Is this Offensive?

I watched a rerun of an episode of The Big Bang Theory tonight, called The Vartabedian Conundrum. It originally aired on CBS on 8th December, 2008. I paused on the vanity card, a benefit of having TiVo, to read the joke — they’re often funny — excepting, this time, I wasn’t laughing. I thought it was offensive.

Vanity card #231 reads “I believe that inherent within the God-given right to the pursuit of happiness, is the equally God-given right to the pursuit of unhappiness. That is why I support gay marriage.”

Several of Chuck’s cards have been censored by CBS (e.g. #217), so it’s not as though the broadcaster isn’t paying attention.

How do you read card #231? Gay people deserve to be unhappy for wanting to get married? Why should only straight people suffer the misery of marriage? Something different? I’m not sure, but it doesn’t resonate well with me. Help me out here and comment on what you think it means and answer the question: Is this offensive?

Suggested reading: Chuck Lore’s vanity cards, by number | The Big Bang Theory TV Show | Variety’s article Vanity cards let Lorre sound off

This gives new meaning to taking a “light” snack!

You’ll find this photographic gem in National Geographic’s Daily Dozen for the 1st week in April, 2009 …

Photo and captions by James Snyder: April 2, 2009. This is a Cuban tree frog on a tree in my backyard in southern Florida. How and why he ate this light is a mystery. It should be noted that at the time I was taking this photo, I thought this frog was dead having cooked himself from the inside. I’m happy to say I was wrong. After a few shots he adjusted his position. So after I was finished shooting him, I pulled the light out of his mouth and he was fine. Actually, I might be crazy but I don’t think he was very happy when I took his light away.

I’m guessing the frog instinctively thought this was a fire fly!

Ground Zero Calculator!?

CarlosLabs Ground Zero

This will probably attract some seriously unwanted psychological counseling, but in case you’ve ever wondered what the effect of nuking your neighbourhood would be (from a selection of thermonuclear weapons and an asteroid impact), there’s an online mash-up just for you …

Flesh eating fish pedicures?

CNN’s Kitty Pilgrim reports “There’s something fishy about the trend in flesh eating pedicures” here.

Suggested reading Fish cartoon at Darren Garnick’s Culture Schlock | The Garra Rufa in Wikipedia Doctor Fish, claiming these little critters give relief to people with various Skin Disorders, including Eczema, Psoriasis and Dermatitis included | Buy your own here

Six months to renew a South African passport?!

Renewing a South African passport: Who could have imagined this would take a minimum of six months? Thankfully it’s only $50, but requires a full set of notarised fingerprints — something not so easily done for non-citizens in the USA. My wife gets her British passport renewed within a couple of weeks by post (or within 24 hours, in person) but they charge her nearly $250. I guess you get what you pay for, or do you?

No civilian chooses to carry a passport, or none that I know of. There shouldn’t be a hefty consumption charge on something you cannot do without and then not have those documents created within a reasonable amount of time and at a modest cost: A few weeks by posts seem reasonable. Overnight if you call in person would be nice. A minimum of six months seems punitive or inefficient or simply out of touch with the reality of life.

For those South Africans heading home for the 2010 World Cup, be warned, renew you RSA passport early!

UPDATE: March 22nd, 2009. My renewed passport arrived last week, about three and a half months after I applied for it. Just in time to be useless, without a visa, to visit Britain because RSA hasn’t kept up with securing their passports and reducing abuses.