Not that they’re related in any way except for internet damage, but there you go.

A few months ago, a probable Skank by the name of Rosemary Port created an anonymous blog, in which she gave another probably Skank, Liskula Cohen an award for being the Skankiest Ho in NYC.  Among the some 1,700 viewers of this blog was the targeted maybe-skank, who got all offended.  Some damage had been done, but not very much.  A blog that gets 1,700 visitors is very, very low-impact.  And few of those visitors are likely to remember much.  Fewer still are likely to credit an anonymous source.  But, still, it was a nasty thing to say.  Maybe.  Even if it was true.

The real damage started when Cohen’s lawyer, Steve Wagner, decided to sue this anonymous blogger.  Instead of, say, 1,700 people thinking of this partying model as a “Skank-Ho”, now millions and millions of people are making that association.  As is Google.  Put in Skank, and the first picture you get is Liskula Cohen.  The first persons mentioned are Liskula Cohen and Rosemary Port.  Are they really skanks?  I don’t know, but who am I to argue with Google?  Can Liskula Cohen sue her lawyer?  After all, the damage done to her reputation by his lawsuit far, far exceeds that from the barely known anonymous blog.

And who could Jessica Biel sue?  Over 753 articles have headlined her as the “most dangerous celebrity in cyberspace” claiming that “Jessica Biel could give you a (PC) virus.”  Isn’t that a bit negative?  What did she do to earn this honor?  MacAfee created a list of celebrities who they claim are dangerous when searched for.  Naturally, they are selling something.    Can anyone double check their findings?  Seems to me that it’s just a pure press release play, using celebrity names to raise fear and drive people to buy more MacAfee.  Personally, I’ve never gotten a virus from Jessica Biel, or from any other online celebrity.

The stock market plunged 680 points yesterday, after hearing the official news that we’re in a recession.  We’ve been in a recession since December 2007.  But you don’t get the official Recession Achievement Badge until the National Bureau of Economic Research says you’re in a recession.  Generally, this is believed to be when there have been two quarters of negative growth, but like every easy formula, it turns out to be just something they tell the public.  It’s more complicated.

Still, everybody knew we were in a recession, and it was only a matter of time until that was announced.  So why did the stock market dump?  The stock market is supposed to aggregate information from the wisdom of crowds and use that correctly price stock.  But the only information that changed was that we went from “unofficial recession” to “official recession”.  I use quotes, against my better judgement, because the National Bureau of Economic Research is actually a private body.  If this was something that everyone knows, and an announcement that everyone know would come, how could it change the information available to this supposedly near-perfect pricing mechanism?

California voters have passed a proposition that defines a word, but has no other legal consequence.  Proposition 8 says: Only marriage between a man and a woman is valid or recognized in California.  However, even proponents of the law point out that, under California law, domestic partners shall have the same rights, protections, and benefits as married spouses.  So why bother? 

The stated claim that this somehow “defends marriage” is too ludicrous to be taken seriously.  Straight celebrity couples are doing far more damage to the image and reputation of marriage than any known gay couple.  We all know about Britney Spears and Kevin Federline.  Name one gay couple who has had anywhere near the public drama?  No, this argument is about possession of a word.  Who gets to define the term marriage?  In California, it’s a large group of people who claim the word Christian who also want to claim the word marriage.  For some reason, they feel their message is weak, so they turn to the State to do it for them.

Why not?  The California initiative system lets people pull pretty much any stupid idea out of their collective ass, and then vote it into place.  Even something as stupid as having the State force the religious definition of a term into law.  People in California are perfectly happy to flood courts with half-baked legislation, though they then complain about judges making law.

But, hey, anybody can play.  If we’re going to have the State define religious terms, let’s have them define something big.  How about the term Christian?

Of course we could make up any definition and if we got enough signatures, it would go on the ballot.  But let’s try to give it some reasonable basis.  The term Christian should obviously pertain to someone who “follows Christ”.  So the best authority would be Christ telling people how to follow him.  For instance:

Matthew 19, 21 – 22,

The young man said to him, “All of these I have observed. What do I still lack?” Jesus said to him, “If you wish to be perfect, go, sell what you have and give to (the) poor, and you will have treasure in heaven. Then come, follow me.” When the young man heard this statement, he went away sad, for he had many possessions.

Also,

Luke 6, 30, 36 – 37

To the person who strikes you on one cheek, offer the other one as well, and from the person who takes your cloak, do not withhold even your tunic. Give to everyone who asks of you, and from the one who takes what is yours do not demand it back.

But rather, love your enemies and do good to them, and lend expecting nothing back; then your reward will be great and you will be children of the Most High, for he himself is kind to the ungrateful and the wicked. Be merciful, just as (also) your Father is merciful. “Stop judging and you will not be judged. Stop condemning and you will not be condemned. Forgive and you will be forgiven.

So, some principles we can abstract:

• Giving up possessions
• Turning the other cheek
• Giving to people who ask of you
• Non-judgmentalism

Therefore we can safely remove the title of Christian from churches where wealth is common, where war is promoted, where generosity, in any form, is derided, and where people are judged by anyone other than God.

Since law is usually better with large, broad strokes, let’s just say that any church that has large buildings, fancy cars in the parking lot, that advocated for the War in Iraq, that opposes social programs, or that encouraged members to vote yes on Proposition 8 can no longer carry the name, Christian. And, when in the State of California, anybody who violates these premises, yet calls themselves a Christian, will be fined or jailed.  Why not?

Last night I went to the DC small claims court.  It turns out they have evening hours on Wednesday.  It also turns out that there’s one woman working behind the counter, struggling with technology that intermittently fails her.  A few other people waited in the room with me.  Two guys, probably contractors, playing some game where they identify drawings back and forth, and one professional guy who sat quietly.  A woman ahead of us stood at the counter and chatted about rent.

I had most of my paperwork done, and the woman was very helpful, and now I have a court date.  My major goal is that, somehow, Best Buy will learn something.  Like, my hard drive is important to me.  It’s my property.  You can’t just take it.  My fear is that, even if they lose, they won’t learn.

Today’s Washington Post quotes me, as follows:

the $700 billion price tag “doesn’t seem comprehensible to me. Theoretically, most of it should be paid back, right?”

Now, I did say that. I even gave the writer (who is an attractive woman, BTW) permission to use the quote, by itself. I don’t have a problem with it, don’t feel I was mis-quoted or mis-represented. But I was curious about the nature of the story.

The reporter wanted to write a story about the “feelings” of the person on the street. When she first asked me, I explained I didn’t really have feelings. I had some thoughts. I gave her a lot of my thoughts. She noted that I seemed pretty well informed, implying I probably did have feelings. My quote was my way of saying that, because the number was so inconceivable, there was no point in processing it on an emotional level. In the article, it was just another feeling.

I liked the article, but I just think it’s interesting. Newspapers assign stories according to well-known structures. When they go out to find the quotes to fill in the structure, they find what fits.