So apparently, the Florida legislature is debating a bill to ban bestiality:

[State Senator Nan] Rich’s legislation would target only those who derived or helped others derive “sexual gratification” from an animal, specifying that conventional dog-judging contests and animal-husbandry practices are permissible.

That last provision tripped up Miami Democratic Sen. Larcenia Bullard.

“People are taking these animals as their husbands? What’s husbandry?” she asked. Some senators stifled their laughter as Sen. Charlie Dean, an Inverness Republican, explained that husbandry is raising and caring for animals. Bullard didn’t get it.

“So that maybe was the reason the lady was so upset about that monkey?” Bullard asked, referring to a Connecticut case where a woman’s suburban chimpanzee went mad and was shot.

— Miami Herald, via Jesus’ General

Family Guy creator Seth MacFarlane, on a complaint filed against the show by the conservative Parents Television Council:

“Oh, yeah. That’s like getting hate mail from Hitler. They’re literally terrible human beings. I’ve read their newsletter, I’ve visited their website, and they’re just rotten to the core. For an organization that prides itself on Christian values — I mean, I’m an atheist, so what do I know? — they spend their entire day hating people. They can all suck my dick as far as I’m concerned.”

— BananaGuide [totally NSFW]

My inner-monologue doesn’t know when to quit. It doesn’t shut up for a second, for a half-second, not even for sleep. I’m probably not the only person dealing with a really loud voice in his head, but I may be the only one who doesn’t know how to tune it out.

P.S. Just so you know, the voice in question has recently begun to sound like Kelly Clarkson. Send help.

via BB

I only knew Aimee Mullins from her role in Matthew Barney’s CREMASTER cycle; this video of her TED talk helped fill in some gaps.

Also: I am totally coveting those legs she scored from Alexander McQueen. Seriously. They remind me of this sideboard my mom used to have, but in a far more awesome, less doily-covered way.

Also also: Best line? “Pamela Anderson has more prosthetic in her body than I do, and no one calls her disabled.”

also via Newlin

TWO MORE “BIG ISSUE” ITEMS:
Print media and the Republican Party

I don’t really think that the “death” of print media and the struggles of the Republican Party have anything to do with one another, but they’re both on my mind today.

On the subject of print: There are plans afoot to preserve dead-tree media–among them, prohibiting free access to online news and preventing search engines from aggregating information from news sites. I know that some of you adore the printed word–and to be fair, I’m one of those twee ‘tards who really enjoys cracking open the Sunday Times with a good bagel and coffee. But I almost never get the chance to do that, and I doubt I’d miss it if the opportunity if it were taken away forever. Nor would I miss crap magazines and junk catalogs flying through my mail slot on a daily basis. Books? Maybe. But as I think everyone knows, I’m not the nostalgic type: bring on the change.

On the subject of the Republican Party: My one flirtation with the Republican Party was back in high school, when I ran for Speaker of the House on the Republican ticket at Boy’s State. (That was mostly because I hadn’t paid attention to politics ’til then and was simply joining the party I knew from my parents.) I appreciate some Republican ideals, like fiscal conservatism, but I was raised to take care of others–something that Republicans aren’t quite as good at doing as the Democrats.

For example: I think welfare is a pretty good idea. Not perfect, but necessary. My dad (like most Republicans) bitches about Reagan’s “welfare queens“, but I live in New Orleans, and I see welfare queens, kings, princes, and princesses everywhere I go; they may not be living the quiet, humble life my father would prefer, but they aren’t eating at Commander’s whenever they like, either. The fact that they’re doing the best with what they can get doesn’t bother me.

All that said, even though I’m definitely more of a Dem, I’d love to see the two major parties working together on things. I know that’s a tall order, given the vast, nearly incomprehensible machinery that each party maintains and depends on, but a guy can dream, right?

Anyway, this interview that Rachel Maddow conducted with Meghan McCain gave me a tiny smidgen of hope. When it shot across my RSS (probably via Towleroad), I clicked play and planned to let it run in the background, but I found McCain so engaging that I watched the whole thing. To be fair, she’s only 24, and as she says, she’s not running for office, but still, a guy can dream, right?

TODAY’S PERSON OF INTEREST
Alber Elbaz, fashion designer

Elbaz is very conscious of his weight, which influences his designs.

“I do things without décolleté, nothing is transparent,” Elbaz said. “I am overweight, so I am very, very aware of what to show and what not to show, and I am sure there is a huge link with being an overweight designer and the work I do. My fantasy is to be skinny, you see? I bring that fantasy into the lightness — I take off the corset and I bring comfort and all these things that I don’t have. What I bring is everything that I don’t have. This is the fantasy. This is the concierge that goes home.”

He also hates the idea of the ‘It’ bag.

“[T]here is nothing scarier than being ‘the designer of the moment,’ because the moment ends.”

—full interview at New York Magazine

Also of note: Elbaz’s unfortunately unembeddable “screen test” for New York Times Magazine.

First, thanks to all of you who emailed me about yesterday’s rambling post. The volume was kind of startling, given the fairly serious, philosophical subject matter. And you were all really thoughtful in your responses–far more so than I. One of you even pointed out that Isadora Duncan met her demise in an Amilcar, not a Bugatti, as legend (or that image I used) would have us believe. Perhaps you should take over the car blogging, kiddo….

Second, in unrelated news, Chuck Norris is a complete, utter douchebag:

When I appeared on Glenn Beck’s radio show, he told me that someone had asked him, “Do you really believe that there is going to be trouble in the future?” And he answered, “If this country starts to spiral out of control and Mexico melts down or whatever, if it really starts to spiral out of control, before America allows a country to become a totalitarian country (which it would have under I think the Republicans as well in this situation; they were taking us to the same place, just slower), Americans won’t stand for it. There will be parts of the country that will rise up.” Then Glenn asked me and his listening audience, “And where’s that going to come from?” He answered his own question, “Texas, it’s going to come from Texas. Do you agree with that Chuck?” I replied, “Oh yeah!” Definitely.

It was these types of thoughts that led me to utter the tongue-n-cheek frustration on Glenn Beck’s radio show, “I may run for president of Texas!”

— Norris on WorldNetDaily, via Chrisafer

 

I mentioned a while back that I’m writing for a car blog. I haven’t posted a link to it yet, mostly because my work isn’t up to speed (no pun intended). Soon, though. Maybe.

Anyway, although I’m not that into “things”, learning about cars and consumers and the auto industry has been thoroughly engaging. Also: challenging, and not at all what I’d expected–and I mean that in the best possible way. I am 100% totally enjoying myself.

However, my crash course in auto industry history has raised a number of larger questions I’d never really considered, including this doozie: given today’s global economic turmoil, why are governments around the world so intent on saving the manufacturing sector–specifically auto manufacturing? Put another way: do we really need manufacturing to survive? Is that what makes for great nations?

Historically speaking, I’m not sure. Is manufacturing what made Greece and Rome great? Or England? Or France? Or Japan? Maybe. On the other hand, what makes New York great now? Not manufacturing, but the arts, media, finance, tourism. Assuming for the moment that it’s important for America to remain a major economic force, how many rungs down the ladder would we tumble if we lost manufacturing?

These are not rhetorical questions. I don’t have answers.

It’s fascinating to watch this ginormous issue play out in little ways from my new vantage point. Most of America hates the idea of bailing out the Big Three: “Laissez-faire economics!”, they shout. Folks on the other side of the fence yell the same thing–but with a caveat thrown in for automakers. It’s hard to tell if that caveat stems from concern for Middle America’s families or from nostalgia for America’s storied automaking past. In general, the auto industry supporters seem to loathe the idea of nationalized programs and bureaucracy–despite the fact that bureaucrats (i.e. Democrats) are the very folks coming to their rescue. Normally business-friendly Republicans are ready to let Detroit drown, mostly so they can get back at labor unions.

These conundrums become really apparent when the subject of healthcare comes up. Some pundits insist that healthcare is the cause of Detroit’s problems. (FYI, the automakers and their unions spend big bucks on healthcare for employees.) But the mere whiff of a nationalized healthcare system sends Detroit’s supporters into panic–even though to me, it seems that in the long term, such a program would reduce the companies’ cost of doing business and the employees’ cost of living. Of course, then we’d probably have to bail out the insurance folks…. Oh, wait: we already did.

In short, each side is arguing for a free-market system. One side just wants to make a tiny little exception for auto manufacturers. It’s fucked, I know, and fascinatingly so.

In defense of those pushing to bailout Detroit, the domestic auto industry is a huge one, and its failure would affect hundreds of thousands of people who work at factories, dealerships, suppliers–not to mention the media. (Pay attention to how many car ads you see next time you watch TV.) Also to be fair, the industry is heavily regulated–some might say hamstrung. I’d argue that it’s not so hamstrung that it hasn’t found ways to make mighty profits in boom years, but it’s still pretty restricted.

I really don’t know where I stand on this. My nonprofit, philanthropic instincts are at odds with my deeply Protestant work ethic. But what’s best for the public good?

via Newlin