Little People in Space

I'm just catching up on some of my old Discover magazines (the perfect quick, at-my-desk lunch) and just read an article on Pluto's removal from our galaxy's list of planets, and placement into the nebulous realm of "dwarf planet."  ("Dwarf," coincidentally, is never a flattering term, unless you happen to be in the middle of some Tolkien-like role playing game.  I'm informed that people with dwarfism actually prefer the term "little person."  Just one of many reasons why "The Wizard of Oz" is evil - slighting of the little persons by calling them "munchkins."  Glinda was a naughty, politically incorrect valley girl.)

Inquiring minds want to know - are any of you really upset about this re-classification?  I, for one, was not particularly, if only because I had crossed off Pluto on my list of "Planets To Visit" as a child due to it's rather icy and cold climate.  Brr.

I am very upset, however, that the drive to re-name 2003 UB313 (the other "dwarf planet") to "Xena" (and the moon orbiting it "Gabrielle") failed.  Where is the romance these days, I ask you?  You can't very well call out the name "2003 UB313" in bed, now can you?

Atkins for Pandas

When panda porn fails, there's always the latest diet fad...gee, animals really are just like us.

Sponges for Jesus

It is indeed a sad day for the education system in our country when a school board is persuaded out of screening a scientifically-based and supported, yet eminently accessible, movie about global warming (yes, that would be Al Gore's "An Inconvenient Truth") by the religiously-motivated protestations of a parent, who evidently believes that the warming of the earth is a sign that Jesus is getting ready to return.  (One wonders if this man is burning plastics containing CFCs in his back yard to hasten the lord's return?)  The movie is devoid of violence, sex, nudity, or explicit language (unless "ice floe" became a naughty word that I didn't know about).  The only thing about the movie that could be somewhat objectionable, from an educational standpoint, is that the science presented in the movie could be debated (though virtually every major scientific body has supported the film's science, but perhaps you could find some scientist from remote New Guinea who might have another theory).  But alas, I thought that was the point of education - to teach children how to access and consider a proposition, whether scientific or otherwise, and then to arrive at their own conclusion.  Does Hester Prynne deserve the scarlet "A?"  Does the theory of relativity make sense?  Do humans hasten the warming of the earth's atmosphere?  By bending to one parent's religious principles, the school board is doing a disservice to all of its students, which are its primary responsibility, because it is failing to teach its students the most basic educational lesson - to reason and think for themselves.  If Mr. High and Mighty Religious Parent actually had a defensible position, then he would be able to sit his daughter down after she came home from watching "An Inconvenient Truth" and explain to her why it was wrong and why the melting of Antarctica is a harbinger of Judgment Day.  And then she would get to decide for herself which theory made the most sense to her.  Faith is not the business of the public school system, nor should it ever become the business of a school to fail to teach a child to think for herself because of the religious ideas of her parents.  If her parents really want her to become a sponge for Jesus, there's always a private school happy to serve that need.

From Canada to DC - All the News That's Fit to Print

It's always nice to marry someone who shares some of your interests, even if those interests include, for example, assault.  It appears that two women in Canada found that their rap sheets bespoke greater underlying compatibility and decided to tie the knot while serving time in a Canadian prison. 

In other news from north of the border, Ontario's Court of Appeal ruled that three parents each have a separate legal right over the same child.  The case involved two lesbians, one of whom had the child with the father prior to the relationship.  The lesbian couple did not want to adopt the child because they didn't want to cut off the father's parental interest.  (Gee...a rare case of parents going to court to actually act in the best interests of the child instead of using the child as a sharp boomerang of revenge...how very novel.)  The court ruled that both the lesbian couple and the father had legal parenting rights to the child, noting that recognizing the non-biological mother's rights was in the best interests of the child and necessary should something happen to the biological mother.  (Insert inappropriate three-way joke here.)

In news from around these parts, the Supreme Court heard yet another commerce clause case involving garbage.  Once again, the so-called "dormant commerce clause" finds itself associated with human waste.  Coincidence?  I think not.

Reasons to not use eBay in the near future - eBay CEO Meg Whitman helped Mitt "the Dick" Romney (yes, that's my own personal nickname) raise $6.5 million for his potential presidential campaign.  Evidently, Romney is on his way to have the cachet of money necessary to compete with other presidential hopefuls Rudy Giuliani and John McCain.  Now, all he needs to do is actually get a brain, a heart, and some courage from the Wizard.

Oh, I Wish I Had an Oscar Miers Weiner...

So, President Bush thought Harriet Miers was a perfectly qualified candidate for the Supreme Court, but he doesn't trust her to defend the White House against the incoming Democratic Congress and their potential assertion of subpoena power?  Well, gee, that makes me feel all warm and fuzzy about his judicial nominations.