Very Very Tired

The good news is that we got to eat lunch with Mr. and Mrs. Photog and Photog's sister today - a very fine lunch indeed, climaxed by a visit to Mama's Cafe by the Oath Keepers - who were a little unsettling to see, as they reminded me ever so slightly of what I imagine a militia group might be (I don't know the Oath Keepers at all and therefore can't speak to what they actually are, rather I can touch on the appearance). Much fun was had by all.

Then I got home and started working. And working. And then I took a break for dinner and am going to start getting back to work. These collections are not pleasant, to say the least. And they just keep coming.

Utter Nonsense

The headline reads "Palin Emerges as Facebook Phenom" on Yahoo. I am unconvinced, after seeing her first post and hearing her speak that her subsequent posts are written by her, and believe, rather, that they are the work of a ghostwriter.

Arrhhh, and Avast!

It's talk like a Pirate day, ye Scalawags! Now go and plunder!

Friday night

I'm tired. It's been a long week, and I had to bring work home again. This is probably going to continue for the next 2-3 months, which brings me endless joy and plenty of stress.

I'm definitely ready for this trial to be done, and it's not even starting until early next year.

Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic Politics Channel

Surprised?
Closing The Book On The Bush Legacy - The Atlantic Politics Channel

Shared via AddThis

Rush and Malkin: Race Baiting politics

Regardless of what the facts are. It's more important to vilify and divide than make even the slightest attempt at being factually accurate.

Rush states:

"In Obama's America, the white kids now get beat up with the black kids cheering, 'Yay, right on, right on, right on, right on... I wonder if Obama's going to come to come to the defense of the assailants the way he did his friend Skip Gates up there at Harvard."

I won't link to Malkin, but she runs with the "racially motivated" theme, and then claims that the police officer's recanting of his original hypothesis is not surprising "given the explosive consequences of candor about such matters." - Because it couldn't POSSIBLY be because the more complete picture told a different story...

Very Tired

Gotta make up for a holiday and a sick day last week. This, plus drying out the living room carpet, finishing the lawn which I couldn't finish yesterday due to the flood that caused the aforementioned carpet to be covered in water, and having to reconnect the propane to the grill - this is what I need to do this week.

Fiscal Conservatism Lives in the Democratic Party?

I have not gone to check these facts, but they are pretty complete - from the comments section of this post on Forbes.com:

The last Republican who left the office of the presidency with the federal public debt as a percentage of GDP less than when he entered was Richard Nixon (FY 1975). The last Republican who left the office of the presidency with a federal deficit less than 2.7% of GDP was Dwight Eisenhower (FY 1961).

Since WW II no Democratic president has ever left office with the federal public debt as a percentage of GDP more than when he entered. And since WW II no Democratic president has ever left office with a federal deficit more than 2.6% of GDP.

And:

In my opinion, fiscal responsibility mainly involves reducing the public debt as a percentage of GDP. (Anything less is unsustainable.) Since the end of WW II we've had 63 Federal budgets (FY 1947-FY 2009). If you consider the FY 2002 budget the product of a united Republican government (a Republican congress passed the tax cut) and FY 2003 the product of a divided government you have the following breakdown. Thirtynine budgets were the product of a divided government with 31 having Republican presidents and 8 having Democratic presidents. Twentyfour budgets were the product of united government with 19 having Democratic presidents and 5 having Republican presidents.

The Federal public debt increased as a percentage of GDP in 24 of those fiscal years.(It did not increase during the transitional quarter in 1977.) Eighteen of these budgets were the product of divided government and the remaining six were the product of united government. So although 38.1% of all of the budgets were a product of united governments only 25% of the budgets which resulted in an increase in the public debt were the product of a united government. It seems if reducing the public debt is your goal, then a united government is at least slightly preferable to a divided government.

The worst possible combination is a united Republican government. Three out of the five budgets passed by a united Republican government (60%), an admittedly small sample, resulted in an increase in the Federal public debt as a percent of GDP. The next worst combination was divided government with a Republican president. Eighteen out of 31 budgets passed (58.1%) increased the public debt. Only 3 out of the 19 budgets that were the product of united Democratic government (15.8%) increased the public debt. And none of the 8 budgets passed by a divided government with a Democratic president increased the public debt.

More Class from the Right

I'll link to Andrew Sullivan here, becauseI don't want the images on my blog, but it's hard to make an argument that ignorance or bigotry isn't playing a role in the hysteria surrounding President Obama.

I'm aware that there are those on the Right who don't view life though hate-colored lenses, but they aren't the people are showing up to Glenn Beck's rallies...

Can someone give me a cogent argument in favor of an alternative to the current healthcare plan being discussed? Please? Instead of Nazi equivocations (again - they were wrong when said about Bush, they're just as wrong when said about Obama.

Can't watch the Wolverines

Because we don't have Cable and President Bush signed that stupid freaking digital law back when he first entered the White House. Tomorrow I'll be forced to watch Fox for football. Joy.

Stay Classy, Glenn Beck

Hey Right Wingers, why do you listen to this guy? From Politico, via Andrew Sullivan:

The Cat's Out of the Bag

So I've been planning, for the past 3 months, to surprise my wife for our anniversary in November.

What I had told my wife was that we needed to take a vacation around Thanksgiving and drive up to Indiana to spend Turkey day with her parents. We'd spend about a week there, catch up on old times, etc, etc. I had hoped that this carrot would be enough to convince her to ask for 4 days off before Thanksgiving. This way she'd have to think about packing and clearing time and whatnot.

Unbeknownst to her, though, I had conspired with her parents. What we were REALLY doing was that while my wife was getting ready to drive up to Indiana, her parents would really be coming down here. At the last minute, I was going to tell her that we had had a change of plans and that instead of going to Indiana, she and I were going to Rome for our anniversary. Her parents would be here to watch after the kids for those few days we'd be gone, and everyone would be happy.

With her parents' help, we booked a flight, hotel room, and two tours, one a walking tour of Rome and another day trip to Naples and Pompeii. I'd basically thought of everything (including the idea of driving to Indiana thus necessitating the concept of packing). Unfortunately, due to circumstances that were beyond my control, yesterday I had to tell her of the plans. I'm proud to say she was completely in the dark (the in-laws willingness to front the cost of the trip with my reimbursing them later was a big part of that), and since we've been working on this for 3 months, I'm particularly excited about our operations security. However, the secret it out, and while it would have been nice to see her excitement when I told her, it was also very nice to hear her voice when she found out.

So, we'll be in Rome this November. Let me know if you need anythign that I can fit in my carry-on (I don't think Gladiators will fit).

Sick Day

I can't remember the last time I missed work due to my own illness, but it happened today. I feel awful, congested, nauseated, upset stomach, headache, fever... This is not much fun.

What's worse is that when I'm laying down, I feel fine, but if I get up, within about 20 seconds, I start feeling like crap again. Stupid colds.

Off to work

Have a great day, and remember: "Some days you win, some days you lose, some days get rained out, but you have to dress for all of them" (Satchel Paige).

The President's Speech

I thought he did pretty well. He managed to make a case that made sense, though I disagree with tort reform (if you want to lower the number of medical malpractice cases, then commit less malpractice - you know, eliminate the source).

I also agree that the cat calls during the appropriate calling a spade of a spade with regard to "death panels" was in bad form, as was Rep. Joe Wilson's shouting of "liar," though I'm sure that will make him a hero to many on the Right.

What do you think, oh 4 of you left who stop by?

Another GOP Flip-Flopper

Apparently, Sarah Palin was for end-of-life counseling before she was against them (of COURSE it's a good idea when it comes from a Republican and death panels when suggested by a Democrat-controlled congress)

Obama's Speech to the Children

It's innocuous - except to a few super-paranoid Right Wingers. The speech can be found here, which I found at this post at Balloon Juice.

Laura Bush noted that it's important to let your children hear the President speak, as she noted - it's important to respect the President. I made a slightly different statement, which I view as a little more accurate, in that I believe that it's important to respect the Office of the President - whether you like him or not, he was the duly elected Chief Executive.

I heard Newt Gingrich this morning stating he thought every American should let their children hear the President speak, noting that Bush and Reagan both addressed children directly without the backlash we've seen directed at our Democrat president.

My children will listen, and they will determine for themselves what information to accept and what to reject. I think it's important for them to hear the President speak to them directly - it helps instill a sense of ownership in our nation to know that our country's leaders think enough of them to do so. I would think that would help raise a future generation of proud Americans.

Speaking Engagements

Next weekend, on Sept. 12, one of the expert witnesses from Kitzmiller v. Dover Area School District will be in Houston. You can read the details on this post from Americans United, but to add a bit to who she is here - she's a "co-author ... of Creationism's Trojan Horse: The Wedge of Intelligent Design (Oxford University Press, 2004), which details the political and religious aims of the intelligent design creationist movement."

It should make for an interesting discussion.

College Football Season

And already Oklahoma fans are disappointed.

On a related note, the family and I went to see the UH Cougars play last night at Robertson stadium. It was a blowout win against Northwestern State. I rather enjoyed the college atmosphere, though, and wouldn't mind seeing another game or two. Though I do wish (sort of) that I had a school to which I had a "vested" interest, like most of my friends with undergrad degrees.

I still kick around the idea of getting a teacher's certificate at (say) Rice or UH, and parlaying that into a teaching gig in the local school district, though I would be willing to bet that my near center viewpoints would be viewed as left fringe...

There are some advantages to teaching, though - I would take a bit of a pay cut, particularly with the absence of overtime, but I would have fixed (and much fewer) hours, I'd have the summers off, and I'd have the advantage of job security - plus benefits - you know, government provided healthcare. Additionally, there would still be time for me to get some use of my law license - drafting wills, POAs, other such items...

I don't know how seriously I would consider a switch like this, but it's fun to kick around the idea - having summers off would make vacation planning much easier.

This is just embarrassing

That's the only word I can think of to describe the divisive nature of the current Republican party - the talking heads on the radio and television are riling up the ignorant masses about a threat of President Obama going after the children to try to indoctrinate them into his socialist agenda, like some sort of evil pied piper.

Of course, these same people didn't raise a peep when President Bush implored our nation's children to support the war in Afghanistan or the clusterfuck of mangled "facts" and rhetoric that became the "liberation" of Iraq...

Nor did I hear anything in 1991 when President George H.W. Bush addressed the children, of course, I was in school then, and wasn't aware that I had the opportunity to choose to not listen, just as in 1988 when President Reagan addressed us about the importance of education, low taxes, and the line item veto. (Much of the information provided above is covered in this post at Salon.com).

What's more embarrassing than the fact that the governor of our state is "troubled" by the President of the United States addressing American Citizens is that many people are actually going to NOT allow their children to hear the address, because they're afraid he "might" use it to spout left-wing, socialist rhetoric, and we can't have that happen to our children. God forbid a dissenting opinion be heard, another viewpoint be allowed to be conveyed - discourse is dangerous for democracy, apparently.

This makes me ill.

This is most unfortunate news

According to this post on ESPN.com, Ernie Harwell, the radio voice of the Detroit Tigers for so many years and a fixture in Detroit since long before I was born, has an inoperable tumor near his bile duct - he has terminal cancer.

I don't know that there's a Tigers fan around that isn't familiar with Harwell and his memorial play calling. This is a sad moment for me - a piece of my childhood is becoming a memory, and I'm going to have to watch it happen.

Godspeed, Ernie.

The Absurdity of it All

I'm not sure how to respond to this other than say that this came to me just hours after my wife heard griping on Fox News that the President "might use this time to use the children as a conduit to push his platform":

On Tuesday, September 8th, 2009, the President will address school children on the importance of education. It will be broadcast live from the White House website, www.whitehouse.gov. at 11:00am central time. [REDACTED] will be showing this address during advisement time at 3:10 p.m.

If you request that your child not participate in this broadcast, please send a note to your child's teacher and your child will be provided with an alternate activity.

A hard copy of this message will also be sent home with students on Thursday, September 3rd.

Please do not hesitate to call if you have any questions or concerns.

Dreary Posting

I've been in a bit of a rut lately, and I don't see myself breaking out of it anytime soon.

At some point I'll be inspired to write the next great work of blog, but for now it's probably going to be piecemeal.

To give you some interesting reading material, though, I present you with this post at Obsidian Wings displaying the fallacy of Cheney's argument that because Kalid Sheikh Muhammad gave us information after he was tortured, then the torture was what made him cooperate. In a nutshell, it would be like saying that since all serial killers drank milk at some point in their lives that the drinking of milk made them serial killers.

Additionally, my good friend Just Wondering at Vim and Vinegar has a good post here calling out the attorney general for his recent (in)action.

Glenn Greenwald has a very important post here about the recently released torture memos (note that Dick Cheney ended up back on the TV just a week after these new pieces of information came out - this is not a coincidence).

Any of the links on my blog are well worth checking out - but I wanted to bring a couple to the forefront today. Good day, and good reading.

Stupid liberal media

Chris Wallace, A Teenage Girl Interviewing The Jonas Brothers - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Shared via AddThis

Going to the Zoo

There's only so much Conservative pundit/politician defending of torture I can take, and the kids need a day of break.

We'll share our experience later, I'm sure.

keeping up appearances

What goes unreported by the right... KSM, The WaPo, And Torture - The Daily Dish | By Andrew Sullivan

Shared via AddThis

Dinnertime

Just wanted to let you all know, Psych is a really good show.

Thursday Morning

It's a tough thing to wake up realizing that you're not happy with your job, you have few people there with whom to relate, and you're tired of driving 2 hours a day to go do it.

Ted Kennedy is Dead

I don't think I have any real emotion here. It happened.

I've also had a very busy couple of days, which might have played a part in this... (lack of emotion, not Kennedy's passing).

Let's see if they can get it right again

I posted, nearly two years ago, on Activist Judges attacking Christianity in California.

Fortunately (he said sardonically), the Supreme Court has the opportunity to fix this snafu, by hearing the case and engaging in blatant judicial activism by legislating from the bench and ignoring stare decisis, and can reverse this opinion once and for all.

Barry Lynn of Americans United has filed an amicus brief in favor of the removal of the cross and continued adherence to the 1st Amendment barrier between church and state (plus the bill of attainder that would benefit the constructors of the Cross in question.

I encourage you to click on all the links above to see what the hubbub is.

Hyperbole and Rhetoric

John McCain is part of it. Of course, in the world of the Republicans, as this provision has been taken out, even if it was "ambiguous," it's old news, and thus doesn't warrant discussion.

new phone

So I have a new phone. I picked up a mytouch 3G for T-Mobile. It's rather nice, but I'm still figuring out the bells and whistles.

For example, it's apparently equipped with adobe flash, yet I've been unable to figure out which plugin I need to download in order to play flash...

More later, I'm sure.

I got Nothing

So I'll post a quote from a very evil person, but the quote seems apropos: "The bigger the lie, the more people will believe it."

They've Got Moxie, if not Facts

From TFN Insider:

The religious right’s tactics seem to have become ever more extreme in the past year. Today an organization with the credible-sounding name of The Center For Bio-Ethical Reform (CBR) used the Christian Newswire service to blast out a press release suggesting President Obama is a deranged murderer of “preborn children.”

Of course, it's not really Religious Right unless it has inflammatory rhetoric:

“Americans don’t want to pay for mandatory insurance which defines baby-killing as ‘essential care.’ They are turning against ‘end-of-life’ counseling which is more coercive than consultative. It is becoming increasingly clear that this horrifying plan is designed to reduce the numbers of preborn children who could ruin their parents’ careers and the numbers of elderly parents who might spoil their children’s retirements.”

And Group Director Greg Cunningham has apparently encouraged supporters to send e-mails with an image of Barack Obama made up as the Joker (which is fine, in and of itself, I suppose), but they apparently have adapted it somewhat to include a bloody hand holding a scalpel over a dismembered fetus, clearly not interested in rational dialogue, but rather relying on carnal, gutteral imagery to create discomfort in those who view the debate contrary to their position.

I don't completely understand what it is about the anti-choice crowd that they so often have to rely on this gimmick to try to make their point instead of coherent, rational debate. I suppose it's akin to those who were deeply moved by The Passion of the Christ - it has to be as basic and primal as possible to evoke the strongest emotions in hopes that (perhaps) by making people just uncomfortable enough, they will change their position. But I digress.

I don't understand groups like CBR, and I disagree with their methods. It would appear that in this instance, they are more interested in vile rhetoric than a frank discussion of the facts, a trait that more broadly applies to many on the Religious Right.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

Five more days until
School starts and daycare expense
drops dramatically.

- not that we're counting.

As always, I look forward to your submissions.

Sherlock Holmes and the Crucifer of Blood

Great show. I mean, outstanding. Good dialogue, excellent acting, terrific pacing... you could hardly ask for more in a play. The play itself was based on the Sign of the Four, the second Sherlock Holmes mystery. However, it wasn't the same as the story, it took just enough of a turn to make it a different story (an enjoyable one) and keep you from the direct answer.

Todd Waite, who has impeccable comedic timing and a countenance similar to Jim Parsons (Sheldon on the Big Bang Theory), was perfectly cast as Sherlock Holmes, but then again, all the roles were very well cast.

The show is done now - they're moving on to the next play (whatever that might be - I can't recall at this time), but should this show make a return to Houston, I think I would find a way to see it again.

The next play I want to see is The 39 Steps. Cross our fingers.

All the World's a Stage

At least, the Alley Theater is. Tonight we get to see "Sherlock Holmes and the Crucifer of Blood," which I understand to be a version of the Sign of the Four in play form.

I'm looking forward to it. And I'll be sure to let you all know how it came out.

Insomnia

I just realized that, what with NFL preseason kicking in, for the next few precious weeks, even the Lions are still not mathematically eliminated from the playoff race.

A Question That Needs to be Answered

The Republicans, through their leadership both in Congress and on the airwaves, have come out overwhelmingly against "Obamacare." They don't deny that health care reform is necessary, they simply oppose anything the Obama camp proposes (even stuff thrown in there by Republicans).

I think it's a fair question to ask "What is their alternative? What do they propose instead? If you don't have an alternative solution, then why not work with the administration to figure out a reasonable compromise?"

As far as I can figure, the opposition's position is "we don't like anything proposed by the Democrats, but rather than try to come up with our own ideas, we're going to to oppose this until it's in the dirt and then use the fact that there's been no health care reform as a launchpad for the midterm elections." Am I wrong? Other than saying "this isn't right," what else has the Right offered?

So confused

I just watched a 6 minute clip of a Fox News interview posted on Andrew Sullivan's site where the reporter was harassing the White House spokesman about the request the White House issued for e-mails with questions about Health Care reform be forwarded to the White House where these questions can be answered with the facts about Health Care reform.

The Fox News spin is that this is an enemies list, and the reporter made a pointed effort in using the phrase enemies list several times throughout the interview, even after this idea had been refuted by the spokesman.

The question then moved to "are you keeping these records of e-mails" that you claim aren't an enemies list (leaving the doubt in the mind of the listener)? The spokesman then answered in the negative, adding "why would we?" This led the reporter to castigate the spokesman, noting that there's a law in place that prohibits the President from deleting records he received (planting seeds of nefariousness), apparently forgetting the millions of deleted/lost e-mails from the Bush administration, which, to my knowledge still haven't been recovered...

The whole interview was a transparent attack on the White House and a specious implication that the White House is assaulting our 1st Amendment/Civil Liberties rights. The same rights that didn't matter too much under the previous administration (remember the poo-pooing of the warrantless wiretaps?) are apparently being "assaulted" by a request to answer legitimate misconceptions about what is being proposed. Strangely, it would seem that the Fox News interview is more geared towards silencing the reformers from getting their message out with an attenuated claim on loss of 1st amendment rights, as opposed to what they are claiming.

I would put the interview on here, but I don't want to give Fox News any more bandwidth.

Wednesday is Haiku Day

"Attorneys serve at
Pleasure of the President"
But don't piss off Rove.

Photog, this may interest you

Did God have a Mistress?

Don't Take My Private Insurance Away!!!!

I don't want the government setting up death squads and killing babies and old people! I know it's going to happen because Obama is a fascist and only Sarah Palin truly understands the health care debate - she understands it so well, I'm not even convinced she's read it. Unless she's just outright lying (could it be?)

School Days

So we got a letter in the mail from the Boy's intermediate school (5th and 6th Grade). Essentially, it's a welcome letter explaining what the school is like and a few tips and whatnot.

On the back page is listed a dress code. Two things struck me: 1. no "satanic" shirts and 2: No shirts with obscenities on it .

These two issues are a little problematic because as I understand it, it makes the school dress code Unconstitutional. Let me explain: first, the district is banning "satanic" shirts, however, no mention is made of a restriction of "Christian," "Muslim," "Jewish," "Hindu," or shirts of any other religion (satanism is a religion). In other words, the state (via the public school district) is adopting a policy that disfavors one religion over all others. This is a clear violation of the Lemon Test, the three prongs of which are: 1. a legitimate secular purpose (I'm not certain what the secular purpose of this might be), 2. a pimary effect that neither advances nor inhibits religion (this CLEARLY inhibits religion as it's an outright ban on one religion), and 3. te statute must not foster an excessive government entanglement with religion (which it probably doesn't). In order to be a legitimate code, the rule must pass muster on all three prongs of the test. Just by plain reading of the code, and then of Lemon, it is painfull obvious that this rule is violative of the 1st Amendment.

The second issue is a little less of an issue, and may very well be just fine. We know that a student's Constitutional rights do not end when they enter a schoolhouse, but we also know that a student's Constitutional rights are not as encompassing as a public citizen's outside of school. That said, it's been ruled in Des Moines that a student may wear an armband in protest, and we know that Bong Hits for Jesus resulted in a suspension upheld by the Supreme Court with Chief Justice Roberts writing the opinion (surprise - he supported the State!). It's possible that this is entirely kosher, but it's likewise possible that my child can wear a shirt with political speech that might be protected.

Of course, neither I nor any of my family to my knowledge is a practicing satanist, and I doubt that anyone in my family is going to wear a shirt that says "Fuck the End of Days war in Iraq entered into by President GW Bush" to school, but that's not the point, really. The point is that these rights need to be protected for those who DO want to do so, or who DO believe the way they do.

Anyway, what do y'all think? Particularly with regard to the second point, which is much fuzzier in my mind as to its Constitutionality...

Ahh, that Liberal Media

If it weren't for them we'd never hear anything from Republicans (except through blogs, like below).

Such as Sarah Palin's new diatribe against President Obama's Healthcare Reform.

The America I know and love is not one in which my parents or my baby with Down Syndrome will have to stand in front of Obama’s “death panel” so his bureaucrats can decide, based on a subjective judgment of their “level of productivity in society,” whether they are worthy of health care. Such a system is downright evil.

Nowhere does she point to an actual section of any proposed healthcare bill that would subject ANYONE to this (it doesn't exist), but what's more surprising is that thousands of people will hang on her every word as though it's gospel, even when she's spouting a rejected "Outer Limits" story plot.

Unrelated Thoughts

I'm unconvinced that Paula Abdul won't be back on American Idol - she's very popular among the fans and the performers, and the show's ratings have been slipping the last couple of years. Having a mini-scandal about whether or not she's going to return is just the ticket they could use to have people talking about the show during the lean months that nobody is thinking about it. I would not be surprised in the least if she comes to some agreement at the 11th hour and the show is "saved."

Michael Vick is out of jail and is reportedly looking for a team to play football for. Roger Goodell has given him partial reinstatement and will reconsider full reinstatement to the NFL after training camp. I'm surprised (very) to not see Vick get suspended by the league. He was convicted of a felony - of raising dogs to fight, and of violating state laws. On top of that, when asked about his complicity by Goodell, he denied any involvement. In other words, he lied to the boss. That in and of itself, even without the conviction should be grounds for suspension. I don't buy the canard that he served his suspension while he was in prison - he was suspended by the league then, he was serving his debt to society, these are not concurrent acts. He continues to owe a debt to the league, in my opinion. I'm not one of those guys who says he shouldn't be allowed back in the NFL at all - though I don't particularly want to see him making the millions he made before the conviction. However, I do think that it's inconsistent to reinstate him with no suspension given the league's recent history of suspending all players convicted of crimes.

Conceding the Argument, Cont'd

Glenn Greenwald again - Rush Limbaugh comparing Obama to Hitler and Pelosi to Nazis

How anyone can seriously listen to Rush and consider him legitimate about anything is beyond me.

I don't expect the same level of outrage and noise denouncing Rush that the Republicans heaped on MoveOn.org back in 2004, but it SHOULD be there.

Is This Even Possible?

We know that President Bush is a born-again Christian, and that he depends on his faith to guide him. These are laudable, and there is nothing inherently wrong with this position.

What is wrong is this article from the Council for Secular Humanism.

I'm not even sure where to start with this. Let's consider this paragraph:

Incredibly, President George W. Bush told French President Jacques Chirac in early 2003 that Iraq must be invaded to thwart Gog and Magog, the Bible’s satanic agents of the Apocalypse.

The article continues:

Now out of office, Chirac recounts that the American leader appealed to their “common faith” (Christianity) and told him: “Gog and Magog are at work in the Middle East…. The biblical prophecies are being fulfilled…. This confrontation is willed by God, who wants to use this conflict to erase his people’s enemies before a New Age begins.”

This is disturbing on several counts. First, it's that the President seems to believe that the End of Days are occurring on his watch and that it's his duty as a Christian to cast out the evil that is the sovereign state of Iraq. Even more concerning is that he apparently used this belief as the crux of his argument in attempting to garner support for his invasion of Iraq. But perhaps the most confounding of this is that this was never mentioned as one of the "justifications" for the invasion to the American people back in 2003, thus denying us the opportunity to see how his faith "guided" him.

This was all reported by former French President Chirac, who confirmed it, according to the article linked above. While this hasn't been confirmed by the Bush White House, and I doubt it will be because of the hyper level of fanatical nonsense involved, perhaps an actual denial from Bush and company might be necessary to at least give a counter-point - though with all the other "reasons" for the invasion holding no water, it's unlikely a denial will ring terribly true.

And the religious Right, who are attempting to vilify President Obama as a Muslim now, were all up in arms about his connections to (Christian) pastor Jeremiah Wright. Wright is a loudmouthed boor, but to the best of my knowledge, he hasn't attempted to convince anyone that he is on a mission from God to relieve the world of Gog and Magog.

The Reporters in North Korean prison

While I am happy to see them released, and bemused that Bolton is criticizing the means by which we secured their release, I must say I think the point that people need to remember is that these two reporters illegally entered North Korea willingly and knowingly, aware of the reputation of their "hosts." They brought their fate upon themselves, and really owe President Clinton et al more than they will ever realize.

The coup of all this is not that North Korea is going to get some sort of quid pro quo out of this - that was going to happen regardless as we weren't going to let these two young women sit in jail for over a decade no matter who was president. No, the coup was that they were stupid enough to go into North Korea and give this nation of syphillic leaders leverage to negotiate. A stupid voluntary act by Americans that makes those we purport to be our enemies some power at the bargaining table.

At least this time the idiots were just journalists and not the Executive Branch.

The Bush-Nixon ideal

Nixon and Bush both made little secret of their desire for the Supreme Court - "Strict Constructionists" who would only participate in judicial activism when it suited their interests, not others.

I wish I could remember right offhand who said it and what the exact quote was, but someone once made a reference to the importance of several mindsets on the judiciary and how reaching a majority in such a manner was very important.

What we see right now is evidence of single-mindedness, particularly with regard to the Bush-appointed justices, Roberts and Alito, who according to the National Law Journal, ruled with each other in 92% of the cases heard by the Court last year. These same two justices also ruled with Justice Scalia 87% of the time.

The voting records for the justices are all (un)surprisingly high along the idealogical lines, but there is clear evidence that the triumvirate stick together...

Rare Glimpse - Birthers in Action!

See how they act here!

Ahhh, good times

John McCain - where would we be without him? The man who supported President Bush through his 8 years of executive branch power grab, who NOMINATED SARAH PALIN for Vice President, and who still came exceedingly close to the office of the President, just showing how well-oiled the Republican machine is... is undecided on Sotomayor because he's not certain she understands the limits of judicial power...

I'm not certain Senator McCain understands the limits of Judicial Power, but more importantly, I'm concerned the Senator McCain is seemingly more interested in constraining the mythical "activist judiciary" than he is in containing the aggressive federal expansion that took place during the Bush administration - the USA PATRIOT Act, the 4th amendment violations, the unitary executive theory, the premise that a sitting president could order the crushing of a child's testicles if he (in his own counsel) determined it necessary for "national security," the holding of non-combatants as "the worst of the worst" indeterminately with no trial, no access to the evidence against them, and not even a charge - even AFTER they've been cleared of any wrongdoing (sometimes before they were detained by us, even), the record deficits in a period of growth, etc.

But we gotta watch out for that activist Bush-appointed (Bush 41) "wise latina." She's going to destroy the country.

"See? He's Failing!"

That seems to be the message that the Republicans wanted all along - that Barack Obama was a partisan who wasn't *really* interested in cooperation. In fact, it's the message Senator McCain spouted on CNN, according to this Politico article.

Now, granted, I've not been paying 100% perfect attention to the goings-on in Washington, but what I have noticed is that the Republican Party's goal appears to be "reject ANYTHING President Obama puts forward regardless of merit or need so that we can undermine his claim to be bipartisan." The stark difference between this and the previous administration's position of "you're either with us or against us" is confounding.

It's come to the point that I have a hard time believing I could ever vote for a Republican again on the national stage, because it seems very clear to me that they are only interested in making others look bad, while the actual result is that they appear the whiny, petulant, petty children who think that Sarah Palin was a good choice for VP.

Worst of the Worst

Except when they're innocent. The Bush Administration was a pox. Read this Glenn Greenwald article. I can't summarize - too ticked.

Happy Birthday Enoch Eller

I don't have much today.

But I do have money again - yay payday.

Gotta draft some Wills

I will be drafting at least 2, one medical power of attorney, and possibly 2 living wills.

Can't wait.

In other news, I'm about ready for a barbeque, y'all are invited.

To the "Birthers"

What proof is going to be sufficient? The birth certificate has been produced and reviewed by an independent panel. The State of Hawaii has gone on record affirming it as true and correct. The Supreme Court denied cert on a challenge...

My guess is there will never be sufficient proof for this particular brand of numbskullery. I think this is going to persist until he's out of office, and even then there will be whispers.

Get over it. There are several legitimate reasons to malign the president, such as his shameful embrace of Bush administration detention tactics that this trumped up tripe is a total timewaster.

Well-Known Liberal Bias

I have long wondered how there came to be this "well-known" liberal bias that I keep hearing spouted out as a talking point. Last I checked, Fox News, the Washington Post, and the New York Times were all part of the "MSM," not to mention "Meet the Press."

Glenn Greenwald did an outstanding job of covering this myth here.

My take on it is that several years ago some stories that some influential people on the right considered important were overlooked by the media because the majority of Americans didn't care (if people don't care, it's not newsworthy). They then decided that this was a product of "liberal bias." If it's not this, then it could be a product of Rush and his machine creating this environment of a split nation.

But what to do with all the favorable reporting of President Bush during his first 2 years in office (ignoring the dangerous situation he and his policies were creating), as well as all the negative reporting regarding President Clinton, President Obama, and other such situations? That's simple - you ignore it - and focus instead on piddly stories that mean little, if nothing, to bolster your claim. If you repeat a story often enough, it becomes true, apparently.

Pork Chops

We're having pork chops and Kraft dinner tonight.

Yum.

Sarah Palin's Gone

Yet she couldn't resist taking one last swipe at the media that for whatever reason decided they couldn't love someone who ran on style but no substance. She criticized the media for attacking her family, though she's the one who put her family in question by foisting them as one of her qualifications for the office of the Vice Presidency.

Now while I think most of the real challenging to her qualifications came from bloggers and not the MSM, who for reasons known only to the GOP were not given press conference access or the ability to ask follow-up questions to the darling candidate, I think she reaped what she sowed, and had she wanted her family to stay out of the limelight, she easily could have done so (see Vice President Biden).

A Train Wreck, the Unfortunately, Isn't Going Anywhere

Sarah Palin is gone from the Governor's office in Alaska, subject to several ethics complaints (note: not frivolous), and an academic/intellectual disinterest that seems dangerous in a politician.

But, she did give her own remarks yesterday, with no teleprompter, so she must be better than Obama!

Passing it Forward

Today I'm just the conduit, linking to what Glenn Greenwald wrote about the hypocrisy of the Obama administration on detainee treatment.

This was abhorrent under Bush, it's no less abhorrent under Obama.

To All the July 2009 Texas Bar Exam completers

Congratulations on getting through the exam, and good luck on the results.

I offer this post as an open post for anyone coming in looking for results to the 2009 Texas State Bar Exam to write about their experience. Was it hard? Not as hard as you thought? Surprisingly easy? Did you get your rear handed to you? Did you knock it out of the park?

Enquiring minds want to know - besides, it's therapeutic to decompress.

"Frivolous."

There are few words out there less appealing to hear as a Plaintiff's lawyer than the accusation that something is "frivolous." It's what the Health Care lobby has paraded around for years to help cut down on malpractice suits (doctors have to charge a lot because insurance is high because of all the "frivolous" lawsuits), tort reform (insurance lobby?) (ambulance chasers waiting to file "frivolous" claims), etc.

The problem is that the term is so overused that people forget that it has meaning. Quit frankly, if a case has merit, it's not "frivolous," and although I would much prefer people work through their issues via other methods such as ADR or mediation, if a claim is enough to withstand summary judgment, then it's definitely NOT frivolous.

Why do we bring this up? Because one of the Darling of the Right Base's current talking points is this whole concept of her detractors wasting government money by filing "frivolous" ethics complaints against her. The problem is, they're not all frivolous, (source: Celtic Diva) in fact, several have merit, or were dismissed for procedural reasons. More to the point, it would appear that there's been a report that a recent ethics violation filing was found to to be "valid," (source: the Mudflats) which is most certainly not "frivolous." Of course, since she's already been found to have violated the ethics act, (source: Andrew Sullivan) it's hard to believe her anyway when she says that investigations into her alleged ethics violations, and then complains about it driving up taxpayer dollars (another lie - courtesy of the Mudflats again).

Yet in a recent Rasmussen poll, she was found to be only 4 points shy of President Obama, who's spent his first 6 months working to undo the damage from the last intellectually incurious governor the GOP raised on their banner as the best possible leader for the country. My question is, where do these people come from, and do they pay attention?

Now I'm not particularly fond of President Obama's approach to civil liberties, particularly with regard to the detainees, (source: Glenn Greenwald) but I don't believe for a moment that things would have been any better with "Bomb, bomb bomb, bomb, bomb, Iran," "The fundamentals of the economy are strong," reckless Senator McCain and the farce of a Vice Presidential candidate he selected.

We're All Egyptians Now?

I don't have a lot of time this morning, but I wanted to link to a post I found while reading at Andrew Sullivan's blog. This post hypothesizes that the Christian concept of heaven comes from Egyptian polytheism...

The blog is called the "Evolution of God." I've only read this post that I've linked to, but I do believe I will find my way back to this site. It's always interesting to read how the church has changed over the years, from once rejecting potatoes to its position on abortion, not that I expect these concepts on this blog, but anything explaining how our Christian belief system came to be what it is now can only be helpful.

But They Made a Pact!

Look, I'm all about teaching abstinence, and I'm even all for practicing it - I've been doing so since my wife told me I was, which pretty much coincided with the birth of our last child over 5 years ago...

But as Bristol Palin might say, it's not realistic to teach children to just say no. Interestingly enough, a Palin made a public statement that's backed by empirical evidence, in this case by the CDC.

Of course, anyone who's been paying attention probably already knew that.

When it comes to gun safety, you teach gun users how to do so safely. The same should be true with sexuality - you hope they don't have to use the knowledge and that the kids spend their time just practicing by themselves, but should they find themselves in a compromising position, they're prepared to handle the situation, as opposed to draining the state's resources on shots at the free clinic, hospital stays that are paid for by taxpayer dollars. Additionally, it would ostensibly help cut down on terminated pregnancies - something that seems to be very high on the priority list for the Abstinence-only crowd...

I just think this is funny

It's Parody.

The Case Against Sotomayor?

So, Judge Sotomayor's confirmation hearings ended last week, and among the first things I heard from the Bush base was that she was unintelligent, an "activist," a "bigot," and unqualified for the job that was a foregone conclusion to be hers. What I didn't see in these posts, however, was an ounce of support for their conclusory statements.

As recently as yesterday on an open post on my good friend and fellow AF vet Gun Toting Liberal's site there were such conclusory statements:

As a person, Judge Sotomayor is a racist, a bigot and a liar, there is no way, besides blatant liberal hypocrisy, to excuse her statements of the last 20 years, let alone the way those statements exactly contradict the ones of the last twenty days. As a judge, she is mediocre at best and cowardly at worst, She has shown no exceptional abilities to explain why she should attain the highest level of her profession, besides a decidedly liberal bent.
If her personal opinions were voiced by anyone besides a “wise latino woman” that persons public service career would come to a very abrupt and publicly humiliating end. Schumer, Leahy et all would make sure of it.

To this, I posted a reply:

Links, and support please. Judge Sotomayor has a longer record than any nominee in the past generation, surely there are several cases that show her lack of exceptional abilities and decidedly liberal bent, and contradict the ABA’s rating of “Well qualified,” as well as her record of being rated (at a minimum) qualified over her tenure.

What I was looking for, and what I thought was fairly apparent from my comment, was some evidence supporting the claim that she was "mediocre at best and cowardly at worst," as those statements seem to need to stem from some empirical evidence. What I got in return was yet another conclusory statement:

If any conservative or moderate justice seated presently had ever once even mumbled anything remotely similar to what has basically been a mantra of Sotomayor, the liberals in congress and the media would have crucified them. The double standard that has been achieved here is stunning.

What's interesting about this comment is that it doesn't even come close to the subject on which I had asked for support - rather it reinforces (such as it is) the specious claim that Judge Sotomayor is a racist.

I attempted again to gather support for this position:

I never imagined GHWB would appoint anyone who was far left liberal to any judicial position. But again, I ask for the opinions that she wrote that establish her as a far left liberal as well as her reported lack of quality in her position, as well as explanations for those opinions demonstrating why they are liberal (or as others have suggested on other sites “activist”). Here, I’ll start the ball rolling by posting to another Obsidian Wings post on Sotomayor’s record, which in turn links to a Tom Goldstein SCOTUS Blog post on her record. His summary:

In sum, in an eleven-year career on the Second Circuit, Judge Sotomayor has participated in roughly 100 panel decisions involving questions of race and has disagreed with her colleagues in those cases (a fair measure of whether she is an outlier) a total of 4 times. Only one case (Gant) in that entire eleven years actually involved the question whether race discrimination may have occurred. (In another case (Pappas) she dissented to favor a white bigot.) She participated in two other panels rejecting district court rulings agreeing with race-based jury-selection claims. Given that record, it seems absurd to say that Judge Sotomayor allows race to infect her decisionmaking.

This record stands in stark contrast to the position that she is a racist or a bigot, though it does demonstrate she is of a different caliber than Justice Alito, who announced at the opening of his confirmation that he does use his ethnicity to help him form his opinions, a statement borne out in his concurring opinion in Ricci, arguably an activist decision based on empathy.

Here, as you see, I have produced not only evidence of Judge Sotomayor's record and the dearth of cases supporting a claim of racism or that her race would somehow influence her ruling based on the best evidence available - namely her record, and then proceeded to produce some evidence in controversion to the claim that the "liberals in congress and the media would have crucified" a Conservative appointee who made similar statements with the recent appointee of Justice Alito, who, one would assume, would have ample evidence of Media and Liberals "crucifying (interesting choice of words)" his statements about ethnicity affecting his decisionmaking. I don't recall a media frenzy about this when he went through the confirmation process, nor do I remember a huge media crucifiction of Justice Alito with his concurrance in the case linked above.

The response to this, supporting the categorical statements made above?

[I]t is your choice to ignore what she has repeatedly stated is her belief, the comment concerning her gender and ethnicity allowing her to render better decisions than others who do not share those same traits is not a one time, off- handed comment. It has been an oft repeated, ingrained belief, which happens to be bigoted and racist. My point being ... is that their (sic) exists a huge double standard in the Lib/ Demo leadership that is repugnantly hypocritical.

Again - note the complete lack of documented support for the position, rather a third iteration of the same talking points. This, of course, is how the Conservative base works - issue a conclusory statement that seems supportable by one or two statements taken out of context and then run on those - repeating them ad infinitum and then citing those others who repeat the same talking point to garner the appearance of greater support, thus leading the talking point to fester into a "fact."

Now I don't know - perhaps there is ample evidence of Judge Sotomayor acting as a racist/bigot and using said racism/bigotry to form her positions, but without actually seeing any of it - I cannot subscribe to such a position. Unfortunately, there are many out there incurious and partisan enough to take such a position and then dig in so deep that nothing can shake their "opinion." That said, I'm still open to empirical evidence demonstrating that Judge Sotomayor is what the wingnuts on the Right claim her to be.

Saturday Evening Posting

We finally got some rain - of course it started about 2 minutes before I was going to put the burgers on the grill - but we got some much-needed rain today. I actually can't remember the last time we got measurable rain up here.

I'm so very tired. Work hit hard when I got back, and it's going to continue for the foreseeable future.

It's going to be an interesting couple of months.

Weekend Plans

Either Bulgoki or Harry Potter. Is the new Harry Potter movie any good?

Mountains Out of, Well, Nothing, Really

One of the talking points against the current health care plan, as I've heard it, is that the plan will make private health care illegal. Indeed, a very quick perusal on the blogs will show the flailing, wailing, and posturing. Not only that, but you can even find the language they are all up in arms about in the House version of the bill: "Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day" of the year the legislation becomes law."

Yep, you look at the bill on page 16, and there it is, plain as day! In fact, so is the entire section: Sec. 102 A(1)(a):

SEC. 102. PROTECTING THE CHOICE TO KEEP CURRENT COVERAGE.

(a) Grandfathered Health Insurance Coverage Defined- Subject to the succeeding provisions of this section, for purposes of establishing acceptable coverage under this division, the term `grandfathered health insurance coverage' means individual health insurance coverage that is offered and in force and effect before the first day of Y1 if the following conditions are met:

(1) LIMITATION ON NEW ENROLLMENT-

(A) IN GENERAL- Except as provided in this paragraph, the individual health insurance issuer offering such coverage does not enroll any individual in such coverage if the first effective date of coverage is on or after the first day of Y1.

If you read the entire section, you see that the language that has so many people up in arms is actually limiting a DEFINITION of what qualifies as Grandfathered Health Insurance - it does NOT make private health insurance illegal.

Hats off to Hilzoy of Obsidian Wings for going the extra step of actually looking at the bill that so many others (as she documents on her blog post here) clearly missed.

Curiouser and Curiouser

What is it about Republicans that they want a judge who only rules according to the Rule of Law (a "strict constructionist"), yet then criticizes Sotomayor for doing so? And why do they chastise her for being referred to as having empathy (as Alito did during his confirmation), then try to lambaste her by parading the plaintiff in the recent reverse discrimination case and having him present his sympathetic fact situation?

One might suggest that Republicans are hypocrites. (and I focus on the Republicans because for 8 years during the Bush administration we heard about how important it was to be impartial, like an "umpire" calling balls and strikes, etc. by the talking heads of this very same party).

To Put it Bluntly

Dougj at Balloon Juice make a very sensible statement:

"I have a hard time wrapping my head around the fact that the same people who wanted to investigate Bill Clinton for an affair with an intern don’t want to investigate the Bush administration for torture and illegal surveillance."

So, let's hear the reasons.

The post linked above also notes: "MSNBC apologized for Wheeler’s choice of words. They didn’t apologize for Pat Buchanan’s comments about killing Levi Johnston."

Stay classy, Pat.

Unclear on the Definition

Sarah Palin is apparently not done with politics. It seems she has decided to strike out on her own, campaigning for all those who share her views of politics - which one would assume means "real Americans," though she does claim that she's going to campaign for Democrats as well.

What I found interesting about the article linked above is John McCain's assessment: "I don't think she quit. I think she changed her priorities."

While some might claim there is room for semantics here, the fact is that she campaigned for, and was elected to, the governorship of Alaska. She made a commitment to serve out at least one term. On July 3, she made a rambling wreck of a press conference where she explained that she was leaving prior to the end of her term, though she never explained why. According to dictionary.com, what that means is that she is, in fact, quitting. Definition #3: "to give up or resign; let go; relinquish: He quit his claim to the throne. She quit her job."

So, either Senator McCain is unaware of the plain definition of quitting, or he is trying to help salvage his tattered reputation for having so recklessly chosen this farce of a politician as a candidate by attempting to manufacture a plausible explanation for her giving up on her state.

7-11 is closing

It's not been a bad birthday at all. I got to sleep in until 8, I got to relax and play college football on the Wii, the spouse took the children out to the store and allowed me to go to the driving range for an hour or so. I even got to pretend that I knew how to drive a golf ball (I really should sign up for lessons).

I got home and found the children all home and excited - they got me the first season of Psych (really a rather entertaining show), and then we went out for dinner at Bluewater Grill with some very good seafood, though apparently I'm not much of a crayfish shucker...

Now I'm off to bed, where I will sleep a lot and wake up tomorrow enjoying my last day of rest before heading back to work.

Change of Plans

According to this article from Religion Clause Blogspot, the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals vacated an injunction (preliminary) that a federal district court in Washington state entered enjoining enforcement of the regulations requiring Washington pharmacists to fill all prescriptions, to include Plan B, even if doing so violates their religious beliefs. The Appeals Court applied the Rational Basis test in reaching its decision. For those unschooled in what that means, it means that the law is presumptively valid and the burden is on the challenger to show that there is not a legitimate state interest being affected. In this case, the legitimate state interest is the dispensing of drugs labeled safe for use by the FDA, as well as approved for use in the State of Washington for use by the citizens.

The challenge was brought by some pharmacists in the state, who argued that this law, mandating the dispensing of pharmaceutical drugs that they disapproved of, violated their religious beliefs. This, of course, is tripe. The state is not forcing the movants to dispense the drugs, rather, the state is saying (in essence) "if you want to be a pharmacist, then you must dispense the drugs that we say are allowed to be dispensed. If you don't want to do so, then don't be a pharmacist." In other words, you have to take the bitter with the sweet.

There is a very simple remedy for those pharmacists who truly feel a religious opposition to this, namely, they can stop being pharmacists. That's the beauty of capitalism - they can take whatever job they want, free of government interference. Of course the pay might be a bit lower than the $116,000+ Median salary of a pharmacist in Lakewood, WA, but at least you can rest with a clear conscience.

Understand, I am not making light of their religious beliefs. I completely understand that there are those who truly believe that their religion precludes them from assisting with Plan B or other contraceptive measures, and I respect that. That does not, however, mean that there is an automatic injury because the state is requiring one job to provide said contraceptives.

The Importance of Completeness

Sarah Palin recently attacked the "liberal media," this time quoting one of their own, Walter Cronkite: "Most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not, by my definition, they can hardly be good newspapermen."

Clearly, this shows a liberal bias on the part of all members of the MSM. Of course, that's a load of crap, but you know, those that consider her a darling of the base will buy whatever she throws out there.

However, the point isn't that she's trying to use one cherry-picked quote to paint a broad stroke over all the media, though that is important. Instead, one has to look a little bit deeper. I recall when in law school we were taught that you have to present all the law that you find, whether it is beneficial for your client or harmful - in other words, you have to tell the judge the whole story. This also means that you need context for what you present before the court. If you have text from a deposition wherein the defendant says "Yeah, I shot the guy," then it's disingenuous to not present the sentence immediately preceding it that says "I saw him with his girlfriend and they looked cute so I grabbed my camera."

The reason why this matters is that if you read the quote attributed to Cronkite above, and it is his quote, then you will note that he qualifies what he says with the words "by my definition." This begs the question, what is "his definition?" Well, in order to find that out, what one must do is actually look at the ENTIRE QUOTE:

Playboy: Implicit in the Administration's attempts to force the networks to "balance" the news is a conviction that most newscasters are biased against conservatism. Is there some truth in the view that television newsmen tend to be left of center?

Cronkite: Well, certainly liberal, and possibly left of center as well. I would have to accept that.

Playboy: What's the distinction between those two terms?

Cronkite: I think the distinction is both clear and important. I think being a liberal, in the true sense, is being nondoctrinaire, nondogmatic, non-committed to a cause - but examining each case on its merits. Being left of center is another thing; it's a political position. I think most newspapermen by definition have to be liberal; if they're not liberal, by my definition of it, then they can hardly be good newspapermen. If they're preordained dogmatists for a cause, then they can't be very good journalists; that is, if they carry it into their journalism.

When you read the entire quote, you see what Cronkite meant, and that he was very clearly distinguishing between a political position and a state of mind. But that doesn't score pity points when you are making a career out of playing the victim.

Movie Review: Ice Age 3

We took the kids out to see a movie today. It's really hot, and we decided to take a break from the pool, though we might still go this evening - we don't yet know.

We saw Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs. All things considered, it was a cute movie. I wouldn't list it on my top 10, but it wasn't bad. As Sid the Sloth, John Leguizamo really was the best returning character, and it was his "mothering" 3 dinosaur eggs that led to the adventure. However, the most entertaining character was that of Buck - the weasel guide who helps the adventurers on their trek through the dinosaur world. The part is voiced by Simon Pegg with a spirit and character that brings the weasel to life. Indeed the most entertaining moments of the film are with him in the front and center.

The movie is not one that you want to think about too much, a couple plot holes here and there and one or two modern culture references that are clearly thrown in as claptrap. But for a kid's movie, it's not too bad.

The Real-3D is completely unnecessary, and gave me a slight headache.

"Worst of the Worst"

How do you qualify as the "worst of the worst," and thus rate continued detention at Guantanamo Bay? Apparently, by fighting a jihad against Russia, fighting against the Taliban and Al Qaeda at Tora Bora, and attempting to advise the US commanders on where to fight. After all this, and being held without trial, without the right to see the evidence against him, after being held without any proof of his being an enemy "combatant," and even after he was shown to be innocent, it wasn't until 2008 that Wakil was released. Despite all this evidence, and the fact that he is currently an advisor to his government for his province of Kunar, this man - who has been vouched for by Karzai - is currently one of the 74 former detainees who have "returned to or are suspected to have returned" to terrorism.

But now we only have the "worst of the worst." Really.

This Just In - Sarah Palin Lied!

In what must be a first in the former VP candidate's career (if you ignore the over 30 easily debunked whoppers she told already in the past 8 months), we now know that Sarah Palin has been caught in a lie. It turns out that the money that was going to the lawyers to pay for the ethics complaints were going to be going to the lawyers regardless. Oh, and those "frivolous" ethics investigations? Not "millions of dollars" worth, and, oh, by the way, the most expensive of the investigations? Started by Governor Palin herself.

As much as I've been disappointed with President Obama on the torture question and the detainee question, at least his election resulted in the very real fact that Mrs. Starbursts isn't in the Federal Executive Branch chain of command.

Driving

We just got back home from our trip to Arkansas to see a family member prior to his departure for Iraq. While there, we had a discussion about driving. You see, my brother in law and I both drive when we take our respective families on trips. I made the astute observation that this is because we, and quite possibly all dads, have the uncanny ability to know when the passengers in the car need to use the restroom. Even more amazingly, we both noticed that nobody had to use the bathroom until we needed to fill up the gas tank. It was really interesting how this phenomenon played out with two very different families. But rest assured, when you are a passenger in our car, we'll know when you need to make a pitstop, and we'll make certain you are cared for.

And we're off!

We're on our way to Arkansas today. Surprisingly, we're almost ready to head out and we're going to be stunningly close to my target departure time of 7:00 a.m.

I've got to look up the address for the hotel we'll be staying at, and make sure we have breakfast covered.

We'll let you know how it went.

"The tyrant always has a pretext for his tyranny." - Consider that in relation to the recent discussions about torture.

Happy 4th, Everybody

Source: Our Founders, linked from Indiana University School of Law

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness. --That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that Governments long established should not be changed for light and transient causes; and accordingly all experience hath shewn, that mankind are more disposed to suffer, while evils are sufferable, than to right themselves by abolishing the forms to which they are accustomed. But when a long train of abuses and usurpations, pursuing invariably the same Object evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security. —Such has been the patient sufferance of these Colonies; and such is now the necessity which constrains them to alter their former Systems of Government. The history of the present King of Great Britain [George III] is a history of repeated injuries and usurpations, all having in direct object the establishment of an absolute Tyranny over these States. To prove this, let Facts be submitted to a candid world.

He has refused his Assent to Laws, the most wholesome and necessary for the public good.

He has forbidden his Governors to pass Laws of immediate and pressing importance, unless suspended in their operation till his Assent should be obtained; and when so suspended, he has utterly neglected to attend to them.

He has refused to pass other Laws for the accommodation of large districts of people, unless those people would relinquish the right of Representation in the Legislature, a right inestimable to them and formidable to tyrants only.

He has called together legislative bodies at places unusual, uncomfortable, and distant from the depository of their public Records, for the sole purpose of fatiguing them into compliance with his measures.

He has dissolved Representative Houses repeatedly, for opposing with manly firmness his invasions on the rights of the people.

He has refused for a long time, after such dissolutions, to cause others to be elected; whereby the Legislative powers, incapable of Annihilation, have returned to the People at large for their exercise; the State remaining in the mean time exposed to all the dangers of invasion from without, and convulsions within.

He has endeavoured to prevent the population of these States; for that purpose obstructing the Laws for Naturalization of Foreigners; refusing to pass others to encourage their migrations hither, and raising the conditions of new Appropriations of Lands.

He has obstructed the Administration of Justice, by refusing his Assent to Laws for establishing Judiciary powers.

He has made Judges dependent on his Will alone, for the tenure of their offices, and the amount and payment of their salaries.

He has erected a multitude of New Offices, and sent hither swarms of Officers to harass our people, and eat out their substance.

He has kept among us, in times of peace, Standing Armies without the consent of our legislatures.

He has affected to render the Military independent of and superior to the Civil power.

He has combined with others to subject us to a jurisdiction foreign to our constitution and unacknowledged by our laws; giving his Assent to their Acts of pretended Legislation:

For Quartering large bodies of armed troops among us:

For protecting them, by a mock Trial, from punishment for any Murders which they should commit on the Inhabitants of these States:

For cutting off our Trade with all parts of the world:

For imposing Taxes on us without our Consent:

For depriving us, in many cases, of the benefits of Trial by Jury:

For transporting us beyond Seas to be tried for pretended offences:

For abolishing the free System of English Laws in a neighbouring Province, establishing therein an Arbitrary government, and enlarging its Boundaries so as to render it at once an example and fit instrument for introducing the same absolute rule into these Colonies:

For taking away our Charters, abolishing our most valuable Laws, and altering fundamentally the Forms of our Governments:

For suspending our own Legislatures, and declaring themselves invested with power to legislate for us in all cases whatsoever.

He has abdicated Government here, by declaring us out of his Protection and waging War against us.

He has plundered our seas, ravaged our Coasts, burnt our towns, and destroyed the lives of our people.

He is at this time transporting large Armies of foreign Mercenaries to compleat the works of death, desolation and tyranny, already begun with circumstances of Cruelty and perfidy scarcely paralleled in the most barbarous ages, and totally unworthy the Head of a civilized nation.

He has constrained our fellow Citizens taken Captive on the high Seas to bear Arms against their Country, to become the executioners of their friends and Brethren, or to fall themselves by their Hands.

He has excited domestic insurrections amongst us, and has endeavoured to bring on the inhabitants of our frontiers, the merciless Indian Savages, whose known rule of warfare, is an undistinguished destruction of all ages, sexes and conditions.

In every stage of these Oppressions We have Petitioned for Redress in the most humble terms: Our repeated Petitions have been answered only by repeated injury. A Prince whose character is thus marked by every act which may define a Tyrant, is unfit to be the ruler of a free people.

Nor have We been wanting in attentions to our British brethren. We have warned them from time to time of attempts by their legislature to extend an unwarrantable jurisdiction over us. We have reminded them of the circumstances of our emigration and settlement here. We have appealed to their native justice and magnanimity, and we have conjured them by the ties of our common kindred to disavow these usurpations, which, would inevitably interrupt our connections and correspondence. They too have been deaf to the voice of justice and of consanguinity. We must, therefore, acquiesce in the necessity, which denounces our Separation, and hold them, as we hold the rest of mankind, Enemies in War, in Peace Friends.

We, therefore, the Representatives of the united States of America, in General Congress, Assembled, appealing to the Supreme Judge of the world for the rectitude of our intentions, do, in the Name, and by the Authority of the good People of these Colonies, solemnly publish and declare, That these United Colonies are, and of Right ought to be Free and Independent States; that they are Absolved from all Allegiance to the British Crown, and that all political connection between them and the State of Great Britain, is and ought to be totally dissolved; and that as Free and Independent States, they have full Power to levy War, conclude Peace, contract Alliances, establish Commerce, and to do all other Acts and Things which Independent States may of right do. And for the support of this Declaration, with a firm reliance on the protection of divine Providence, we mutually pledge to each other our Lives, our Fortunes and our sacred Honor.

My First Day of Vacation

We cleaned the house, cleaned the bathrooms, changed the cat litter, washed the dishes, took out the trash, cut the grass, swept the driveway, cleaned out the minivan, got the oil changed, got the inspection done, cleaned the bedrooms, did laundry, swept, mopped, edged, went grocery shopping, barbequed, and saw the Apple swallow a mancala marble.

We've not had a vacation since just after I took the bar back in 2007. That year, we went to Indiana to visit family.

This year, we're going on vacation again - to visit family. This time, however, we're going to Arkansas. It's to see family, but on a more serious matter - the brother in law is going to Iraq to serve for a year. His unit's been called up. We're looking forward to seeing him off, and wish him well while he's over there.

Sarah Palin is Quitting

At the close of her statement, she quoted General Douglas MacArthur, "we are not retreating, we are advancing in another direction." This, of course, is a euphemism for retreating, which, in part makes it an interesting choice to close with by the soon-to-be former Governor.

I found it interesting that she chose to quit, but even more interesting was the "very clear" reason she gave - to "effect change," which is a rather vague reason, to say the least.

I'm sure there will be pundits all over on both sides of the political spectrum giving reasons for her departure, some more truthful than others, some more partisan and defensive or offensive than others, but I think at the end of the day what we need to remember is that we came within 4 percentage points (8 million votes) in a national election of having a politician who couldn't handle the spotlight of the Alaskan Governor's office for a full term elected to the office of the Vice President.

In a final note - the man she quotes, General MacArthur was fired because he didn't respect the authority of the President, in her statement, she alludes to a lack of respect for the current President...

Just a question

But, how did a 5-4 ruling in a case that had 11 of 21 justices that ultimately held any sort of opinion on the case supporting the position of Justice Sotomayor become a 9-0 smackdown?

And what's up with Justice Alito's concurrance?

Life is so much better with short hair

Just had to share.

A few Random Thoughts

I'm working again tonight. I worked yesterday and last night. I worked the day and night before that. Friday, I worked, but not at night. All last week I worked at night except on Monday when the network was down for maintenance.

I've put in quite a few hours, yet I think we have less money to show for it. Daycare at $2000 a month is a bit steep. Maybe next year we'll buy some tickets and fly them all up to Indiana for the summer and save a little bit.

The kids are excited about the neighborhood pool. We've been the last three days (not today - they're closed on Monday). Now I just need to get them swimming and not grasping on to my shoulders.

It rained a little today, about 5 minutes worth of drops. It's the first rain we've had in June.

I need a haircut, the Boy and the Apple need haircuts. My car needs an inspection, a taillight, gas, and a wash.

It's going to be a long night, but at least I've made up my time for not working on Friday.

Tattletales, 5 year old version

Just overheard in the living room: "Mom! (The Boy) called (the Princess) the "E" word! He called her an idiot!"

Yu-Gi-Yoh = June 25

Fifty-nine years ago today, North Korean soldiers, with backing from the Soviet Union and PRC, crossed over the 38th parallel and invaded the First Republic of Korea. The DPRK soldiers caught the ROK soldiers completely off-guard, and began routing the South Korean army and the few Americans left in country. After three years of bitter fighting, leaving approximately 900,000 Chinese, 520,000 North Korean, 400,000 UN and ROK, and 155,000 US soldiers either killed or wounded, a Cease-fire was declared, with the line being approximately where it was before the fighting began. To this day, no treaty has been signed, and these two countries are still technically at war.
Take a moment to remember those who died protecting those who couldn't protect themselves from the yoke of tyranny.

Unchanged

One of my biggest criticisms about the Bush administration was its inability to be transparent about anything. The Obama administration thus far has done somewhat better, but on the issues upon which I had hoped he would demonstrate "change," we are seeing slow, if any, progress.

When asked at the press conference yesterday about Neda in Iran, President Obama was interrupted during his answer. As Glenn Greenwald (I'm telling you, you need to read him!) writes:

As Obama was answering -- attesting to how "heartbreaking" he found the video; how "anybody who sees it knows that there's something fundamentally unjust" about the violence; and paying homage to "certain international norms of freedom of speech, freedom of expression" -- Helen Thomas, who hadn't been called on, interrupted to ask Obama to reconcile those statements about the Iranian images with his efforts at home to suppress America's own torture photos ("Then why won't you allow the photos --").

The President quickly cut her off with these remarks:

THE PRESIDENT: Hold on a second, Helen. That's a different question. (Laughter.)

Of course, Ms. Thomas has a salient point, and one that deserves an answer, but she didn't get it. The most effective way to ensure that our nation doesn't repeat the travesties of the previous administration is to get all the dirt out in the open. Show the photos, let the country and the world see what we were when governed by a compassionate conservative.

Greenwald's article is superb, and truly deserves reading, not just for the commentary on this important issue, but also because he provides further evidence that the Conservative Bloggers are somewhat foolish in their criticism of President Obama fielding a question from the Huffington Post (one of the most difficult questions of the conference, he notes)...

All around good stuff.

I'm Really Starting to Dig Glenn Greenwald

Here he goes to town on NPR and their refusal to call a spade a spade (or torture "torture). Can't summarize, he does too good a job - just read the whole thing.

What, Exactly, would happen?

What would happen to the people of Iran if President Obama came out directly in support of the protesters? We have a nation, Iran, that is sovereign, whose people are reacting to widespead voter fraud, who are (apparently) rejecting the putative leader of the nation after the fraudulent vote, the same man who came in to power with the "American bogeyman" concept in place. A softer response helped lead to the position where dialogue was possible, maintaining such silence will do nothing but aid the cause of those who want change over there, as it denies Ahmadenijad a foil, a target for fearmongering. As long as we remain neutral, it's the Iranians' fight. Once we take sides, then the protesters are part of us, which weakens their position. It's simple, but it seems to be lost on the Neoconservative Right.

Perhaps Matt Steinglass is right in his binary reasoning hypothesis...

Fatherhood is

Listening to your five year old son sit on the can with the door open singing "Footloose."

Impact

So, I've watched most of the new miniseries episode of Impact this evening. I'm somewhat underwhelmed.

First off, Natasha Henstridge, while an attractive female lead, is hard to buy as a world-renowned astronomer. But more unlikely is the concept of people in two different parts of the United States, in England, and in Germany all watching a meteor shower at the same time, all in the middle of the night, and all with perfectly clear skies overhead. Seriously - at least make an attempt at reasonability...

Happy Father's day, everyone!

It's Saturday Night

And I'm working. At home. All evening.

Because there is a whole lot of work left to be done, but also because I need the overtime to help pay for a trip to Arkansas.

Just so you know

I hate the air of superiority of pharmaceutical companies.

Small Circles

One of the problems with expecting change from the government (and yes, this includes "the One," who I've not heard referred to as "the One" except by Neocons and their ilk) is that the ones governing us run in small circles - tight communities where everyone's hands wash each others'.

Glenn Greenwald highlights one of the problems with the government in this post where he discusses illegal wiretapping and its continued abuse by the government, despite the government's insistance that it would be fixed...

Key passage is the second paragraph:

Every time new revelations of illegal government spying arise, the same exact pattern repeats itself: (1) euphemisms are invented to obscure its illegality ("overcollection"; "circumvented legal guidelines"; "overstepped its authority"; "improperly obtained"); (2) assurances are issued that it was all strictly unintentional and caused by innocent procedural errors that are now being fixed; (3) the very same members of Congress who abdicate their oversight responsibilities and endlessly endorse expanded surveillance powers in the face of warnings of inevitable abuses (Jay Rockefeller, Dianne Feinstein, "Kit" Bond, Jane Harman) righteously announce how "troubled" they are and vow to hold hearings and take steps to end the abuses, none of which ever materialize; (4) nobody is ever held accountable in any way and no new oversight mechanisms are implemented; (5) Congress endorses new, expanded domestic surveillance powers; and then: (6) new revelations of illegal government spying emerge and the process repeats itself, beginning with step (1).

Of course, we shouldn't be surprised that it doesn't change, because it's not affecting those in power - they can continue to act the way they have been with little to fear in the way of recourse. That's shameful.

Things I don't Understand

Former President Bush stated today that he hopes the closure of Guantanamo Bay doesn't risk our national security (souce: Yahoo!). What, then, does he feel about the commander he selected noting that Guantanamo Bay was one of the biggest RISKS to our national security in terms of recruiting tools for those we fight?

I remember President Bush once said something to the effect of "well, I guess you can blame me." Not quite the Truman "Buck Stops Here," but he still didn't mean it, if you look at how he's hemmed and hawed away anything that remotely sounds like something negative that he should take the hit for - "some have said," "mistakes were made," etc...

That being said, I think it's kind of a no-brainer that people don't want our national security harmed. But, I wonder what he meant about "therapy," really? It sounds like he's playing politics - trying to give the Right another trite talking point that really means nothing, but if it's out there, it might fester...

Show of Hands

Who out there believes that we would be seeing what's going on in Iran right now if Senator McCain and Governor Palin had been elected to office? Does anyone else believe that by softening our position and making real dialogue an option, we took the wind out of Ahmedinejad's sails, helping foster this (mostly) peaceful demonstration in support of something closer to a democracy?