted customization, only what MS has canned with it. In ecto, I can have the images wrapped with the drop shadow DIV stuff (and I can have drop shadows without actually modifying the image).
3. There's no native custom snippet/tag support. There are some plug-ins that will do custom snippets -- but not tags (i.e., select some text, click on the tag, have it wrapped with something in front and behind). That's a step backwards compared to what I have in ecto.
4. Category support seems wonky -- some things posted without (perhaps part of the time-out), others it wasn't clear how I could designate a primary category. (Yes, I know that "categories" are so 1990s, while tags -- esp. Technorati tags -- are what all the cool kids do. Bah.)

Windows Live Writer would be a very nice desktop client if I were just starting off with one. The complaints I have above are more a matter of advanced features I've come to count on, rather than something that everyone is likely to use. I'll be curious to see if MS does any significant improvements or push of WLW in the coming years.

Meantime, I'll be heading back to ecto, until I find something better.