I see that the charming Anna Nicole and her "confidante" (or lawyer) have tied the knot. And the joker that was previously named as the father of her child is still claiming paternity, even after Howie Stern took the glory. Someone in the great inter-sphere pointed out the other day that apparently in the Bahamas, if a man admits paternity after a child is born, he's assumed to be the father. Convenient, huh? So now the other joker is out in the cold regardless of the truth. Howie gets the credit, the girl, and the baby. Oh, and whatever money she ever gets from her last husband.
Wonder if that little law had anything to do with the move to the beautiful tropics? My guess would be that Howie isn't actually the father. He just found out about the law, and once he and Anna started he-ing and she-ing, they decided to move there. Just to get the real dad out of the legal picture.
What a sleazeball.
Later.
Friday, September 29, 2006
A question about global warming
I don't believe in global warming. Rather, I don't believe that it's our fault. Are temperatures rising? Possibly. Is it just nature doing it's thing? Probably.
There is one big question that I've always had about the whole thing. Temperatures, we're told, are increasing, and (if I recall the factoids correctly) 20 of the 30 warmest years on record are in the past 30 or so years. Probably my facts are not precisely correct, but since the facts used by the Al Gores of the world are in the same boat, screw it. Unlike their arguments, it's not relevant to what I am saying.
So here's the thing. If temperatures now are so much warmer than ever before in recorded history, then riddle me this, Batman: Why isn't there agriculture on Greenland? The Vikings had it. No, they weren't growing rice, tobacco, corn or any of that. But they were able to grow hay and possibly some other basic crops. That's one of the things that allowed their settlement to survive. Now, as far as I can tell, there's nothing growing there. Even with our advanced agricultural knowledge.
Doesn't that seem a little backwards? Shouldn't we be growing things that they couldn't? But if the whole place is covered in ice, then having threshers, tractors, and all that won't matter. Even winter wheat doesn't grow in a foot of ice.
So that right there should shoot the whole global warming thing in the knee, right? If it can be "proven" that temperatures in Greenland were warmer in say, 1000 A.D. than in 2000, then clearly global temperatures aren't the fault of George Bush. NOr, and I hope any Loonies are sitting down for this one, Reagan.
Well, we have records from the Vikings telling us that they had agriculture on Greenland. That would seem to clinch it. They weren't Loonies, wtih something to prove. They were just keeping records of things like births, deaths, and crops. Useful things.
Case closed? It would seem that this presents a hell of an obstacle at least. My guess is that this is why our Loony friends never discuss Greenland and the Vikings. Try it some time. You can hear the proverbial crickets chirping if you ask about it.
Here's another little point. The Vikings (I guess I should say "Scandinavians", in the interest of semantics) were pretty literal people, when it came to names. Norway would seem to be an abbreviation of "North Way". Finland translates as "Land of the Finns". (Guess who lives there? Why Finns!). Russia originally was "Russ-land". Guess who lives there? The "Russ" or.... Russians. Wow. Clever, huh? Care to take a stab at what they found in Iceland? What did Leif Eriksson name the place he discovered in North America? "Vinland". Rumor says it had to do with all the grape vines he found. No focus groups testing to see what name presented a better image to sailors or settlers. Nope, he called it as he saw it. And by the way, Greenland was discovered by Leif's father. Care to guess what Dad's name was? (Clue above). And the old boy was called Erik the Red. Hmmmm. Suppose he had black hair?
So here's the point: if they named things as they saw them, then why call an oversized iceberg "Greenland"? Was it the old "bait and switch"? Were they trying to get folks to move there rather than the yet-undiscovered Vinland? No, I think they called it that because... well, the land was kinda greenish when Erik spotted it. Like maybe covered in, oh I don't know, plants or something.
Try this fun little trick on your Loony friends. Ask how the Vikings had agriculture on Greenland when, even after 50 years of global warming, we still can't grow anything there. And ask why they called it "Greenland" rather than Snowland". Bet the answer leaves a little something to be desired.
Later.
There is one big question that I've always had about the whole thing. Temperatures, we're told, are increasing, and (if I recall the factoids correctly) 20 of the 30 warmest years on record are in the past 30 or so years. Probably my facts are not precisely correct, but since the facts used by the Al Gores of the world are in the same boat, screw it. Unlike their arguments, it's not relevant to what I am saying.
So here's the thing. If temperatures now are so much warmer than ever before in recorded history, then riddle me this, Batman: Why isn't there agriculture on Greenland? The Vikings had it. No, they weren't growing rice, tobacco, corn or any of that. But they were able to grow hay and possibly some other basic crops. That's one of the things that allowed their settlement to survive. Now, as far as I can tell, there's nothing growing there. Even with our advanced agricultural knowledge.
Doesn't that seem a little backwards? Shouldn't we be growing things that they couldn't? But if the whole place is covered in ice, then having threshers, tractors, and all that won't matter. Even winter wheat doesn't grow in a foot of ice.
So that right there should shoot the whole global warming thing in the knee, right? If it can be "proven" that temperatures in Greenland were warmer in say, 1000 A.D. than in 2000, then clearly global temperatures aren't the fault of George Bush. NOr, and I hope any Loonies are sitting down for this one, Reagan.
Well, we have records from the Vikings telling us that they had agriculture on Greenland. That would seem to clinch it. They weren't Loonies, wtih something to prove. They were just keeping records of things like births, deaths, and crops. Useful things.
Case closed? It would seem that this presents a hell of an obstacle at least. My guess is that this is why our Loony friends never discuss Greenland and the Vikings. Try it some time. You can hear the proverbial crickets chirping if you ask about it.
Here's another little point. The Vikings (I guess I should say "Scandinavians", in the interest of semantics) were pretty literal people, when it came to names. Norway would seem to be an abbreviation of "North Way". Finland translates as "Land of the Finns". (Guess who lives there? Why Finns!). Russia originally was "Russ-land". Guess who lives there? The "Russ" or.... Russians. Wow. Clever, huh? Care to take a stab at what they found in Iceland? What did Leif Eriksson name the place he discovered in North America? "Vinland". Rumor says it had to do with all the grape vines he found. No focus groups testing to see what name presented a better image to sailors or settlers. Nope, he called it as he saw it. And by the way, Greenland was discovered by Leif's father. Care to guess what Dad's name was? (Clue above). And the old boy was called Erik the Red. Hmmmm. Suppose he had black hair?
So here's the point: if they named things as they saw them, then why call an oversized iceberg "Greenland"? Was it the old "bait and switch"? Were they trying to get folks to move there rather than the yet-undiscovered Vinland? No, I think they called it that because... well, the land was kinda greenish when Erik spotted it. Like maybe covered in, oh I don't know, plants or something.
Try this fun little trick on your Loony friends. Ask how the Vikings had agriculture on Greenland when, even after 50 years of global warming, we still can't grow anything there. And ask why they called it "Greenland" rather than Snowland". Bet the answer leaves a little something to be desired.
Later.
Wednesday, September 27, 2006
Ethics for Dummies
This morning when I first sat down at the ol' computer, one of the first things I saw was the big news that Howard K. Stern (the lawyer) revealed that he's the father of Anna Nicole Smith's new baby.
Leave aside for the moment that this is huge news, bigger than, like, Pearl Harbor, September 11th, or the fact that Clinton did not have sex with that woman. I don't care all that much. I think that when she's down to her "fighting weight" ANS is fairly hot- at least from the neck down. Also leave aside that she, along with Jenny McCarthy, is a charter member of the "Way hotter when they kept their clothes off and their mouths shut" club. This latest news bugs me.
I'm not a lawyer. Don't have much interest in becoming one either. But I'm thinking that at some point in the 3 years of law school-probably 8:10 a.m. on the first day- the professor mentions something along the lines of "Oh, and by the way. Don't sleep with your clients. It comes across as slightly unethical."
I'm also guessing it comes up again at least one more time before graduation. And maybe even on the licensing test....(I know there's a real term for the test, but damned if I can think of it)?
So at what point did he decide to screw the ethics and the client both? Is this guy even a decent lawyer? I don't know anything about him, but I'm guessing his fame comes from A) Anna Nicole Smith and B) Being named Howard Stern.
(Sorry. I mean Howard K. Stern. Sorry for mixing up slime-balls.)
All of which makes me wonder if their move to The Bahamas is everything it's claimed to be. Privacy? For ANS? This woman is only slightly more bashful than Paris Whoreton. I'm not making a big theory of this, but if I were a lawyer (especially one fighting an ex-stripper on behalf of her ex step-son), and I heard even a whisper that the lawyer on the other side was banging his client, you can bet that I'd mention it to someone from the Ethics Board.
So what's the deal now? Will anyone else come to this conclusion? Does anyone out there care? Do I care enough to mention them ever again? Not really.
Unless of course it turns out that I'm right. Then I'll crow at the top of my lungs.
Cuz that's the kinda guy I am.
Later.
Leave aside for the moment that this is huge news, bigger than, like, Pearl Harbor, September 11th, or the fact that Clinton did not have sex with that woman. I don't care all that much. I think that when she's down to her "fighting weight" ANS is fairly hot- at least from the neck down. Also leave aside that she, along with Jenny McCarthy, is a charter member of the "Way hotter when they kept their clothes off and their mouths shut" club. This latest news bugs me.
I'm not a lawyer. Don't have much interest in becoming one either. But I'm thinking that at some point in the 3 years of law school-probably 8:10 a.m. on the first day- the professor mentions something along the lines of "Oh, and by the way. Don't sleep with your clients. It comes across as slightly unethical."
I'm also guessing it comes up again at least one more time before graduation. And maybe even on the licensing test....(I know there's a real term for the test, but damned if I can think of it)?
So at what point did he decide to screw the ethics and the client both? Is this guy even a decent lawyer? I don't know anything about him, but I'm guessing his fame comes from A) Anna Nicole Smith and B) Being named Howard Stern.
(Sorry. I mean Howard K. Stern. Sorry for mixing up slime-balls.)
All of which makes me wonder if their move to The Bahamas is everything it's claimed to be. Privacy? For ANS? This woman is only slightly more bashful than Paris Whoreton. I'm not making a big theory of this, but if I were a lawyer (especially one fighting an ex-stripper on behalf of her ex step-son), and I heard even a whisper that the lawyer on the other side was banging his client, you can bet that I'd mention it to someone from the Ethics Board.
So what's the deal now? Will anyone else come to this conclusion? Does anyone out there care? Do I care enough to mention them ever again? Not really.
Unless of course it turns out that I'm right. Then I'll crow at the top of my lungs.
Cuz that's the kinda guy I am.
Later.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)