Craig Crawford's Trail Mix

scaramouche

sooooo close, but this ain't no game of horse shoes or hand grenades.

ah yes..... those arrogant French bastards!

let's flog em all and give those elegant don't stick their noses in anyone else's business Limies a group hug.....

hehehehehehehehehehe...... :0) :0)

There's been some very interesting clustering of quakes in California lately. Also a lot more quakes in the SC region.

I'm still waiting for the Hayward fault to go. The way they've built right on top of it that's going to be a real disaster.

The fruits of torture -

The prisoner abuse scandal at Abu Ghraib exploded after photos taken by soldiers appeared in 2004.

According to the Telegraph, the new photos depicted much more serious abuses than previously documented.

One photo reportedly showed an American soldier apparently raping a female prisoner and another was said to show a male translator raping a male detainee, the Telegraph reported.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/abu-ghraib-abuse-photos-i_n_208430.html

damn, figures that the only two coutries whose languages I have a passing acquaintance with - at least from the standpoint of understanding more than a few words, like those necessary to find a bus, a beer and a toilet - would be in a pissing match AGAIN.

by the way, Sotomayor's "abortion" decision is in CRLP v. Bush.

http://documents.nytimes.com/selected-cases-of-judge-sonia-sotomayor#p=417

Abortion was not the issue in the case - free speech and association rights (Amd. 1), due process clause and equal protection (Amd. 5) were at issue. Only the first amendment claims were decided on the merits.

To the extent that the question of the constitutionality of witholding aid from NGOs that advocated abortion as part of family planning was addressed, the second circuit was constrained by Rust v. Sullivan - a 1991 Supreme Court case that said the government could do so with public funds under Reagan's Mexico City Policy and the "standard clause" of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. It was not a privacy and abortion rights case, and neither was CRLP.

Now summer can officially begin -

Crews work to open Independence Pass

At 12,095 feet, Independence Pass is the highest paved Colorado highway crossing the Continental Divide.

http://themountainmail.com/main.asp?SectionID=4&SubSectionID=4&ArticleID=16430&TM=49720.4

Observation: Newt Gingrich tweets almost maniacally. One has to wonder if he just can't stand to shut up for any period longer than five minutes or if he is so enthralled with his own opinion that it must be compulsively shared. Pop psychology would say there are some deep seated feelings of inferiority going on there the way that she constantly shouts "look at me, I'm important".

F@#$# the French...

It's just another example of a self indulgent country feeling inferior to their neighbor and historical rival. To snub a country that spent so much money and blood to save their asses from the Nazi's is a slight that they need to rub french noses in...throw in a little Princess Diana and I think France will feel more isolated than North Korea before too long...

Sarkozy needs to realize that if slap someone in fun, they may respond with a closed fist or worse...

way to go bear!

Independence Pass is the scariest road in America. Always made it a point to take the flatlanders over it. It a screwballers convention from one end to the other.

"1923 Attorney General says it is legal for women to wear trousers anywhere"

except in court.... up to just recently in some places

my goodness, what will they let us do next? become president maybe?

Every time I see the French and English square off, a Monty Python routine breaks out it my head.

Yep Bob, Huffington loves inuendo. Thanks for spreading the rumors. What isn't rumor is the State sponsored torture in Iran and China. What isn't rumor is children used as shields by Hamas or the acid thrown in the faces of women in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

Are you even suggesting the acts at Abu Ghraib were State sponsored?

Huffington can dig, but perhaps they might dig here:

http://www.haaretz.com/hasen/spages/961212.html

they seemed to have picked up on this:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/04/29/ilan-halimi-murdered-fren_n_192751.html

"Fofana's lawyer, Isabelle Coutant-Peyre, said her client was "mistreated by a political and religious marketing campaign."" Gee,,,,,,,isn't that sad.

cbob, the last line of this quote from what
henry higgins sings in "my fair lady" usually comes to my mind uk vs fr:

"Oh, why can't the English learn to set
A good example to people whose
English is painful to your ears?
The Scotch and the Irish leave you close to tears.
There even are places where English completely
disappears. In America, they haven't used it for years!
Why can't the English teach their children how to speak?
Norwegians learn Norwegian; the Greeks have taught their
Greek. In France every Frenchman knows
his language from "A" to "Zed"
The French never care what they do, actually,
as long as they pronounce in properly."

Government spending related to smoking and the abuse of alcohol and illegal drugs reached $468 billion in 2005, accounting for more than one-tenth of combined federal, state and local expenditures for all purposes, according to a new study.

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/28/us/28addiction.html?_r=1&hpw

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/05/burris-be-gone-please.html#comment-231202

Max, what in the hell are you talking about? I'm just discounting the picking over of her phrase as utter right wing horse shit. No one can divorce themselves from their background, and everyone will understand the problems of people who come from backgrounds similar to their own better than those whose problems arise from their dissimilar backgrounds. It is ONLY a problem when those backgrounds happen to be poor, female, black or hispanic (and probably a few others) when the issue of judical appointments by democrats arises. Somehow the right wing, as evidenced through their noise machine, seems to think that acknowledging a superior understanding of downtrodden groups because of shared experience and believing that that understanding will make one a better judge is somehow racist and disqualifies that person from a position that requires constitutional analysis. What a crock of shit. But is that a problem for confirmation? Maybe. Is it based in racism, or more appropriately ethnocentrism? You bet it is.

Craig,

I sometimes find myself wondering if politicians all of the world don't suffer from youth. Maybe they should all keep an elderly grandmother in a room somewhere for the little twenty or thirty something aides to consult for historical memory before taking any action.

i.e. The majority of the allies landing on the beach were Americans and from the United Kingdom & Commonwealth including Britain, Canada, New Zealand, and Australia as well as smaller numbers from Belgium, Czechoslovakia, France, Greece, the Netherlands, Norway and Poland.

That little old lady sitting in Buckingham Palace not only was alive then, she was driving an ambulance and helping people bombed out during the Blitz. Her first Prime Minister was Winston Churchill and she just might have a few stories to tell about the events.

This kind of truly silly mistake happens constantly in campaigns, announcements, projects ... just because no one bothered to fact check, do research or seek advice from someone who might have some knowledge on a subject almost as if they not only don't know the answers, they don't know the right questions to ask.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9V7zbWNznbs

Sometimes we confuse sensationalism with real threats. I bet Obama has read this....

http://thebulletin.us/articles/2009/05/28/top_stories/bullet_points/doc4a1e1eb1f06e1934781592.txt

The French and Brits might want to think about common dangers before squabbling. Funny how Obama was going to change all that.

Know your enemy and it certainly ain't us....

"Every time I see the French and English square off, a Monty Python routine breaks out it my head. -- Posted by: Colorado Bob"

u inspired me Bob, see Monty Python clip above

Max -

Retired Major Gen. Antonio Taguba, who oversaw the U.S. investigation into the abuses at Abu Ghraib prison, told Britain's Daily Telegraph in an article published Wednesday that he agreed with Obama's decision not to release the pictures.
" ...................... Taguba was quoted by the Daily Telegraph. "The mere description of these pictures is horrendous enough, take my word for it."

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/05/27/abu-ghraib-abuse-photos-i_n_208430.html
-----------

Sorry, but we ran past " inuendo" several years ago Max.

That's the clip CC.

russia demands patience

http://www.presstv.ir/detail.aspx?id=96320§ionid=351020602

The role of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution and not to make social policy based on one's experiance. If you think Hillary could have gotten away with such a statement, guess again. What kind of personal experiance would give Sotomajor an edge in deciding whether affirmative action is supported in the Constitution over a white male? It is not about whether Sotomajor thinks affirmative action is fair, but rather whether the Constitution says it is justified. How does her experiance make her a better interpretor of the Constitution in deciding questions of illegal "rights"? Perhaps other people with unique experiance also qualify for a seat, like aformer detainee.

The job requires correctly applying Constitutional statues and laws to new situations and in this regard should be free of personal bias.

I have not railed against Sotomajor, but I do find her words less than comforting on the matter discussed. She is not an extreme pick, but I hardly want her ruling from the bench in terms consistent with her personal or cultural experiance. I want her to apply the Constitution without bending ot to suit what her experiance has informed her is far. We all have different experiances but there is only one Constitution.

BS max. Hillary could have totally made that statement saying that should could better identify with women who have experienced sexism and discrimination.

And your strawmen are tiresome!! Despite what the right wing has drilled into the conventional wisdom - emphathy is not the equivalent of making social policy. It is about making a well-informed decision that resonates will the people impacted with the court's ruling.

Btw, my theory is that empathy is more important when a judge is ruling against a minority - as opposed to being some excuse to bend the law to reach a "desired" result.

Oh yeah - and Hillary would be dead right in making such a statement.

First Bob, you make a liar out of Obama. If the retired General is to be believed, then some here might consider their advocacy for releasing the pictures.

No one to my knowledge has proven in any way that the abuses were systemic to our system of interrogation. The partisan push to release is fueled by the assumption and continuous inuendo that indeed they were.

And I rarely see anyone here talking about real systemic torture, do you? Maybe Pelosi can lecture the Chinese.

Sorry, Bob but inuendo is alive and well. Perhaps the General can tell us what steps the military has taken to punish the man who raped another or the man who raped the woman. Are you telling us that when the pictures get released Obama will not be called a liar?

Now how smart is that?

And one more thing Max - nobody - except the right wingers trying to torpedo her nomination - is saying that Sonia is going to make decisions based solely on emphathy or her past experience.

She probably will rely on her 20+ years experience of interpreting laws and the Constitution.

Obama found someone who was a first rate intellectual - number 1 in undergrad and law review - with more experience as a judge than most nominees - in addition to work as a public and private litigator.

The compelling life story and empathy were additions - not replacements for anything!!

Gee Warren, I missed empathy 101 in Constitutional Law. Now we interpret the Constitution on the basis of empathy. So much for Strawmen.

LOL, Hillary talked about LBJ of all people and got slammed for it. Given the numbers of women, did she once say that being a woman gave her a better experiance than Obama? Did Bill's experiance make him less capable than Obama? Maybe we should have an experiance meter in selecting judges.

A little over two years ago, I wrote a blog article about Elizabeth II at 80

http://jdurward.blogspot.com/2006/12/knowing-when-to-say-goodbye.html

soley on empathy? A first rate intellectual would have avoided the gaffe Warren, but don't worry, I am hardly burning effigies or "toeing the RW line".

Seems anything but your talking points brings down the wrath. Have some empathy.....

Oh I knew that argument was coming - you have your words and writings scrutinized for the last 20 years - and we will see if there aren't any gaffes. I could look back over the last 2 days just on this blog and probably find some lines that would get you in hot water.

That standard is assine.

And you probably missed empathy 101 because it is a characteristic your either lack or are woefully deficient in.

And btw - if you exercised a little more empathy - your points would probably make more of an impact on people.

(I am off to the dentist for some treatment that probably worse than most of the "enhanced interrogation techniques")

No need to waterboard terrorists - just send em to the dentist!!

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/05/look-out-mr-prez-the-french-an.html#comment-231251

And to be clear - it is the disingenuous criticism of the acknowledgment of the understanding that is based in racism or ethnocentrism, not the articulation of that understanding.

Responding to some posts on the last thread...

"does the book point out anywhere that kinky called garth the "Anti-Hank" ?

Ha -- sturge -- I spend the final few pages explaining why that is a stupid concept.

and Doots -- Garth is fine with the book. He helped set up a book signing for me in Tulsa...and I'll be staying out at his place the first couple of days I'm in town.

Patsi, why was any reference to TM expunged? Aren't you proud of us?

Patsi,

Can I ask you why Garth has all but quit the business (or am I wrong and he's just cut back). Also, you can never find his singles on youtube or itunes to download. Is that to protect their value. I'm not a true follower of his, and just wondered what happened that made him change his professional (and personal) life so much.

Patsi, Is that stuff covered in your book? I am going to order it.

Maybe HM should invite the Sarkozys over for a frogs legs dinner on July 14th.

Jamie, is the caption for the photo of HM in the big hat correct??

"Patsi, why was any reference to TM expunged? Aren't you proud of us? "

Huh? In the book or elsewhere?

"Patsi, Is that stuff covered in your book? "

yes -- but boiled down, he was losing touch with his daughters by being on the road so much. So no more big tours until they are older.

And, Max, I assume you are intentionally misspelling Sotomayor's name. Is that on some talking points memo somewhere? The only places I find such a spelling are on Hannity's website and on a Gospel website.

You want spin, read the spin behind the criticisms of the 2001 speech she made.

http://thehill.com/leading-the-news/critics-focus-on-sotomayor-speech-in-la-raza-journal-2009-05-27.html

In the book :)

Did a search of the book using the Amazon search engine. No Crawford, no Trail Mix, it's as if we don't exist.

well, between utter bs at work and the need to get the hell out of here, I am. Later.

I hope Pogo doesn't forget that there's a stop sign at the exit of the parking lot.

I'm sorry I missed so much fun stuff.

On the other hand, I've not yet heard nor read anything that would disqualify Judge Sotomayor from serving as a Justice of the Supreme Court -- and she has, what, 16 years on the bench where she might have exhibited any such unqualifying behavior?

CJ, who can argue against what you say. I think the only thing that could derail things would be a personal failing of some sort or another. I think we could bet that there are a whole bunch of people looking for exactly that.

Flatus,
Yes, there is that possibility. One can hope the vetting process was thorough.

If I had to bet on a scenario, the Republicans will whip up a right wing firestorm, raise a lot of money for the 2010 elections, and further alienate both moderates, Hispanics and women. Good way to stay a minority party.

Oh yes, they're bent on self-destruction. I wouldn't be surprised seeing a bunch of independents and genuine conservatives joining together to start a "New Republican Party" embracing the type of republicanism that existed 100-years ago.

Or even the Republican Party that Eisenhower, Wendell Wilkie, Nelson Rockefeller, Howard Baker, Everitt Dirksen, Olympia Snowe -- or even the true libertarian Republicans (small government -- stay out of my life) populated.

flatus, maybe the neo r's will do what coke did when they screwed up their market and had to go back to go...they'll call it the "classic" republican party. course if they add a word and call it the classic republican american party it could still be referred to as c.r.a.p.

Now, how do we differentiate a "small government -- stay out of my life" type of government from traditional liberalism?

Pat, Coke had a universally accepted product to fall back on. The neos will never accept traditional republicanism as being legitimate.

And, it's my night to fix dinner. Bye

Flatus,
I'd say generally liberals want government to intervene to redress social wrongs, to regulate industry, provide things like social security, medicare and universal health care - and take away people's guns.

"No Crawford, no Trail Mix, it's as if we don't exist."

we think, therefore we are, flatus?

Flatus,

Yes she was dressed for a day at the races for her birthday. Here is the official 80th birthday portrait in a similar outfit. She looks darn good for now being 82

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/4922330.stm

oooooh.... a bear siting on this here blog is so much more pleasant than one at my bird feeders.....

"course if they add a word and call it the classic republican american party it could still be referred to as c.r.a.p."...... patd... good one!

oh yeah....

and being the resident French person on this blog....
I fart in all of your general directions.....

Flatus -- well, I did think about saying, for more about the author, check old threads of TM, where she is identified as a racist old faminazi hag.

"The American War of Independence established the first nation to craft a constitution based on the concept of liberal government, especially the idea that governments rule by the consent of the governed. The more moderate bourgeois elements of the French Revolution tried to establish a government based on liberal principles. Economists such as Adam Smith, in The Wealth of Nations (1776), enunciated the liberal principles of free trade. The editors of the Spanish Constitution of 1812, drafted in Cádiz, may have been the first to use the word liberal in a political sense as a noun. They named themselves the Liberales, to express their opposition to the absolutist power of the Spanish monarchy."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Liberalism

interesting discussion in wiki on what the term liberal meant to begin with and what many think it means now.

patd and Flatus, You make the right distinction, in contrast to my interpretation which was what it means to be a modern day (Roosevelt) liberal. My apology for mis-interpreting the point.

renee, yes, a bear on a blog is better than two for the birds anyday.
even when the bear comes forth with a mighty growl.

PS -- Flatus -- I was kidding on the above post.....should have added a smiley...

Carol - I loved your characterization of Jamie as a
"little blogging beaver." That is so true.

Bear - great to see you posting! Any comments re Bill's appointment to Haiti?

Cbob - I have a new digital camera coming - pix soon.

For Laura Ingraham, I doubt Clarence Thomas inspired many people for the good.

I have a feeling that the snub is in retaliation for Thatcher's unbelievable insult at the last big celebration - doesn't anyone remember it? She was breath-takingly rude in front of the whole world, and the
Brits should have known they'd pay for it. I suspect nobody else but the French would have the gaulle (get it?) to do something like this. I'm a real Anglophile and Francophile, and I'm not taking sides, but I do understand.

Renee - I was afraid that would happen. I adore you and didn't even take your comment as disagreeing with me. I understood what you said and can't fault it.
I just can't put much faith in it. I didn't mean to call you names or anything like that, and if you felt it, that's my huge error and I humbly beg forgiveness. My comments, the last part, were directed at someone else entirely.

I do, however, still think that if Sotomayor is pro-life, Scalia will be happy. I hope she will sail into him, however, and she does seem capable of it.

I don't care if the court is jesuit or unitarian, as long as they keep churches out of their rulings.

Rez - I agree with you that we certainly have the right and obligation to name qualifications and requirements when we give aid, but they should NOT be religious ones. Those we have under republican administrations are merely extensions of policies they couldn't get away with here. We are a secular nation
and shouldn't be making demands of religious behaviour.

There is no other reason for those demands - such a practice surely isn't economical because the soaring birth rates of countries we help are disastrous.

The name "stupid little woman" was implicit in the directions given to me by Pogo which was I was told to follow before I had the audacity to speak up. It was condescending and corrective. I've said before I don't like "correction" - I prefer a pleasant question such as
"Don't you think..." or "I see it differently", and I will fly back at someone who likes to show his/her superiority
over anyone else. Such an attitude brings with it the sneering tone "If you had a brain in your head, you stupid little woman, you would know....."

Pogo - I have have said I'm not a constitutional scholar and don't pretend to be. I do not have the bad opinion of lawyers many do. I tried to read your legal explanations, but stopped from boredom. They are merely dodging the fact that I made no comment re Roe and that I wasn't speculating. I didn't criticize Sotomayor - I merely stated my concern that she might be inclined to allow church dogma into her opinions, and the case I referred to was NOT Roe.

Further, I am concerned that the requirements might include also that a nation outlaw not only abortions, but also contraception. I don't know if that is so, and if you can find that out, would love to know especially if you can say it without using arcane legal language.

I am not stupid nor vapid nor shallow, and my opinons are well-considered. I have a right to them and have felt free to express them here.

I note your reference to a factor I referred to:

"" a 1991 Supreme Court case that said the government could do so with public funds under Reagan's Mexico City Policy and the "standard clause" of the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961. It was not a privacy and abortion rights case, and neither was CRLP."

Once again Reagan Policy is not sacrosanct with me,
and has no weight with me. I don't care what the case was about - it contains apparently religious rfequirements. That's been my point all along.

Any decisions allowing religious qualifications is WRONG - I don't like those decisions any more than I like the Dred Scott decision. I assume you recognize my right to feel that way., and say so.

Bottom line is that I've have always enjoyed your posts and tend not to read the ones with all the legalese you enjoy sharing and discussing with some of the others. I have enjoyed the fact that some of you guys enjoy it so much.

I was very surprised at your attempt to give me instruction, tho, and I have one more comment to make. If you must talk to me that way, don't talk to me.

Oh yeah - Cajunjoe - I agree that there doesn't seem to be anything at all to disqualify Sotomayor. I'd be surprised if they can find anything other than they dislike her.

Bethy....
thank you so much for that clarification.... and I adore you too...

and yes... I did mistakenly think you were worried about Roe.... I tend to read the night posts early in the morning before I've had my coffee.... I saw the words
"anti-choice", "pro-life" and "abortion" in your post and obviously came to the wrong conclusion.... my bad....

and I agree whole heartedly with you about religion not being used as part of policy.... or judicial decisions....

Good, Renee - I'm glad that's cleared up cuz I think you're a pistol. I love your attitude and your humor - thanks!

I try really hard to say exactly what I mean since I had an incredible comp teacher in college, and he made it fun to be super specific, so I try so hard to be just that - guess I get blinded by that effort at times.

Bethy, You do artfully reply and it takes some consideration. I would add however, that religion is not the only moral source for pro-life positions. If one assumes at a certain point reasonable personhood has been achieved by the fetus, preventing its death is not merely a religious desire. I am comfortable with science shining the light on this matter, but a rational and secular world view does not exclude a pro-life sentiment, nor does being religious mean an acceptance that a zygote has a soul.

I don't mean to bring up abortion and I haven't said a word about Sotomajor's position. I am merely saying that one need not be a religious conservative to want to see judges stay true to Constitutional intent or prevent third trimester abortions unless the mother's heath is in question,

Funny how the same sex marriage advocates discount the slippery slope to anything goes, but claim that any abortion restrictions will lead to abortion becoming illegal.

The above observations did not apply to anything Bethy said, just to make that clear........

By the bye, since I haven't talked much lately (:( ), I wonder if anyone knows who it was that was urging Obama to nominate Salazar to scotus.

I just got an email from nrdc saying that Salazar isn't going to act to save the polar bears, using w's
administration's reasoning. Might cause some consternation!

I gotcha, Max, and recognize the possible viability of the argument. How's that for delicacy? Thanks!

Oaky. if you think I am a Hannity Clone, good for you. As for misspelling, Pogo, how many here intentionally said "Scalito" in their characterizations? Why not numerology Pogo, There are seven letters in MAXTRUE. Maybe that reveals another sinnister inclination of my character.......LOL

No, frankly I didn't notice the misspelling as I have usually said Soto for short. People say y for a j in Spanish. I unconsciously translated that into major and not the phonetic mayor.

I just love how some quickly and rather childishly try to label and vilify other Liberal views as though every Liberal who disagrees with the Left talking points are Cheney/Rush/Hannity zombies.........

Now for everyones attention, the following should be simple enough to understand. North Korea which fears interdiction of their illegal exports to Iran, Caracas, Syria and Iran declare that any attempt to impound their shipping will be met with nuclear weapons. Any attempt to apply international justice on NK will result in WMD.

""The northward invasion scheme by the U.S. and the South Korean puppet regime has exceeded the alarming level," the North's main Rodong Sinmun newspaper said in a commentary carried by the official Korean Central News Agency. "A minor accidental skirmish can lead to a nuclear war."

This is the real aim for North Korean nuclear weapon programs. The same is true for Iran. As I re-reported, Hizb'Allah has cells all over the place plotting assasinations, war and terror. They openly declare their axis with Hamas, Iran, Syria, and any other enemy of America or Israel. Actions taken by this group will be linked to Iran and in most cases, rightfully so as we have seen in the Sudan, Egypt, Argentina, Lebanon, Gaza and Somalia. Now if Iran has the bomb, will Obama treat them like he does towards NK? Will he tell South Korea, Japan and even Vietnam they better accept it? Why shouldn't NK build bombs to protect their other dangerous activities?

There are some huge stakes up right now, but given the news cycle and the filter, we always come back to Huffington v Hannity, Lefty v Righty. And this is sustained by the reflex action of most.

I love it when the wingers break out their little logic protractors, and begin plotting lines around corners, and under chairs.

Bethy, that was brilliant. And I'll be sure to keep off your toes.

You brought up a good point. One's cultural experiances might very well incline one towards anti-gay, anti-abortion views. I personally have a problem with a President who believes in the literal reading of the Bible. Experiance might have bad results, so it does make sense to pick judges who leave their inclinations at the door and struggle to grasp the intention of the lawful principle and apply it delicately to new situations. We have Congress to make laws. We have Presidents with directives and directions. It isn't too much to ask for our judges to consider orginal intent, the Constitutional balance created and sustained as it is and not as it ought to be. That, is a decision for the American People to make as they can Constitutionally change their Consitution when a majrity prevails. Nowhere do I read that fetus is in the Constitution. I read no religious requirements to hold office. It is not a socialist document or a religious one. SCOTUS isn't there to change our natures, rather better apply established principles to new situations.

There is no invention in this.

Just a thought....

And I love it when wingers throw logic to the wind and clinge to imagined realities and false rightousness.

fetchez le vache.........

heads up, sturgeone

Bethy, you are obviously in excellent typing form. Good recovery!

Well, Flatus - I got some steam built up. I also have a new gadget, kind of a glove that fits the palm of my hand up past my wrist a few inches, but it's still awkward and hurts a little at times. No big deal - I don't mind pains I can ignore.

There is a little split-like break halfway across my radius, which is really the wrist itself. My hand and arm were lovely colors when he took the splint off. I just jave to hold up my arm when I type cuz I can't bend the wrist too much. I go back to the orthopod in 4 weeks.

The funny thing is how hard it is for good docs to read x-rays - I'll never take anyone's word now but a radiologist's. Luckily my bil is one, but he's on vacation!

BBC News America carried the story about the queen not being amused.

http://www.bbcamerica.com/content/329/index.jsp

Also the latest episode of The Ethical Man who is now in Texas

"The role of SCOTUS is to interpret the Constitution and not to make social policy based on one's experiance. ". .

"The job requires correctly applying Constitutional statues and laws to new situations and in this regard should be free of personal bias."

"It isn't too much to ask for our judges to consider orginal intent, the Constitutional balance created and sustained as it is and not as it ought to be."

Where's are the examples over the past 16 years as a judge that she's incapable of doing these things and fulfilling this role.

All these strawman arguments based upon a off-hand remark she made to some students in a seminar. Typical.

I have a problem with the 'original intent' argument because no one knows what that is, nor can anyone divine what a framer might have had in mind, nor how it might be applied in a world that would be unrecognizable to the framers. There is the written constitution and there are the principles it implies -- the penumbra, as Justice Douglas put it to reach the implied right of privacy, for example.

Bethy,

Since you seemed so upset, I went back and read what pogo wrote. Unless I've picked the wrong post, it didn't seem to be directed at you, but rather just offered the explanation that abortion was not the issue before the court so they couldn't rule for or against its inclusion in the NGO qualifications.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/05/look-out-mr-prez-the-french-an.html#comment-231237

The problem when people discuss an apellate court decision is that whatever the judge's personal opinions might be on some issues, that may not be the legal issue they are expected to decide. I think that was what Pogo was trying to say about Sotomayor. She and all the other judges for whom she wrote the decision were only deciding whether or not the government acted legally.

You're right joe, I was giving Max his own arguments to wail at.

Did anyone see Craig Ferguson last night? I am certain it was a re-run, but Madeline Albright was his guest. Both she and Craig are naturalized citizens. They were talking about how great it was to become a citizen of the U.S. Madeline said that she spent WWII in England. She said her Father told her many times about how they were greeted when they arrived in England during the war. The English people said to them, "Welcome to England. We understand your country has been taken over by a dictator. When will you be leaving England?" When she arrived in America, the Americans said to her, "Welcome to America. When will you becoming a American citizen?"

Rezdog, you misunderstand me, but let me repeat once more. I do not oppose Sotomayor. I think that in the balance she was a decent pick. I was talking about the debate in general and stating my opinion of a good criteria for a judge. It was more responding to attacks than taking a shot at Sotomayor. So far I would say her comment on experiance was a bad gaffe, but then there's Biden or our former President.

Also, while I do take a shot a some aspects of her record, they do not dump her nomination as far as I am concerned. The Republicans would be making yet another mistake making a Miers out of Sotomayor.

Does that clear things up? Gee, maybe Max isn't the RW parrot a few here seem to think. In fact, there are more than a few Liberals who are upset she isn't Left enough. Good for her. I bet Scalia and her do not become enemies.

As far as my NK comment, just watch what happens next.

Bethy, I didn't know your were injured. My sympathy. Still you spell better than we despite the injury....LOL

That is a good point Jamie, I agree.

I hear ya max. Sometimes when you make a point that sounds remotely like some of the garbage I have been hearing on TV - I tend to let out all my pent up arguments.

And I do agree with you about that newspaper article's "characterizations" of the unreleased photos.

I am very skeptical when journalists begin to report innuendo instead of facts...

Joe, you are wrong that we know little about original intent. Madison clearly placed Freedom of Speech and Press in an area reserved for the "People's" rights, not some elite professional group. There is a long but often ignored history giving context to the 2nd. Orginalism is a fascinating criteria for Constitutional interpretation. Often State Constitutions are used to compare phrases and supporting literature is plentiful including the Federalist Papers and even the letters Jefferson and Adams wrote each other before they died.

I recommend Founding Brothers by Ellis or even Franklin by Issacson. Again to say we don't know what our Founders intended is an unsupported statement. I am certain you understand the Founders balance between State and Federal power, yes? And then there's the 18th and 11th. Constitutional scholars even have drafts of the Constitution with debated changes clarifying the issues. Perhaps more important than uncertainities about intent is the fact that there were conflicted opinions in 1789. Still, there is quite a bit we know and two centuries of clarifications and drift.

Warren

I read up on the pictures and Gibbs left enough wiggle room for an elephant herd. The person who made the statement about the picture contents has not retracted nor has he been refuted. What Gibbs said was that the pictures being withehld "in this matter' did not contain those images. IOW the ones covered by the Freedom of Information request.

There could very well be photographs that show exactly what the newspaper said were depicted. I tend to believe the report and the reason for withholding are two fold. Democrats who knew could go down with the Republicans who ordered and the fear that the images are so bad that they would further inflame moslem hatred right when the President is trying to negotiate a region wide agreement for a two state solution and decrease the power of Hamas and Hezbollah.

Max,
My point was that we know little about intent beyond the written record, to include the Federalist Papers, etc.

Beyond that, however, original intent is insufficient in interpreting the principles of the constitution over greater and greater time intervals. As I said yesterday, the basis of Dred Scott decision was that the mind set of the original framers of the constitution was that blacks were inherently inferior and therefore not covered by the benefits of citizenship. I should not have taken a Constitutional amendment to come to a different conclusion.

Well it is going to be an interesting case if the Supreme Court hears it.

Either way - I think Obama made the right move in moving to appeal to at least delay the release until after this trip.

I think outrage over the photos would have drown everything else out...

"The job requires correctly applying Constitutional statutes and laws to new situations and in this regard should be free of personal bias."

That all sounds good, but if there really was an effort to make decisions free of personal bias, we should see a lot more 9-0 and fewer 5-4 decisions.

I know Warren. In fact FOX oftens takes a good point other media doesn't report and then abuses the reporting of it until it becomes a mantra rather than news. They can't help themselves, but it is sad that Fox is often the lone media willing to push important stories and light a fire under others.

From my seat, Scalia strikes me as something of an egoist, a Lord of the court, but from what I gather there is a SCOTUS culture of exclusion and brotherhood. He certainly doesn't seem very empathic, but despite the warts I don't see him as the Darth Vader of conservative principles on the court. Let's hope they all do their job simply applying solid law to the historically new. Contrary to what xrepublican thinks, the women who lost her SCOTUS discrimination case, had no case. Empathy had little to do with it. If Sotomayor experianced discrmination herself, it still wouldn't be good judging to make a empathy into bad Constitutional law, which is one reason I have problems with Roe. If the Founding Fathers considered abortion worthy of Federal protection, they would have mentioned it in the Constitution. It seems to fall under State power unless the woman's heath is at issue.

"I think outrage over the photos would have drown everything else out..."

We are continually reminded of the f-ed up world G. W. Bush and Shotgun Cheney left behind.

Max,

"If the Founding Fathers considered abortion worthy of Federal protection, they would have mentioned it in the Constitution. It seems to fall under State power unless the woman's heath is at issue"h
First of all, since you have read the Federalist Papers, you know that the Constitution was expressly NOT intended to enumerate all the rights of the people. You are right that powers not allocated to the Federal government are retained by the States and the people, respectively. But Federally guaranteed rights cannot be abridged by the States. And the SCOTUS has determined a right to privacy is a basic human right, and the right for a woman to control her own body is derived from that. It is not an absolute right, and therefore some restrictions may be placed on it, but the fundamental right is guaranteed.

max:

Like I have said before, I respect Scalia - especially in terms of skill.

And I have no problem with relying on "original intent" as one means of interpreting the Constition. However, I take issue with anyone who claims it is (1) the only valid method, and (ii) apolitical.

1. I believe in a combination of original intent and the theory of the living Constitution. As far as the living constitution idea - I don't think anyone would disagree that the Court got it right when it ruled than banning interracial marriages was unconstitutional. And that was not based on original intent - but rather a reflection of a major sea change in our society.

(I also think that original intent does not always lead to the same result - since you can often justify different decisions by focusing on different parts of history).

2. And original intent is by defition "conservative." That is why it is championed by the right. Republicans are being disengenuous by claiming that it takes politics out of the Court. That method often removes "progressive" politics from the Court's jurisprudence - but it still represents a political point of view.

Ev, perhaps the division is not present politics but that most Scholars are still debating Jeffersonian Liberalism v Adam's Federalism. Some want to preserve as much original intent as they can while others want legal remedies to social problems. It is a divide not exactly reflected in Rush v Moore. Some see such an explosion of Starry Decisis eroding original intent, it over rides some sensible remedies to legal conflicts. Justice ought to be blind and yet not blind to injustice. Perhaps the justices differ most about tactics rather than results.

Joe, there is a wealth of information, but the 2nd is a good example. The first hundred years courts moved away from what they knew was original intent. Then over the last hundred years reversed that trend. Scholars always knew what the 2nd implied, but avoided the literature out there. Even Obama now says he agrees with the court. So literature was dismissed, politics took over and a center right court finally reaffirms what the Bill of Rights always said.

And now Olsen and Tribe will make a case that any class of people cannot be denied their right to marry. They compare same sex marriage with a white marrying a black. They laugh at the prospect of an adult marrying three children, three adults marrying each other.

max:

They should laugh at that "slippery slope" argument that gay marriage will lead to people marrying groups.

A straight person has the right to marry one person. And under the Equal Protection Act - a gay person should also have a right to marry one person. That in no way opens the door to the parade of horribles that you bring up.

Also - Tribe = David Boies.

Well I see your point Warren, but the issue of racism was clearly brought up in 1789. Franklin championed abolution and Northern leaders chided Jefferson and Madison. Our Founders intent was that the scourge of racism would go away.

Original intent is only conservative in the classical definition because it seeks to keep legal continuity over time. This is hardly the common understanding of conservatism. Conservation is conservative. Physics is conservative as is cell division. Mutation however is very Liberal. I can understand why some who argue for more orginalism are labeled conservative, though the Constitution depends on conservativism to survive.

And there is the beauty. We need both change and stasis and the smarter moves we have made over the centuries should also be preserved.

Yes, I believe Consitutional scholars use a few criteria, not just originalism. Liberals often hate the idea however, because they seek chanes that would go against balanced readings of the Constitution.

Oh don't laugh. As Olsen said, any class of people have a right to marry whomever they want. It is only a matter of time and we both know it. The Equal protection act doesn't go far enough. BY what criteria do we define a married unit?

Two adults over the age of consent that want to commit to a relationship. Case closed.

I don't see anything slippery about that.

"And now Olsen and Tribe will make a case that any class of people cannot be denied their right to marry. They compare same sex marriage with a white marrying a black. They laugh at the prospect of an adult marrying three children, three adults marrying each other."

MAX
As a gay person I'm totally offended by your BS on this issue...Try thinking of how others feel having there civil rights denied to them..You go ahead and make fun and draw things into this that don't exist...As smart as you think you are in common sense you are sadly lacking!!!

"Our Founders intent was that the scourge of racism would go away."

Again - this involves judgment and interpretation. While you can probably pour through the Federalist papers, etc. and find support that people endeavoured "that the scourge of racism would go away." You could also find support for ideas like "separate but equal" - which would support a ban on interracial marriage.

That is why I believe you need to look to original intent as well as the current values of our society.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/05/look-out-mr-prez-the-french-an.html#comment-231364

Warren
Exactly..Max and the old guard will die off and gay people will finally get there rights...I have come to except this...

tony:

I think it will happen sooner than that. And I have pretty good expectations from the dynamic duo of Olsen and Boies. Their arguments sound pretty solid.

I'm watching the state funeral for former ROK President Roh. Since his suicide on Saturday, the country has been in a combined state of shock and grief.

Memorial alters have been erected in virtually every city and village in the country. Millions of people have approached these alters offering expressions of love and appreciation for the former president.

So far as his having been involved in the corruption orchestrated by a couple of members of his family, I think his level of guilt amounts to naive trust of those around him.

In any case, it's moot now; he has accepted complete responsibility for the failings of his family. And, the level of his shame is reflected in his suicide.

"Rezdog, you misunderstand me,. . . I was talking about the debate in general and stating my opinion of a good criteria for a judge."

Yes Max, I know you were stating your opinion as to BOTH good and bad criteria for a SC judge and concluded that Soto tended toward the negative as a pick. And from what I can tell, all solely based upon some comment taken out of context and
not some specific ruling.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/05/look-out-mr-prez-the-french-an.html#comment-231369

Warren
I hope your correct.I listened to Hardball for the first time tonight in well over a year because they were on . I was encouraged after hearing them make the case.. I think it would take a SC ruling for the State of Florida to give gays there civil rights,hell its against the law for us to adopt here...

LOL Tony, I'm not so old.....

And generations sometimes reverse the trends. I bet I work with more gay people than many here. I have nothing against gay relationships, but I think there is nothing wrong with hteros having the label if not an exclusive advantage in civil rights. Our Constitution and civlization is not all about change. It is also about continuity and tradition as even enes are rather conservative in the classical sense.

When you look at much of the literature, even Jefferson was against slavery. He couldn't figure out what to do with the slaves as he doubted intergration could work. I agree with Warren that although orginalism is essential, our progressive history and evolution is also important as women can now vote. The conservative's mistake is that they are not creative enough as to how government can really help our progess in ways private society can't. Liberals mistake what change can do unthethered from tradition and precedent. The very nature of change makes much a guess a theory to be tested.

I would say I am in the middle, not some old guard defending the cobbwebs. It is not extreme to think future adults with see the beauty in the synergy between conservatism and Liberalism. To the degree married people become parents, society built on biology is not unfair in promoting heterosexual oreintation and parenthood. Certainly our founders agreed on that. As long as gays are not deprived of civil rights, I see no harm in marriage being a label for the biological unit. In that sense, Obama and I are the old guard. Perhaps gay marriage is coming, but I will never compare that to the end of slavery or the sufferage of women. For me the issue isn't religion. In a world of growing cultural relativism and extremist threats, nature is conservative and sings of the birds and bees.

No, Rez, I concluded based on what I know presently Sotomayor is more good than bad. Miers was bad, Bork was bad. Nowhere did I oppose Sotomayor despite the warts....

I rejected only her bad gaffe.

that is genes are rather conservative.....

Jamie - I see your point, and really really appreciate
your effort at going back to Pogo's post. You have provided us with a model for disagreeing without being offensive - what useful skill.

Unfortunately, the post that bothered me so much isn't the one that upet me. I had posted that I had reservations re her statement in a decision that we, our government, could constitutionally withhold foreign aid from countries which did not outlaw abortion, (and maybe even contraception.) I think it is an injection of religion and church into government policy and shrieks of Reagan and the Bushes.

I abhor that policy and worried that it might show up in some of her decisons on scotus. That's all

The next morning Pogo posted this, and I objected to it on various grounds:

" love the speculation over what prospective judicial nominees might do with Roe - as if a case presenting the opportunity for a wholesale review of the decision is like to come before the Court in the foreseeable future. I'd suggest that those who want to deal in such speculation first go figure out what Roe says and does and how - my money is on the proposition that most of the folks who argue the loudest have never actually read the decision or would have a clue what they were reading if they had - to say nothing of how it has been limited in subsequent abortion cases.

Posted by: newpogo.myopenid.com | May 27, 2009 10:52 AM

My upset was in the next post, which I have no intention.
of repeating. His response was a bunch of legal terms
which did not speak to my worries. I think Pogo was condescending in both his responsesand that does get my ire up - I don't like condescension. I think it's rude and insulting and extremely intellectually dishonest. I didn't need his instructions or corrections. Respond to me the way you did so pleasantly, and I can work it out and enjoy it, and maybe even be reassured.

The problem now is that I fired off at a favorite and I'm sorry if I offended people. If anybody wants to disagree with me pleasantly and intellectually, I'd be happy to explain again why I think Pogo was condescending - but I'm tired of it and I'm sure everyone else is.

For the record, whether it is I being condescended to or someone else is immaterial. I hate it - it stifles good conversation at best, and it is arrogant and unfair at worst.

If you've stayed with me so far, Jamie, bless you. You're an extremely decent person, otherwise known as a sweetheart.

Sorry for all the long posts recently. I'm gonna try to shut up now.

Tony, once again, do you think humanity which for millions of years survives on the heterosexual mating between the sexes as NO elevated importance in terms of social continuity. I am sorry I offended your feelings. I think you should have civl rights, but doesn't the majority have any rights? Is is alright for society to say their is nothing special between a man and women that is not the same for gays? You would deprive the majority of a natural promotion of reproductive mating and parenthood. Are you saying society should make no judgement what is the most evolutionary and bioloigical bonding of humans?

If you are, then perhaps it is you who insults me. You seem to be calling more for Brave New World than civl rights. And are you saying for child, having a mother and father isn't the best thing? I'm not talking about bad marriages or abusive parents. In general, aren't a mother and father the best bonding agents for a child? If everyone was gay, would that be a good thing?

Max:

Your "nature" argument was also used to justify slavery as well as oppression of women.

And your arguments about biology leading to stability are undermined by the divorce rate and the thousands of kids languishing in orphanages instead of in the loving and supportive home of gay parents.

All the arguments being made now against gay marriage are the same that we made against blacks, women, and other minorities.

And I have no idea whether homosexuality is a choice or genetic - and I understand some people may have a valid argument that homosexuality is different than ethnicity.

But unequal treat under the law is unequal treatment under the law - no matter how you justify it.

Aw c'mon bethy - cut us lawyers some slack. We can't help but be condescending...

(j/k - we need people to put us back in our place ; )

Bethy, Pogo has fired off at me, but I am not easily offended, nor do I think Pogo really means to claw anyone.

I am not worried. This country will not outlaw abortion any time soon. We might see a trend toward more State regulation of marriage and abortion, but the bottom line is that too many people favor sensible abortion. 65% favor the present legal contraints.Very few favor a total ban or no regulation at all. I think COngress and Scotus understand that and in 1789 there was no Federal prohibition nor did any State ban abortion at our founding.

Enjoy your evening everyone. I must sleep.

http://blogs.cqpolitics.com/trailmix/2009/05/look-out-mr-prez-the-french-an.html#comment-231374

Max
You make your case well as usual.The bottom line is the case you make denies me and people like me the very rights you enjoy simply because we are gay..Its the same thing that's happened to many others throughout history..I know you say you have gay acquaintances ,why don't you try listening to them for a change.....Maybe then you would see how much you and people like you have done to hurt people like me..

oh boy max - you may want to go to sleep. Some of those posts worrying about the rights of the poor majority are ... like I said - oh boy.

Hah! I just thought about how max has - inadvertantly - made a better case re: the need for "empathy" than I ever could...

Warren are you seriously going to deny the essential heterosexual differential reproduction of animal evolution? There is nothing in biology that justifies slavery. Nothing, zip, nada. So you try and tie an obvious lie to an obvious truth. How lawyerly of you.

You then move to divorce rates as a refutation of human evolution and gay parenting as our salvation? Holy shit. Holywood is calling you.

Then you equate gayness to race, you discount the biological arguement and then go back and say some people have a case that gayness is different than ethinicity. Do you do trial law? Thank God Scopes was before your time.

See how many questions there are? You seek to make all diffiences the same. Everything is relative and absolutes or judgments should be avoided. Every class of people should not have their choices discriminated against by the larger society. Sharia here we come. I want five wives.

Okay.

I grew up in a very Democratic, pro-Union household.

I was 16 when I figured out that the the name of the Republican Party wasn't "those damn Republicans"..

Harry Truman was very popular at our house.

Tony I want you to have every right except being able to project to society that gayness is no different than straightness. We are talking only about the label so society at large can continue to promote heterosexual coupling and reproduction. You and your mate cannot reproduce. Evolution did not intend for gays to be the driving force of evolution. Your genes are reaching a dead end unless you have a child of you own.

I am not making a moral judgement. I couldn't care if you wanted to live with a bear at yellowstone. Gays have been far better clients to me than straights. They are often the better looking to as far as men go. I don't want you to be shut out. Still, I think humanity leans towards the natural promotion of straight coupling and perental control. You want your cake and to eat it too, yet I understand the years of victimization. That will change Tony, but as long as you are given the civil rights of the married, can't you understand why are very biology and not moral platitudes pushes hterosexual union to the top of the hill?

max:

the family unit was essential to early American life in large part because there was a need to have more hands to work the farm.

Given the overpopulation the world is facing - you could make a scientific - or what's best for society argument in favor of gay marriage.

But I think all of that is nonsense.

There is no need to have an argument to treat people equally. It is an end in itself/

And there is no justification - no matter how rhetorically impressive - to treat people unequally.

I grew up LIberal too and participated in Liberal causes. I supported gay rights before it was PC. I have only dated more feminist women. I protested human rights abuses and environmental destruction.

I can see clearly now..........

The dynamic is far more complex and both sides have valid points. The olfer I get the more I see that dynamic tension captured so eloquently in the Consititution.

Okay, now it is getting late.

If you are, then perhaps it is you who insults me.

Max
I wasn't intending to insult you at all.I was only making my feelings known.I have felt the trashing and discrimination my whole life from some of those that you call the majority!! It is those of us in the minority in this society that need are rights guaranteed and protected...I was hoping to see you had a heart rather than giving all these analytical reasons for protecting discrimination...We just disagree and that's ok...

Max - I know Pogo has fired off at you and vice versa, and often I don't blame him. You just say so many things that I can't keep up! HA! I fired off at you once, remember? Some of you guys seem to enjoy it, and I enjoy that. I do not get insulted since I tend to be pretty sure about what I think. I think you were trying to make me feel better, and I thank you for that.

I was offended at his assurance that I would be improved by listening to his advice and thereby be a better informed person.

Flatus - It totally went over my head that this poor man meant something personal to you and your family! I am so sorry that such a tragedy occurred. From what I read he was a good man who achieved many things.
What a shame he died with thoughts of failure in his heart.

No you can't and be right Warren. Are you suggesting a ten million year end to primate evolution? Then end of reproduction favoring a pairing unit without a gentic future?

Sure Warren, let's treat honor killing as an acceptable behavior in a class of people. Let's allow people to marry their pet animal (no I am not comparing gay marriage to that). But your mantra to treat everyone equally is dream land. Bosses don't treat slow workers equally. Universities don't treat bad teacher equally. Banks don't lend money equally.....oh they did that and it didn't work?

Let's pick this up later.

Max

If humanity tends toward straight coupling - why do you need the "sanctity of marriage" to protect society from falling off some mythological cliff that exists in your head?

Sorry, Max - one of the tenets of our country is the protection of the minority against the tyranny of the majority.

Evolution takes place in the intellectual world as well as in reproduction, also. One's brain needs to evolve as well when new information and understanding is added.

Good night max.

(And I was just rattling off arguments off the top of my head to demonstrate how little they matter.)

Tony, If I could convince you of anything it is that I don't wish you any discrimination. I am a Jew so I know about discrimination from a cultural history. I am simply saying he majority who carry on the evolution of humanity by reporducing have rights too. Perhaps they want social conditioning to continue to promote a majorty of reproductive units. A mother and father like you experianced is the most natural thing for a child. Jung suggests we have archetypes that are gentic. These archtypes drive society and a certain relativism regarding norms lead to several civilization declines.

So I empathize with you and wish you the best. I would rally treat you equally, no shit. But on the longer scale I can understand by the najority wants their children and institutions to lean towards the straight in terms of culture and tradition. I reject the religious view as it is obvious that gays would have vanished had their impact not been to increase genetic fitness. Gay genes must be linked to a selective advantage or it would have vanishes over time. Therefore gayness isn't unnatural, it is just understanbly given Darwin, a minority.

Try to understand that this doesn't mean to be an insult. You know, I always told my girlfriends marriage is just a piece of papper. Love is what counts. I still believe that, don't you?

We'll pick this up later........

Bethy, I'm so ired. I promise to answer your smart question. I think I kind of answered it to Tony. Hormones. that is all I can say now. You all have nice dreams.

If you can't sleep try melotonin. It works for me.

Max over and out

These family feuds seem to nevah end!

Ya gotta give it to Monty Python even now. I forgot that my mother's a hamster.

LMAO!

Good catch, Craig.

tt

"You would deprive the majority of a natural promotion of reproductive mating and parenthood.?"

No Max, but everyday, where I work, I see a lot that ought to be deprived. Having the right biology isn't enough. Gay people who chose to be parents. do so with thought and proper preparation, it's not just a nasty accident with serious consequences to the children.

Don't worry Tony, the new generation is more loving and accepting. It won't take long before enough of the hate dies out and a better world follows. Don't know how long it will be but I think it will be sooner than we may think.

Max, this statement is BS and you know it: "In a world of growing cultural relativism and extremist threats, nature is conservative and sings of the birds and bees."

And the relationships between men and women are no mpore sacred than those between same sex couples. Both exist quite naturally in this world.

"And are you saying for child, having a mother and father isn't the best thing? I'm not talking about bad marriages or abusive parents. In general, aren't a mother and father the best bonding agents for a child? If everyone was gay, would that be a good thing?"

Max, please sober up. What a load. You don't want anyone to start deconstructing the logic or lack thereof in this.

(If that's insulting it is because I meant it to be.)

" You know, I always told my girlfriends marriage is just a piece of papper."

LMAO! This is a joke, right? Because it is pants-peeing funny!

You go girl!

All this late night ,or should I say early morning, pontificating. Whatever happened to happy hour?

Sorry, I just choked myself awake on some GERDs. Must have been that cherry turnover with the sweet vanilla ice cream that I so much enjoyed a little earlier.

Hi, Carol - are you wide awake and hoping someone else is too? Hope not cuz I think I'm the last and I'm crashing. In fact, I think I crashed a while ago!

You go girl! Maybe it would be good for everyone to be gay for awile - I think we've got the reproduction part down pat by now.

Not awake for long Bethy, just long enough to get some oxygen back. Where's the night shift? They should be here by now?

Bethy, if I can't sleep I put my little radio on with George Noory and Coast to Coast AM. The more interesting his program is and the more I want to hear it all, the faster I seem to fall asleep.,

I hear that a lot of people in jail/prison listen to his program. I guess we have something in common.

Greetings from Bloggingham, Beth. You are not alone...

What about me lord? Am I chopped liver?

Salutations from Blogginham, ct. You are not chopped liver...

And my little corn is peeking it's little heads out of the dirt under the nice rabbit excluding corn enclosure. When it gets big enough to photograph I will sent C-Bob a pic. I saw lots of bunnies today when I went to water it. They are probably plotting at this very minute.

I am glad I am not chopped liver because that would give me just one more reason not to like me sometimes. I do get along with me most of the time.

The Forkner Fresnel Focuser Moves to the Garden -

http://cbsolaroven.blogspot.com/

--------------
My mother's garden is the coolest place in West Texas right now, That spot has always rolled around , and we won't have it long, but right now, right here, we got our hands around it.

That ain't no way to refer to oneself, ct. There's 6 billion people in the world of whom to be critical; why pick yourself?

Hey champ, How's it hanging? Been awhile, good to see you're still A&K.

Carol, past you bedtime isn't it?

Good thought lord.

Rez, just for a short time. Got choked awake.

Not long enough Rez to discuss the meaning of life.

What up, Rez? Who is this strange "champ" fellow to whom you refer? If I ever meet him, I'm gonna kick his ass.

Do that for me dark. He's a real Asshole. Good thing he doesn't show up on the west coast , or i'd do it myself.

Just joshing Carol. It's not even midnite here.

hasta lumbago all! The dogs need an extra stroll.

Just misunderstood is all...

Well that's enough hilarity for one evening; a thousand evenings, maybe. The Dark Lord needs some rest, contrary to popular belief. Just popping in to offer some greetings and salutations. Check and check.

Craig- thanks for the mention of the 94th! The letter is now in Gates office will update as soon as I can. Thanks for the Monty Python too!

NEW THREAD

Sarkozeeeee is a a$$. Time for Freedom Fries again? Monty Python is a winner. Thanks for the MP vid, Craig.