Sometimes one's foibles are funny in and of themselves.

I realized this last night:

I like Chili Cheese dogs. Ironically, my hot dog of choice for Chili Cheese Dogs are Hebrew Nationals.

Those Wacky North Koreans

It kind of strikes me as similar to W's "Bring 'em on!" statement, except they haven't invaded (again) yet.

From Yahoo!:

North Korea threatened South Korea with destruction Sunday after Seoul's top military officer said his country would consider attacking the communist nation if it tried to carry out a nuclear attack. ...
"Our military will not sit idle until warmongers launch a pre-emptive strike," said an unidentified KCNA military commentator. "Everything will be in ashes, not just a sea of fire, if our advanced pre-emptive strike once begins."

This is the thing about North Korea. They have virtually nothing. They rely on foreign aid for just about everything, from energy to food to weapons to clothing. There is really nothing for them to lose by playing dirty, and, in order to keep up their regime, cannot play nice, lest the citizens of the nation catch on that the rest of the world is not as unbelievably poverty-stricken and barren as they are. This means tough rhetoric - an us against the world position. This also means that aid that goes to North Korea that is supposed to help ease tensions somehow end up not being attributed to the helpers who provide it.

Kim Chong Il would much rather see his people starve to death and stay in command than relinquish control of a nation that's been propped up by international aid for over a decade. Yet, in the wake of over 2 million North Koreans killed at the hands of a leader who won't help them, we invaded another nation in a pre-emptive strike to keep them from launching a strike against us (which, incidentally, is what South Korea said they would do, and what North Korea said they'd do if South Korea did that).

Every now and then, North Korea just has to make sure its name is back in the headlines, lest we forget they exist (because it's so easy for us to forget our Axis of Evil enemy without the oil reserves who has quite possibly committed many, many more crimes against humanity in the name of "Self-Reliance," or "Juche").

Bush and Cheney - War Criminals?

Some are suggesting yes, and pointing to others who are pointing to evidence seeming to corroborate such a claim.

Keeping Well Enough Alone

I'm not sure what credibility Karl Rove has right now. But, that doesn't stop him from stumping. I can't decide if he's attacking Obama because Barack is the presumptive Democratic candidate, or if it's because he's working for Hillary to keep the Bush-Clinton family in the White House. Either way, attacking Obama with a question like "what bills has he sponsored?" is right out of Rove's playbook. He knows that most Americans have heard that Obama is not very experienced in Congress (W had no Congressional experience and not much as Guverner of Texas), and that one way to help get people to look away from the potential candidate is to draw attention to that perception. It's a nice innocent question, because it has an answer, and the answer is "a lot," but most people aren't going to go look and see how many bills and amendments to bills Obama has sponsored or cosponsored, and the phraseology is what matters, because it implies that he has done nothing while in the Senate. In truth, however, Barack Obama's name appears as sponsor or cosponsor on 120 bills and amendments according to the Library of Congress website.

I have my reservations about Barack Obama. I have my reservations about John McCain. I have a hunch that whichever one I vote for, I'm going to have some serious buyer's remorse immediately. However, I know that I cannot vote for Hillary Clinton. Which means I'm probably looking at a third party again. If only there was one that was actually viable, like a moderate libertarian party. But maybe it's too late in the game for me to hope for a party closer to what I want from my government.

Single Parenting

The wife is out tonight for a friend's birthday/girl's night out shindig. I had been invited, but we didn't have a babysitter, and the house really wasn't in shape for having one over. So I decided to stay home with the young'uns.

The older two are in their respective baths, getting clean. The youngest, meanwhile, is enjoying some Wii time. This is good, because he really doesn't get quite as much time on it as the other two when they are all "sharing." I think I'm going to use this time to kind of keep my eyes open for something full-time, perhaps in compliance or something along those lines, or perhaps in wills and/or estate planning.

If we stay in Houston, and it's looking more and more likely that we will, then I think my buddy and I need to consider a three year plan. That is, three years from now, we should start our own family/estate practice with some simple wills on the side. I think we could do this, as we work well together, and we get along. But, perhaps I'm being a little premature with my plans. Let's worry about getting through this year first.

Perhaps a little concern

I went to the gym today. I stepped on the scale before my workout, as I always do. I noticed something slightly odd. I weighed less than I did the last time I went to the gym. Three pounds less from my post-workout weight last week. I lost 3 pounds without working out for a week. Being that I am not ignorant of diabetes, it made me somewhat concerned that I had weight loss without effort. But I don't have any other symptoms, such as polyuria, polydipsia, polyphagia, blurred vision, or fatigue. Also, the scale felt different. It wasn't quite as wobbly as it had been the last few times I'd gone in, and it was also on a new pad. It's entirely possible that my weight had been registering high the last few weigh-ins due to it not being properly balanced, and my weight was correct. So for the time being, I'm not going to stress the weight loss, as it's what I've been wanting to do for a while.

So the good news is, I'm 30 pounds down from where I was the day after I took the Bar (about 7 months ago). That's not bad. Now, if I can drop about 10 more, I'll be happy.

Choosing a Law School

Every year, the U.S. News and World Report comes out with an issue that ranks the nation's law schools. People put a whole lot of stock in these rankings, and the rankings from the Princeton Review; and many (and I do mean many) use the rankings alone as their choice for selecting a school. That's fine and dandy, I guess, if your concern above all else is prestige. But, quite frankly, that's not the only thing to consider when choosing a law school.

The first thing you should ask yourself is "what kind of law do I want to practice?" If you want to be a trial lawyer, an advocate, then you're probably not going to want to Columbia. Instead, look at NYU. South Texas College of Law has an outstanding advocacy program; one of only three in the nation (the others being Stetson and Temple) to rank on the top 10 list for trial advocacy every year of the rankings. A person with an interest more in intellectual property, however, would probably be better served to forgo South Texas, or even the University of Texas in favor of the University of Houston.

Another thing to consider is where do you want to live? Boston has a lot of history and tradition, but someone who has never lived north of the Mason-Dixon or east of the Mississippi might not be comfortable spending three years in an environment such as that. In that case, University of Oklahoma, or SMU, or something along those lines could be a good choice.

Cost is a factor, for many people considering law school, at least. I knew a girl who was admitted to Fordham University school of law, but had to choose another school (which gives you the same degree and lets you practice in the same courts) because of the lack of available financial aid after her loans capped out. She was disappointed at first, but now is enjoying her time at St. John's.

Other things to consider, perhaps more importantly than the number at the left of the school's name, are a couple other numbers: Bar passage rate, Employment rate, and average starting salary. These are the issues that are perhaps more important, and go more towards what people are looking to get out of their legal education. Choose a school with a high bar passage rate, like Texas Tech, Baylor, or Akron over a school with a high ranking but a lower pass rate. Find a school that has a stronger career services center, that does a good job helping students find their best placement. Look at potential salary, if that's why you went to law school. DePaul University and Loyola of Chicago are nearly identical in starting salary (Loyola is slightly higher) and bar placement, but DePaul is ranked 42 while Loyola is 82.

Finally, one has to consider the source. The U.S. News gleans its rankings from several different sources, but ultimately, these sources are not completely knowledgeable about every section of America. South Texas College of Law has a great reputation in and around Houston, and has trained some outstanding individuals (the CEO of Delta Airlines, and Chris Bell, 2006 candidate for Texas Governor, Texas Supreme Court Justice David Medina, and Dan Rather, who attended but did not graduate). But they are a local school, and aren't going to resonate with the bigwigs in New York or D.C. The same could be said, I'm sure, about schools like Ohio Northern University, Memphis, Cooley, or other schools that don't have the name recognition of a Michigan or a Georgetown or a Stanford.

The bottom line is, you can go to school anywhere and be a good lawyer. You can go to school anywhere and be a crap lawyer. What matters, more than anything else, is finding the school that fits what you want to do.

Spoiled Brats

I'm not much of a golfer. I've golfed once in my life, about 12 years ago, and I shot a 72.

However, I respect that it's a difficult game to play well, and that one needs to be able to concentrate. What I don't respect, though, is the behavior of "professional" golfers who throw tirades because someone makes the slightest hint of a noise.

For the love of Pete. You are a Professional Athlete. You are supposed to handle distractions. It's a damn camera. You are getting paid millions of dollars, and you want us to pander to you? Grow up. You don't see football being put on hold because the crowd is too loud to call the cadence. You don't see baseball players refusing to pitch or bat because someone's trying to buy cracker jacks. You want to show me you're the best? You want me to believe that you should be getting paid 7 figures to hit a ball at a hole with a stick? Do it in spite of the distractions. I think this would make the game much more interesting. Handle the pressure. You're an entertainer. You are there for us.

Don't believe me? Who's going to pay your check if fans don't show up, or don't buy your balls?

How Trite

Hillary Clinton recently made statements regarding her trip to Bosnia in 1996. These statements (almost) immediately were shown to be false. She was selling herself based on her experience, and made material misrepresentations of fact. Her explanation? "She misspoke."

Dictionary.com's definition of misspeak is as follows: 1. To speak, utter, or pronounce incorrectly; 2. to speak inaccurately, inappropriately, or too hastily.

I'm curious, if she spoke inaccurately, how she did so with such detail, and how she discounted a fellow passenger's explanation on the matter? I'm also curious, if she misspoke with such clarity, if she was referring to another mission that she flew to, and if so, when and where that was? Because otherwise, this seems less like a misstatement and more like a lie.

Perhaps the most perplexing part of this is how her spokesperson (and by extension, Hillary herself) could expect us to simply accept that she misspoke, and then turn the attention to Obama (in the article linked first, Clinton Spokesperson Howard Wolfson said the Obama campaign was pressing this because they had "nothing positive to say about their candidate"). They need to come up with a better answer, if one is available. But I think this is her losing moment - like George Romney's "brainwashed" statement, or Howard Dean's explosion, or Gary Hart's Donna Rice. At least, it would be, if the Press didn't give her a free pass on this issue.

Nelson M. has another take on this at The Liberal Journal.

The Surge is Not Working

For all the blather on the right that the Surge is working because violence was down, and the fact that at least one person is going to make note that it's somewhat arbitrary to mark the 4000th death in Iraq as a "grim" milestone (because the overall body count is lower than in other wars, so it can't be "grim," I guess), the question that really needed to be answered was "did the Surge work?"

For the answer to that, I would pass the mike to General Petraeus, who probably wasn't coached by the President or his staff.

"[N]o one (in the U.S. and Iraqi Governments) feels that there has been sufficient progress by any means in the area of national reconciliation."

Now, let's consider what the goal of the Surge was. The goal, by the President's own mouth, was to provide breathing space for national reconciliation. In other words, the military could not achieve victory by strength of numbers here. They could only create room for those who could achieve the victory to do so. Because this nation was not (and is not) ready for national reconciliation (or, possibly for democracy), this Surge strategy was doomed to fail from the start. It's not the fault of the military, who did their jobs well. It's the fault of the Iraqi government, who were ill-equipped to handle the responsibility given them, and it is the fault of our President and the over-deferent Congress, who created a power/balance vacuum with this war, not sufficiently thinking through the situation to determine how it would end.

But the Executive Branch (or is it Legislative?) has an answer for that.

We don't need no education

Our state board of education director: "What good does it do to put a Chinese story in an English book? That's not going to help you master ... English. So you really don't want Chinese books with a bunch of crazy Chinese words in them. Why should you take a child's time trying to learn a word that they'll never use again?"

I actually think this is a great argument - if you're a student. How many times have you heard a high school student bitch about have to learn trigonometry, because they'll never use it again? I'm a lawyer; I never use trigonometry. Think of all that time I wasted learning! Or history - The Executive apparently doesn't need to learn from it; why should we? Who needs spelling tests when our computers have spell-check? And "Science." Really. Who needs science? After the rapture, none of us are going to have to worry about biography or oceanography or kinesiology or astronomy or anthropology or any of that crap.

We just needs to learn how to pump gas and point guns so that America can be free.

Wash Away My Troubles

Those Who Do Not Learn From the Mistakes of Their Parents

Are doomed to forget where all the Easter Eggs are hidden.

There's History, and There's Hillary History.

Which version do you want to believe? They're both offered here.

But, Did He Like Broccoli?

A direct quote from the tour guide leading a discussion with a bunch of children: "If this creature [the Tyrannosaurus Rex] was designed to eat meat from the very start, what would he have to until Adam and Eve sinned and death entered the world? What would he have to do? Fast and pray for The Fall. Is that likely? The answer is ... 'No.'"

I'm all for believing in creationism. I'm all for believing in Evolution. Your beliefs are your own. But to suggest that the Tyrannosaurus Rex was a vegetarian because Adam and Eve hadn't sinned yet makes no sense to me at all.

Dick's Hypothesis

I can't imagine it being anything other than "A lie told often enough will become true."

How else could anyone rationally explain his incessant attempts to link Iraq with 9-11, despite the fact that the President, the military, and just about everyone who hasn't drunk the Kool-aid has conceded that Al-Qaeda WAS NOT INVOLVED WITH SADDAM HUSSEIN'S GOVERNMENT!!!!!!!!!!!

Listen. I'm all for asking for continued support of the troops. I don't even mind people rationally debating for a continued presence in the nation where "as [the Iraqi forces] step up, we will step down." But to try to twist conventional wisdom with what can not be described as anything less than a blatant lie is not just painfully wrong, it's a disservice to those who have gone and fought, and to do so in Iraq to a military audience belittles their intelligence.


It's gone beyond "have you no shame." It's now reached a "do you need to be medicated" point.

Rather than write my own post

I'm going to refer you to The Gun Toting Liberal's post on the DC Gun Ban case that is headed for the Court.

I commented, technically, on the post, but it was more prattle than reason. Still, it's an interesting look.

As Long as There Are Tests

There will be prayer in schools. It's not a difficult concept. What makes it difficult is the sometimes fanatical fervor some on the religious right go to in an attempt to foist their religious beliefs on those around them.

That's why when there is an article that shows at least some semblance of tolerance for the existence of other religions, it bears noting. In this case, it's a settlement following a Texas court ruling prohibiting the use of a student vote as to whether or not to have a prayer at the commencement (source: Americans United For Separation of Church and State). Judge Sam Sparks noted that the policy adopted by the school district - to hold student elections on whether or not to have a prayer at a commencement ceremony - has been ruled Unconstitutional by the Supreme Court, which has ruled that schools cannot impose prayers through student elections.

This is important, though there will be many on the religious right arguing that this is somehow preventing them from being Christian. That's not the case. The ruling does not even prevent students from praying at graduation. They can pray as much as they want. They just can't have a student-led prayer, or a Christian invocation at the beginning of the commencement. In other words, Christians are still as free to practice their religion as every other religious denomination in the district is.

Some on the religious right, though, won't see it that way. Many of them have come to equate religious liberty in America as somehow being hostile towards Christianity, under what I view as some form of insecurity. That is, they need the state to sponsor their religious beliefs, lest their beliefs be wrong, and they need this to be imposed on everyone, so that those "dang heathens" can see the rightness in being Christian.

Cross-posted with additional commentary by Photog at Rambling Photos of a Life Lived.

What we need

We took the kids to the rodeo today. The Houston Livestock Show and Rodeo is one of biggest things to come to town each year. This year, we did most of the time in the carnival part of the thing, letting the kids go on rides, eat giant mutant turkey legs, and sausage on a stick.

What we could have used were a couple lassos, as we had one heck of a time keeping the Apple and the Princess within shouting distance. They would both keep near us for a couple minutes, then simultaneously tear off in opposite directions. This was unfortunate, as we really wanted to stop by the booths and look at the vendors' wares. One of these days I'd like to get something from one of the stalls, just because. Maybe a hat, or a monogrammed belt buckle, or something.

Anyway, it was nice to do our annual redneck tribute and see the sites. Perhaps next year we'll actually get some tickets to sit down and watch the bull riding or calf roping or something.

I just want to Celebrate!

Happy Pi Day!