Lavender: Part I

It was an interesting experience passing during the conference this past week/end. I don't think I did much to encourage--other than continuing to refer to Deb as my "partner"--but I also did not do much to discourage the other conference attendees from assuming, and treating me as gay. I'm not sure why I was so ambivalent...

Raina.

The late trio that dog. had a song on its first album called "Raina." Which appears, at first glance, to be directed at a woman named "Raina." "Raina, she blew my mind. She made me sick inside." And, upon further inspection, this interpretation holds up. But nevertheless, I propose an alternate interpretation. One rife with needless difficulties. And it is this: that the song's lyrics are directed at the song itself.

The song had a mouth on "her" that you'd "never want to find." The song's singer walked the song to the door, saying she wasn't too keen on looking at "her" anymore. The song, and its chitterchat, made the singer sick inside. It makes less sense than the obvious interpretation. But it still, with the proper frame of mind, makes some sense.

And thus, when "Raina" is stuck in my head, I feel nauseous.

Pancakes.

I seem to have procured a really great pancake recipe from somewhere. And I'd like to share it with my readers:

1. Melt 6 tablespoons of butter (3/4 of a stick) in a pan.
2. Beat two eggs together with 1 cup of milk in a medium-sized bowl.
3. Pour the butter into the egg mixture.
4. Stir in 1 and 1/4 cups of flour, 2 teaspoons of sugar, 4 teaspoons of baking powder, and 3/4 teaspoon of salt.
5. Pour the batter into original pan in pancake-sized dollops.
6. Cook until brown on one side, flip, then eat.
7. Repeat steps 4 and 5 until the batter is gone.
8. Drink half-gallon of orange juice to get that yummy flavor out of your mouth.

Enjoy!

Religion and masturbation.

Came to a conclusion lately: religion is like masturbation. Both are perfectly natural, healthy, widely practiced activities. Both are looked upon disapprovingly by certain narrow-minded individuals. Both are often practiced by those same narrow-minded individuals. There's money to be made in the penumbra of both, although both are essentially free, noncommercial activities. And it is not really appropriate to do either in public. Or talk about either with strangers. Or try to coerce others into adopting your particular way of doing things. Sure, it isn't at all unusual or rude to have discussions, including making suggestions about technique and form, among friends. But the proselytizing over the radio--the "shock jocks" who suggest sitting on your hand so it feels like someone else is helping you out, or the "evangelists" who suggest eternal hellfire will follow nonbelievers--are simply rude. Of course I'm enough of a First Amendment junkie that I recognize banning these practices does more harm than good. But come on people. It just isn't cool to press the particulars of your button-pressing and prayer-beading on others. Especially strangers. And I think the sooner we as a society recognize this, the sooner we'll all be comfortable around most everyone.

My blog is worth HUNDREDS of dollars!

My blog is worth $564.54.
How much is your blog worth?

I don't know how they calculate this. And I don't want to know. But I do want my money.

San Diego.

I'm leaving on Wednesday for the Lavender Law Conference in San Diego. Which should yield a story or two...

Mash-ups I'd like to see...

The Monkees's "Daydream Believer" and Henry Mancini's lovely "What's Happening!!" theme.

Another kickass game.

Need for Madness is quite difficult. But quite fun. And I don't mean "quite" in any kind of bullshit half-assed sense, as some survey-writers seem to use it.

Campfire oatmeal.

I was walking to school today--quickly, because I was running late--and I smelled campfire oatmeal. Beautiful.

Public defender's aside.

"I'm gonna be so hard on that girl on cross, I'll make her wish she'd never been raped."

Citizen of the "No Tar" Republic.

I once met a man who claimed to be a citizen of the "no tar" republic. Well, actually he said he was a "no tar" republic. But I understood what he meant. The language barrier, coming from some tar-less land to this tar-full land must have been incredible. Poor guy.

He tried to stamp my affidavit. So I hit him with a pitchfork and buried him in the peat bog out back. I can only hope his corpse felt at home, what with the total absence of tar there...

Statute drafting technique.

Why, when drafting statutory, don't legislatures describe in some kind of introductory section the target of that provision? For example, Internal Revenue Code, Section 469 is clearly aimed at limited partners. But no where in that section does the phrase "limited partners" appear. And if I wasn't so damned good at spotting these things, I'd be very confused about who Congress was attempting to screw when it denied deductions for "passive activity" losses.

Beer snob.

It constantly amazes me that anyone would stoop to purchasing Budweiser or MGD when there are so many quality beers available. I've stumbled upon this very new, but highly promising site called Coastr. And I've started creating my very own "Wall of Beer." Fun!

Fuck Pigs 5.

"I was putting away porn tags, when suddenly I looked up and came face-to-face with the box for Fuck Pigs 5. I can still see the box. There was, of course, a woman on it, offering up her orifices for the pleasure of anyone who wanted a look. She seemed friendly, almost shy. And she was being called a fuck pig."

Porn drift.

This page contains a fabulous explanation--and label--for a phenomenon I have noted while in sociology mode. "We do feature bisexual videos (and by that, of course, we mean bisexual men - bi-girl action is pretty much a given in the straight section) and every now and then someone you didn't expect will dip his first toe into the gay end of the pool."

To the editors of the Tulane Environmental Law Journal, circa 2001.

I am currently researching the "Roadless Rule." Like you do. As part of that research, I stumbled upon a comment by a 2002 JD candidate at Tulane named Alison S. Hoyt entitled "Roadless Area Conservation: How the 'Roadless Rule' Affects America's Forestland." Now you must understand that I am reading it primarily to avoid conducting background research; I was hoping Ms. Hoyt found sources of relevant information, allowing me to slack off for a few more days.

Unfortunately, I no longer trust Ms. Hoyt's research. In the second paragraph of the introduction, Ms. Hoyt claims "the Property Clause of the [U.S.] Constitution...grant[s] the President and the [Forest] Service the ability to implement regulations protecting the public land." Article IV, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution clearly states "The Congress shall have the Power to dispose of and make all needful Rules and Regulations respecting...other Property belonging to the United States." While this power has been held to be delegable--and so the Forest Service in fact does have certain powers, defined by statutes, to "implement regulations protecting the public land"--the aforequoted Property Clause does not grant any powers to the President or the Forest Service.

I am nit-picking here, of course. My real beef is not with Ms. Hoyt. I would not be at all surprised to know that, if confronted with this error, she would recognize immediately the poor phrasing. My beef is, rather, with the 2001 editorial staff of the Tulane Environmental Law Journal. For their failure to catch this error. And I think whoever was assigned this comment to edit should have her Constitutional Law grade reduced accordingly.

Bustin' makes me feel good.

Last night, I had a dream. A dream about Ray Parker, Jr. An erotic dream about Ray Parker, Jr. And this morning, when I went to get my Diesel Sweeties fix, there was a Ghostbuster's reference. Eerie.

Harriet Miers.

Of course I'm a bit bothered by Bush appointing a woman who appears to be, shall we say, excessively loyal. Smacks of cronyism. But the fact that Barbara Boxer and others have been so bothered by Miers's lack of judicial experience has me puzzled. Because of the special nature of the Supreme Court, I'm not sure prior judicial experience has any bearing on whether a nominee will make for a good justice.