Points for Honesty.

Rice Lake lost to New Richmond 14-13 here on a sunny day of playoff football.

Wish it didn't hurt so bad, but truth be told, it does. Having lived in both places, to me NR represents what we called in Property class "The Dead Hand". Old Money, or money rather, influencing too much.

Like many places, wealthy especially, the parents are living off their children these days, through their sports. It was always like this, of course, in America, but the influx of wealth in the past decades... Sports can get a new facility, a new school built. And sports can over-emphasize the organizing structure of the school, if you're not careful...

But back to the game. If you know WIsconsin -- can I say? -- NR is becoming everything I disliked about Hudson: a border river city that was much like the Minnesota suburbs. Softer kids, wealthier more artificial looking parents, something off about the money influence, and where the family and older values fall off...

Rice Lake is less like that; it's a bit more rural and removed up here. Not that I'd kid you the social strata isn't out there in all American public schools and communities, but some influences are more obvious and pervasive than others, I think. (Disclosure: with no children in the system, I'm not an insider observer by any means, but you see it living where you live.)

Back to NR:
the fans booed a ref's call (not good sportsmanship in high school sports); brought in cowbells and stomped and cheered not good plays so much, but anything that went their way. Typical fans -- I can hear you saying. What's wrong with that?

I like the more quiet confidence. We're the smallest school in our conference, while NR prefers to be the biggest fish in their small pond. Going on overall school populations -- NR is growing being so close to the Twin Cities, more bodies to choose from...

Rice Lake, if you look at the men in all seasons, more carries their own weight. Living closer to their earth; reaping what they've sown themselves. NR -- which once boasted a native son, Warren Knowles, in the governor's office -- is the generational more annointed type, where the fellas didn't so much earn what they're living off of, let's leave it at that...

So RL has been feeding too much this season off it's own junior quarterback: a scrambler who can run, evade, throw, and he even punts, which comes in handy when the fake is an option, which was successful today. But it caught up to them.

Not sure if he's the one who missed the point after, when the Warriors pretty much ground it out upfield, before one beautifully timed pass that led them to finally match NR's second touchdown. But we missed the point after, and their damn cowbells went wild. (You're not supposed to bring noisemakers into the high school games either, but that's admittedly just an annoyance of mine, on an open field on an open afternoon, in the sunny 40s.)

I wish you could have seen the catch -- airy pass plays are a rarity in our games at this level -- that brought the ball to the 5-yard line for the final score, before the extra kick was missed. A leap of pure beauty -- sad there are no replays -- and he held on! He managed to hold it, despite getting hit, hard, by the NR defender(s?).

A broken leg, Mal said. The ambulance came, the game delayed before the score, the Warrior taken off to clapping -- from NR too, but no cowbells. You thought they could do it -- win one for their missing man, but the kick just wasn't there. To the side I guess, hard to see from where I was standing, but that was how the ref called it, and their cowbells came out.

So my hurt really, it's little compared to the swelling of a broken, even set, leg, right about now...



ADDED: In case you were wondering,
they were indeed New Richmond from the start, before the historic cyclone of 1899 wiped out 117 lives (the circus -- and the country people -- sadly was in town that day and collectively met their fate) and the town rebuilt.

Rappin' Charlie.

Whew!

From the tv previews, I was afraid they'd updated the whole Charlie Brown / Great Pumpkin episode into a hip-hop one. Not that there's anything wrong with that. (Can you see how insulting a phrase that one has become?)

But glad to see it's the same original. With Lucy pulling back the football at the last minute from poor ole Charlie Brown ...

Three Two Dog* Night.

Gonna get down to the high 20s tonight here...

Brrrrrrrr-ing It On!

Got the plastic on the northern windows. The church garden's plowed under, with our community clean-up day set for Sunday. Ate some purple cabbage, eggplant and squash for supper ...

And New Richmond is coming up to face Rice Lake in playoff action football Saturday.

It's another face of autumn now, transitioning to winter.

----------
* One of these years, I gotta get me a dog. Or two.

Geezers in Florida Lose Library Privileges...

Because They Can't Hold Peaceful Political Discussions:

The source of their ire was the library's decision to cancel the Current Events discussion group that has been meeting weekly for the past 10 years. Group members said the library made a unilateral decision to cancel the group after a complaint about a discussion turned heated.

"It was so undemocratic," said Loise Cammorata, 72, who held a yellow sign outside the library. "They never got the other side of the story."

Picketers wanted library officials to hear their side of the story and to restore the program that services hundreds of seniors during season.

For their part, library officials say the program has a long history of unruly behavior. Participants have been told to shut up for their opposing points of view, there's been name calling and once there was a fist fight in the parking lot.

"What happened last week was not an isolated incident and it was the last straw," Library Director Alan Kornblau told the seniors Tuesday morning while those in the back of the auditorium shouted they couldn't hear. "Unlike any of the other 300 other programs, the current events group has a long history of unacceptable behavior."

Witnesses described what happened at that final meeting: Chuck Lehmann, known as one of the few conservatives who attends the group, was talking about foreign money coming into the country to fund the election campaigns of many Democratic candidates.

A woman, whom no one in the group could identify, told the 75-year-old Lehmann to shut up.

"I said, 'Hey lady, I have the floor here,' " said Lehmann. "She said it again, and I said, 'You sit down, you old hag.' She sat up and she flipped me the bird."

Kornblau, whose comments were met with dismissive laughter and hissing, said he has warned the group and its moderators about maintaining decorum and civility.
...
Bonnie Stelzer, library director of community relations, said it was not a decision that library officials took lightly.

"I understand this is reflective of what's going on today in the country, but the library is not the place we come to yell at one another," she said.

Good Grief!

Barry Keeps Up the Funny.

Continuing to break character as he juggles his leadership / entertainer roles, with an eyeball toward those important popularity rankings, the prez gives it everything he's got:
"That's probably the best you'll do out of me today."

I have been to this point unwilling to sign on to same-sex marriage primarily because of my understandings of the traditional definitions of marriage. But I also think you're right that attitudes evolve, including mine. I think that it is an issue that I wrestle with and think about because I have a whole host of friends who are in gay partnerships. I have staff members who are in committed, monogamous relationships, who are raising children, who are wonderful parents. And I care about them deeply. And so while I'm not prepared to reverse myself here, sitting in the Roosevelt Room at 3:30 in the afternoon, I think it's fair to say that it's something that I think a lot about. That's probably the best you'll do out of me today.

Now call me a cynic,
but how many of you want to guess that he'll stop accepting this current system -- legal rights for the gay elites who can afford to privately contract for them -- his "evolution" completed right on cycle, before he himself re-runs for the job in 2012 with a fresh slew of promises of change we can wait on?

Honesty... is hardly ever heard...

ADDED: Even Althouse gets it:

SUDBAY: So I have another gay question. (Laughter.)

THE PRESIDENT: It’s okay, man. (Laughter.)

I am resisting typing curse words here. Look at (questioner) Sudbay abasing himself. Now these rights he must care about are reduced to jocose "gay questions." Something to laugh at. There indeed was a time, and it was not too long ago, that the idea of gay rights itself seemed funny to people. And Sudbay allows himself to get pushed back toward that place. The President treats the remark as if it were an apology. He says "It's okay, man." Man. See? He's a cool guy. He's taming Sudbay.
...
You know, your position on the rights of others should not depend on whether they are your friends. That's not the way law works. People have rights whether you care about them or not. And rights don't spring into existence because you care about the people who want them.

Well said.

The Life You Save ...

Notre Dame junior Declan Sullivan, 20, sent messages to Twitter from the top of the camera tower where he was recording a football practice less than an hour before he fell to his death Wednesday.

In the first message, timestamped 3:22 p.m., Sullivan wrote, "Gust of wind up to 60mph well today will be fun at work... I guess I've lived long enough :-/."

The second message, which was sent at 4:06 p.m., less than an hour before his tragic fall at 4:50 p.m., reads, "Holy fuck holy fuck this is terrifying."

The National Weather Service reported winds of 51 mph in South Bend this afternoon. On campus, students struggled to fight the gusts as they walked to class.

Sad news out of Notre Dame; a good reminder to workers of all ages: listen to your gut instincts* and get yourself out of situations if you think your health is being compromised, today or tomorrow.

*I was answering phones in a small switchboard room at the Embassy Suites on Singer Island (Florida) one day when they came to paint around me. Couldn't understand why I'd object to them painting the 3 adjoining walls in an unvenilated place while I sat there working. Luckily, I had the brains and ... brashness, and got out.

It's hard to question an employer. Takes energy, and time, to watch a weather report and think how that might affect your daily routine. But you'd think, we'd all be smarter if we started respecting Nature a bit more, no?

Commonsense is underrated.

Julie Lassa for Congress.

More and more, I think my vote here in Wisconsin will go to this State Senator, a Democrat running to replace U.S. Rep. David Obey, who is retiring this year.

Her opponent is Sean Duffy -- remember, the kid from the big Wisconsin lumberjacking family who appeared on the Real World Boston season, verbally sparring with Kameelah, the young black woman? That -- plus his Wm. Mitchell law degree and time clocked in the district attorney's office in his home county -- give him credibility.

But up here, if you were just looking at the campaign literature? His big qualifications are the 6 photogenic children (Hispanic Cuban-American, proudly Catholic wife): he's a real family man, and say what you will, but that seems to count ... a lot.

Going on straight qualifications though, my instinct is Lassa's better qualified in this race. Plus, she says things like this, and I'd like to see the Democratic party become more moderate, and less this bifurcated place where elites see no need to create change ... today:

"I've been running my own campaign," Lassa said. "I'm my own individual candidate, and I really appreciate all the work that Congressman Obey has done for the district and for the state because he's served this district for 42 years, and I think that's important to recognize. But with his retirement is the turning of the page and the beginning of a new chapter."

Lassa emphasized that she has worked frequently with Republicans as a Wisconsin state senator and pointed out that she twice voted to override Democratic Gov. Jim Doyle‘s vetoes of bills that would have permitted gun owners to carry concealed firearms.

"To me it doesn't matter if it's a Republican or a Democratic idea," Lassa said. "It's just important that I believe that it's good public policy."

Lassa was particularly forthright about her reservations about health care reform - the signature achievement of Obama's presidency and the Democratic Congress.

"One of the things that I'm really concerned about is the mandate that individuals and families purchase health insurance, and I think that if we are going to mandate that individuals and families have to purchase insurance, we have to make sure that that insurance then is affordable," Lassa said. "Otherwise I don't believe that it's fair."

Lassa said that the health care reform law has a host of worthwhile provisions, including the bans on discriminating against patients with preexisting conditions and rescinding the coverage of policyholders who become sick, but she reiterated her concerns about the mandate.

Asked if she would support repealing aspects of the health care law if elected, Lassa said, "I think we have to look at one, how are they going to go through the rules process and implement that portion, and what is the federal government going to do to make sure that it remains affordable."

But if those steps weren't taken, Lassa said, "Then I think we have to really seriously consider whether or not that mandate stays because it is very important to me that individuals and families can afford health insurance." She added, "If we can't make sure that the premiums remain affordable, then I think we have to re-look at that section of the bill going forward."

ADDED: Politically, it's wisest for the country to work together -- now! -- to repeal the unconstitutional mandate portion of the law, and it will be interesting to see if, post-election, there's much impetus toward national leadership in reforming the reform and avoiding messy legal battles down the road...

Change You Can Wait For.

If this national leadership gig doesn't work out for him, Barry OBama definitely has a second career in standup:

President Obama took his campaign get-out-the-vote blitz to “The Daily Show” on Wednesday, telling the host, Jon Stewart, that he never promised transformational change overnight.

“When we promised during the campaign change you can believe in, it wasn’t change you can believe in in 18 months,’’ Mr. Obama said

Bwa-ha-ha! Great stuff, man... *wiping my eyes*

And he's not at all afraid of coming off as a fool, spouting lines like that either.

Mr. Obama: I think we've finally found your true calling...

Dr. Dr. ... Mr. M.D.

Can you tell me ... what's ailing me?*

Wow. After plenty of elite professional political analysis... turns out, it's the healthcare bill, stupid.

It’s not just Democratic House members whose political health is being threatened by the health care law. In Washington state, Sen. Patty Murray is in a neck-and-neck fight with Dino Rossi in a Democratic-friendly state – and one of the Republican challenger’s closing ads focuses exclusively on Murray’s comments in favor of the health care bill.

If that’s not compelling enough evidence that health care is fueling the Democrats’ dismal situation, polling recently commissioned by the National Republican Congressional Committee in 65 of the most competitive congressional seats held by Democrats provides more. When participants were asked an open-ended question about what gives them the biggest pause about voting for their sitting member of Congress, a solid plurality said it was health care – ahead of the economy and jobs. In a follow-up focus group in Erie, Pa., with some of the poll’s participants, one of the organizers said it was striking to see how many women’s votes were driven by health care. Some came to the focus group reciting chapter and verse the provisions of the law they didn’t like. Many said they were Obama supporters in 2008, but the more they heard about the health care bill, the more frustrated they became.

The administration’s relentless focus on health care last year came at the worst possible time, when most Americans were looking at a scary economic climate and wanted laser-like attention to fixing it. It greatly expanded the scope of government, even though most Americans identify themselves as moderates or conservatives. It helped galvanize a movement, the tea party, that’s shaping up to be a force in politics.

This election is not about messaging or money -- it’s largely about policy, and in particular, on a far-reaching piece of legislation that has proven deeply unpopular in states and districts across the country.

Now who possibly coulda seen this one coming, back when the professionals were busy laughing at Sarah "She's a Joke" Palin, and making funnies about Nancy "I'm not a WItch" O'Donnell?



(Maybe it just sounds better, coming from a guy popularly named... Josh. And if only I looked older with a receding hairline too ... Ah well. The path less chosen has made all the difference for me.)


*From the YouTube comments:
(who writes this stuff?)

Widmerpool99 -- 1 month ago
Couldn't they have let Eddie at least pretend to play a proper instrument - bass maybe? He looks like the roadie's girlfriend who's been allowed to join in on elementary percussion for the encore.

But if you'd try some time...

Well you just might find...

You get what you need.




Happy Hump Day!

Roadside Reminders.

Nevermind politics -- and if you don't want to go to all that trouble mentally tuning out all the spin that money can buy (legally, First Amendment principles and all.)-- why not... just turn off your tv(s) in the coming days, and don't pick up the phone?

And don't open your doors, if you live in places where candidates can come a-callin'. Otherwise, just hunker down.*

Mother Nature is reminding some of us today: her storms may be less predictable and more potentially deadly the consequences, but just as natural a cleaning with the high winds and heavy rains, as the storms expected to sweep through the nation next week.

With good judgment and our neighbors' help as needed though, we'll come through it no matter what. (That's not being boastful either. That's being an American.)

---------------

* We -- the People -- we're more powerful than men like Egan give us credit for, I think...

Or at least, less unpowerful if we're still free to think and consider logically the Scare Messages these powerful Big Buck special interests are allegedly serving up ... for both sides.

Of course, that goes back to Brooks' (copped) point: it's rather condescending at this late date especially, to still be assuming that Big Bucks are influencing the popular pushback that we are seeing in this election...

Maybe people are just rejecting -- and never ordered in Nov. 2008 either -- expansion of bureaucratic programs, via the healthcare mandate that wasn't even on the table as one of President Obama's platforms at the time he was running for the job.

Or maybe we're all just being hypnotized by those tv ads.

Geez, it's like some folks out there (maybe it's a one-percenter thing?) actually believe that money necessarily buys superiority, and the little guy with lesser capital & connections never pulls out a win based on raw skills and consistent talent and delivery.

Luckily, some of us out here know better. (Even Nature herself often pulls an upset, you know.)

Song from the Road.

Yesterday...

Indiana Wants Me.

Make it a great Monday. Busy day here.

Speaking of rough Mondays, how'd you like to be Brett "that's not my penis" Favre, waking up this morning after...

(say it in his drawl = "nawt/naught")

"But you Mis-Read..."

Not to be a Maureen Dowd defender, but perhaps some of the New Media boys-to-Men -- and the women who want to love them -- aren't reading what's written, but too much between the lines based on insider gossip.

This, for example:

Angle could have told the poignant story of her German immigrant great-grandmother who died trying to save laundry hanging on the clothesline in a South Dakota prairie fire, which Angle wrote about in her self-published book, “Prairie Fire.” But instead the former teacher and assemblywoman began hurling cafeteria insults. “I live in a middle-class neighborhood in Reno, Nevada,” she said. “Senator Reid lives in the Ritz-Carlton in Washington, D.C.”

The keywords might be:
immigrant great-grandmother
and
self-published.

I've been reading Scott Eyman's Empire of Dreams: The Epic Life of Cecil B. DeMille. (review here, to come)

Scott's style is that of a historian: he gets the backstory, and starts not with his subjects' birth, but a generation or two back, when possible, to show how they got where they started...* (click the link: my favorites of his are John Ford, Ernst Lubitsch, Mary Pickford.)


As a reader, if I've learned one thing from his style, it's how telling that backstory is -- details count. Particularly in shaping the persons who went out and created so much of our American style -- Lubitsch with his (on film) intelligent, high-class, adult sexual touch; "Pickford" who went from Canadian Gladys Smith to Hollywood businesswoman unparallel; and of course, Ford who helped millions picture our shared American mythology of Settling the West, and DeMille who did the same for our Biblical heritage.

You could use this style fictitiously, to craft a complex classic; you could use it politically, to tell an appealing populist tale...

But it only works if the reader is a trained thinker, practiced at evaluating what the politicians routinely serve up and judging for oneself what that backstory is worth. Many people -- good, credentialed, around the block enough you'd think they'd know better -- bit on the Obama story: a bi-racial man with his background story and community/professorial work surely qualified to bring people together to seek common-sense solutions to head-on address the problems of the past...

Except, you got an idea that the image was too ... crafted. That not enough time had gone into seasoning the product; that it was perhaps a race to succeed -- this young black man more than his causes -- by collecting titles and making connections and using them as a step up the ladder called ... Movin' On.

So now, with another election coming... if we want to, we can think about what these candidates offer. A great-grandmother immigrant... is that the same as having the Old World in the kitchen, watching the pocketbook? Is it the same even, as being raised by the next generation, who might have adopted such an outsider or thrifty mindset? Or is it just a label by then, something to pull out and wave in a campaign to boost the "immigrant" creds?

Same with the "self published" dig. You can kinda get away with whatever details you want to present if you're not publishing under the auspice of a major publishing house (and with the memoir scandals of the past, I suppose, sometimes even then).

But that classification -- that raises red flags to thinking readers everywhere. I don't think Dowd has evidence suggesting that the "Pioneer Ancestor Woman Dies Trying to Save Family Clothes from the WarshLine!" is untrue necessarily. I just think, if you read that paragraph and missed the subtle snarkiness (in a good way, really -- who wants loud and in-your-face nastiness, when a dropped line or two will work just the same?), it's more on you than the writer.


---------------------------------

* I was at the public library last year, and happened to pick up a copy of Bob Dylan's, Chronicles Volume One. What a wonderful memoir -- how he captures the early essence of himself, telling little stories through details and recollections. Showing the impact of this or that family occurrence, not just telling us ... about some great-grandmother story passed down in the family, for example.

Is that Eyman's voice helping Dylan tell his story, I wondered? Hired by Simon & Schuster to help ghost-write/recollect the Dylan autobiography along? I knew he worked with Robert Wagner -- landed on the NYT bestseller list, in a commercial way no Pickford or Lubitsch or Ford can with these days of dying generational readership...

Just speculating that's Eyman's style at work in those Chronicles, but wouldn't that be something if one day, we've got enough Trained and Thinking readers out there -- not only to vote intelligently and leave the gossipy girl stuff for high school halls -- but to expect those kind of intelligent and telling details, routinely, in our fictional stories too.

Complex characters operating in an intelligent world of maximum choices. Now there's a story...

Silly Rabbi: Myths are for Kids.

If you read Roger Cohen's column in the NYT today, check out this similar story in today's Palm Beach Post.

Cohen has a bit of fun with those who see a miraculous hand at play in the Chilean triumph, poking at Christianity's relevance of the number 33:

LONDON — Jesus Christ, of course, was 33.

That’s not scientific, but it’s the age most people ascribe to the man Christians believe died on the cross for our sins. And, of course, there were 33 men trapped in Chile’s San José mine and it took 33 days to dig the shaft that rescued them.

From the moment they made contact with the surface, more than two weeks after being trapped, they were indivisible as “Los 33.” It is said the drill bit for “Plan B,” the one that reached them almost a half-mile below ground, was changed 33 times.

The first men reached the surface on 13-10-10 — or 10-13-10 for Americans — and that adds up to 33. No wonder there was much talk of miracles and God. “A grand miracle,” the wife of Florencio Ávalos, the first miner to emerge, said.

Let’s set miracles aside for a moment.
...
The real Chilean “miracle” was man-made. It lay in the redemptive solidarity displayed — below ground, by rescuers at the site and on a global level — at a time of shrieking polarization in the United States, rampant self-obsession and persistent division. I raise a glass to that — of Rolling Rock beer whose mysterious “33” on the bottle may refer to the year Prohibition was ended or to some deeper, unifying mystery.

And then we read of this "debate" in South Florda, by Palm Beach Post Staff Writer Lona O'Connor, with the Rabbi arguing for a 40-day ... leeway period in experimenting with human embryos, based on Biblical dictates:

According to Christian belief, it is clear when life begins.

"Life begins at conception," said Paul Copan, professor of philosophy and ethics at Palm Beach Atlantic University in West Palm Beach. "When you have the union of sperm and egg, you have an entity that has its own genetic structure distinct from the parents. Given food and water and time and opportunity, it will come to full flowering."

Destroying an embryo to extract stem cells is depriving a human of life and therefore unacceptable, Copan said.

Judaism has a much different view of embryos, and therefore a different view of embryonic stem-cell research.

"The concern of Christian belief is that the embryo is a human being," Rabbi Dovid Vigler said. "We don't believe that."

Judaic law says that for the first 40 days after conception, the embryo has not achieved humanity. Therefore, using embryonic stem cells to treat diseases is not taking a human life. Furthermore, using those stem cells for research into disease contributes to the betterment of humanity.
...
Stem cells are created from unused embryos that would be discarded after in vitro fertilization. Extracting the stem cells destroys the embryos, which troubles many Christians.

Stem cells also can be extracted from adults, but many researchers consider them more difficult to manipulate in tests.

Copan says the Jewish 40-day argument for using embryonic stem cells is not compelling for anyone who believes that life begins at conception.

"Forty is a great biblical number," Copan said. "But it is metaphysically insignificant."

Vigler disagreed, pointing out that the number 40 has mystical significance and that is why it is used so often in Scripture: The flood lasted 40 days and 40 nights; the Jews spent 40 years in the desert; Moses stayed 40 days on Mount Sinai receiving the laws of God. In that and many other contexts, 40 signifies completion or entering a new dimension, Vigler said.

He added that the Bible offers a striking example of Scripture foreshadowing scientific discoveries. In Jewish tradition, there is a part of the body called the etzem luz, described as a bone that contains all the materials needed to reconstruct that person.

It is also possible to translate etzem as "essence" instead of "bone," Vigler said. "There's an essence that is indestructible. That is the stem cell. Not only do we support stem-cell research, we are 3,000 years ahead of modern science. We are constantly seeking to find harmony between science and faith."

Hubris.
Remind me again where that fits into the story?

Garden Producing.

Dug up a good blast of carrots from the community garden, and I'm not even going to tell you about the broccoli, much of which I thought was left to seed...

It's a cold weather plant, no doubt, and even without a scissors, the heads and an inch or two of stalks snapped off cleanly. Amazing the yield (and still producing!) -- they must love the late afternoon sun.

How 'bout that Cameron Wake? (Repeat.)

First the Vikings, now the Packers.

That's one Hungry Man...

Quarterback Chad Henne completed 23 of 39 passes for 231 yards and two touchdowns, while wide receiver Brandon Marshall maintained his strong season with 10 catches and 127 yards.

But it was a Dolphins defensive player – linebacker Cameron Wake – who became the star of Sunday’s game when he picked up his third sack of the day on a critical third-down attempt during overtime.

Wake’s success was necessary after Miami allowed Packers quarterback Aaron Rodgers to score a late touchdown in regulation by sneaking up the middle for a bold and unexpected 1-yard score. Green Bay was showing an empty backfield, a sign that suggested he’d pass, when he instead carried it in.

Everyday is Halloween.

Ministry:
Well I've lived with snakes and lizards
and other things that go bump! in the night...

Gail Collins, I thought in reading her column this morning, is on vacation and they've taken to re-running some of her work, like they used to do with Royko. Whoops!

It was arguments like this that made the Delaware debate by far the most interesting encounter between Senate candidates so far this year. When it was over, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer named O’Donnell the narrow winner because “she didn’t come across as just a weirdo or anything like that.” The bar for debate victory this year has become unacceptably low.
...
Rand Paul, the Republican candidate for the Senate in Kentucky, is currently getting heat for his membership in a college secret society that was banned from the Baylor University campus for making fun of organized religion. And you may remember that earlier this year a woman who went to Baylor with Paul claimed that he and his friends “took me out to this creek and made me worship Aqua Buddha.”

This is exactly the kind of information we ought to ignore.
...
In the Delaware debate, O’Donnell claimed her opponent had broken an agreement that no one would mention anything the other candidate did in their 20s. (She made the famous “dabbled in witchcraft” remark at age 30, but that would at least have excised her condemnations of masturbation, evolution and the theory of separation of church and state.)

That's a fresh column, again on that Nancy O'Donnell character. I guess it being a New York paper, they have to cover the hometown race so much that it appears overkill to the rest of us out here. (Delaware / New York ... it's all local, right?)

Speaking of local,
I've been taking the kayak out along the shoreline here in town, some of these early evening and weekend afternoons. Rice Lake is a bird wetland these days, with many varieties of ducks and geese stopping over.

O'Donnell is much like the decoy that draws your eye "running" across the water, while the rest of the pack floats by or takes off to safety. Too bad our elder journalists are still falling for that one, owing either to failing eyesight or maybe because they don't understand nature, due to not getting out of their own more advanced societies much.

Make it a great Saturday out there --
remember, it's never too early to start trying out your costume...
iF yOu DaRE !!

Prof - a - Prof.

In the mano-a-mano fighting tradition, Law Professor Althouse takes on Law Professor Obama: (whom you must admit has developed a more rope-a-dope strategic style on these issues, given what his social-conservative opponents usually hand him to work with...)

Professor Obama (PO):
Now we recently had a Supreme Court — a district court case — that said DADT is unconstitutional. I agree with the basic principle that anybody who wants to serve in our armed forces, and make sacrifices on our behalf, on behalf of our national security, anybody should be able to serve. And they shouldn’t have to lie about who they are in order to serve.

Professor Althouse (PA):
So don't appeal the case! Say you think the court got it right! Or say that you think DADT isn't unconstitutional. It's just bad policy, and you object to the judiciary taking over in this area.

PO: And so we are moving in the direction of ending this policy. It has to be done in a way that is orderly because we are involved in a war right now.

PA:That's pretty much a cloaked statement that he thinks the court was wrong and that the policy is constitutional. It's not "orderly" for the court to strike it down. The judiciary shouldn't be supervising the military. I'm going to assert with confidence that that is his opinion.

PO: But this is not a question of whether the policy will end. This policy will end, and it will end on my watch.

PA: The arc of history is long! Keep waiting, oh captive voters. Who else are you going to vote for?

PO: But I do have an obligation to make sure that I’m following some of the rules.

PA: Some of the rules?! Man, if you are only following some of the rules, why not give gay people a break?

PO: I can’t simply ignore laws that are out there. I have to work to make sure they are changed.

PA: Pssst. The Constitution is law.

Here in the Real World.

Amba discovers that when you check a loved one into Hospice, generally you've chosen your loved one's final course of action...

Looking over hospice nurse's shoulder at her computer I read: "Goal: safe and comfortable dying." A little startling, not to say oxymoronic.
11:38 AM Oct 14th via web

It's sad, but you hope it can be a good warning sign to others with aging relatives -- even those with dementia whose bodies often remain physically strong -- to craft early on a backup Plan B: a shared caregiving system with family, or even strangers in similar situations, akin to a stay-as-home mother/parent's network should emergency situations or even everyday-sharing routines arise.

As we begin to address the coming demographic storm in this country, I suspect we'll begin to see, as amba has, that government and charity care will be unable to fully cover the gap between "independent living" and "dying hospice care", putting some of the burden back on the immediate family members.

If there has been no long-range long-term-care planning -- no budgetary provision for picking up where government services can't afford to extend -- we will be forced to make the best available choices, which sadly often have real-life consequences.

You hate to see unnecessary suffering -- whether it's a young mother grappling with childcare opportunities, or an aging wife contemplating how to best help her husband.

Life is easier when you have a backup plan.

Naked Trees. CRUNCH time.

The winds these past few days have brought down the majority of the dry leaves -- no rain since the beginning of the month, and warm days, cool nights too.

It was beautiful while it lasted, this year especially. And every here and there about town, a red maple is still holding on ...

Think Pink? Or just Think -- keep the change.

This made me feel a bit better: Former Magikthise blogger, now at BigThink.com, and self-identified feminist Lindsay Beyerstein also objects to plastering that commercial Pink logo everywhere.

Nothing at all to do with not supporting the cause, she keys in on some of what bothers me about this campaign:

Boobs Against Breast Cancer: Dubious "Awareness" Campaigns The gimmicky, pink breast cancer "awareness" stunts are getting old.
...
Amie Newman of RH Reality Check notes that even Kentucky Fried Chicken is getting in on the awareness action with pink chicken buckets “for the cure.” This month, KFC is donating 50 cents from each rosy-hued tub of Original Recipe chicken to Susan G. Komen For The Cure, a leading breast cancer advocacy group. The promotion is expected to raise between $1 million and $8 million for breast cancer research and activism. That’s between 2 million and 16 million buckets of chicken. It’s more of a barometer than a donation, really.

The fewer buckets they sell, the more awareness has been raised. Newman notes that KFC’s french fries are an unusually rich source of acrylamide, a probable human carcinogen found in deep fried foods. In a recent study, women with the highest acrylamide intakes were at 43% greater risk for hormone-positive breast cancers.

Some marketers have decided that the root cause of our society’s lack of breast cancer awareness is our lack of breast awareness in general. This doesn’t seem quite right, especially because the breasts most likely to get cancer (those of women over 50) are seldom the breasts featured in the the various “save the gazongas” campaigns we’re subjected to every October.

From the public comments section, Carolyn Thomas:

The rank and file, conditioned by now to believe that there’s no problem shopping can’t solve, are invited to feel virtuous and altruistic whenever they buy a Yoplait yogurt or a pink KitchenAid mixer.” Speaking of "pink kitsch" as author and breast cancer survivor Barbara Ehrenreich calls it, how about those pink cans of Campbell's tomato soup (the company DOUBLED sales of the pink-clad cans - even after donating 3.5 cents per pink can to charity) or last year's pink tasers, or the cute Smith & Wesson handguns with pink handles? Where does this end? Make no mistake, there's big money to be made by slapping a pink ribbon on your product. Breast cancer is a corporate marketing dream come true.

How 'bout Florida's Judge Vinson?

or, Bring It On!

Today, the district court judge ruled the States indeed can challenge the federal government's mandate that all citizens are required to purchase health insurance.

Let it go to Court, he said, and may the best Constitutional arguments win.

BLAWG ROUNDUP:
Law professors on the web offer instant summary, substantive comments, and in that last entry anyway: do I detect a taste of sour grapes?

Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett:

In its “talking points” today, the White House claims that the 21 state attorney’s general challenging the constitutionality of the health care reform act are “opportunistic politicians . . . wasting taxpayer dollars on a frivolous lawsuit that is bound to fail.” Today’s ruling by a federal district court judge officially repudiated this claim.

In denying the government’s motion to dismiss the challenge to the individual health insurance mandate, Judge Vinson ruled that “the plaintiffs have most definitely stated a plausible claim with respect to this cause of action.” This is because of the unprecedented nature of the government’s claim of power. As Judge Vinson explained, all previous commerce clause cases involved the regulation of “voluntary undertaking[s]” or activity. But “in this case we are dealing with something very different. The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake.”

This decision now join’s District Judge Henry Hudson’s ruling in Virgina refusing to dismiss the challenge to the individual mandate. In both Virginia and Florida we now move to a decision on the merits. Given how well both judges understood the constitutional novelty of imposing economic mandates on the people, there is reason to be cautiously optimistic that they will find the individual insurance mandate to be unconstitutional. But, however the district courts rule on this case, their reception of the arguments made by the state attorneys general foretell that the ultimate decision will be made by the U.S. Supreme Court.

Of course, Judge Vinson also, quite correctly wrote this: “Of course, to say that something is ‘novel’ and ‘unprecedented’ does not necessarily mean that it is ‘unconstitutional’ and ‘improper.’ There may be a first time for anything.” So stay tuned. Next up: oral argument on the motion for summary judgment in the Virginia AG lawsuit, followed by briefing the motion for summary judgment in Florida.

David Kopel, Research Director at Independence Institute:

The court entirely rejected the administration’s claim that the penalty for disobeying the mandate is justified under the federal tax power. As the court noted, Congress went out of its way to specify that the penalty is not a tax. Second, the court ruled that it is proper for the plaintiffs to be heard in their challenge to the mandate, which goes into effect in 2014. The court cited extensive precedent showing that when a future harm is certain, courts can act in the present to protect citizens from that harm.
...
While federal spending programs may set conditions on grants to states, Supreme Court precedent states that the grants must not be coercive. Here, the court agreed that the states had raised a plausible legal argument which should be allowed to go forward: the health control presents states with the unacceptable choice of massively increasing their own Medicaid spending on millions of more people, or of losing all funding for the traditional Medicaid program. Finally, the court agreed that the challenge to the individual mandate could go forward, because the mandate was “unprecedented.” Never before has Congress attempted to use its power of regulating interstate commerce to force people to buy a particular product. Because there is no judicial precedent in support of such a mandate, the plaintiffs had raised a plausible constitutional challenge which should be allowed to go forward.

The court’s ruling is not a final decision on the constitutional merits, but it is a solid, meticulously researched, and carefully-reasoned decision declaring that the opponents of the health control law have raised legitimate constitutional objections.

George Mason Law Professor Ilya Somin:

Judge Roger Vinson rejected outright the federal government’s claim that the mandate is a “tax” that is authorized by Congress’ authority under the Tax Clause. Instead, he concludes that it is a regulatory penalty. ... The federal government now will not be able to rely on the tax argument at the summary judgment stage of the litigation before Judge Vinson (though they will of course be able to raise it again on appeal).
...
The federal government will, of course, be able to raise their Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause arguments. Here, too, however, Judge Vinson raised serious doubts about the government’s arguments, even though he emphasized that these issues cannot be fully considered at this stage of the process. In his view, the government’s claim that the mandate is clearly supported by existing precedent in this area is “not even a close call.” He emphasized the novel nature of the mandate:

I have read and am familiar with all the pertinent Commerce Clause cases, from Gibbons v. Ogden, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 1, 6 L. Ed. 23 (1824), to Gonzales v. Raich, 545 U.S. 1, 125 S. Ct. 2195, 162 L. Ed. 2d 1 (2005). I am also familiar with the relevant Necessary and Proper Clause cases, from M’Culloch v. Maryland, 17 U.S. (4 Wheat.) 316, 4 L. Ed. 579 (1819), to United States v. Comstock, — U.S. —, 130 S. Ct. 1949, 176 L. Ed. 2d 878 (2010). This case law is instructive, but ultimately inconclusive because the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have never been applied in such a manner before. The power that the individual mandate seeks to harness is simply without prior precedent.

As Vinson emphasizes, the prior cases “involved activities in which the plaintiffs had chosen to engage. All Congress was doing was saying that if you choose to engage in the activity of operating a motel [Katzenbach v. Heart of Atlanta Motel] or growing wheat [as in Wickard v. Filburn], you are engaging in interstate commerce and subject to federal authority.” In this case, by contrast, “[t]he individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it..... It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive.” There is a slight error in Vinson’s analysis here. Wickard did not hold that growing wheat for use on a commercial farm was itself “interstate commerce.” Rather, it could be regulated because it was intrastate state economic activity that, in the aggregate, has a “substantial effect” on interstate commerce.
...
Obviously, this is only a ruling on a motion to dismiss. Judge Vinson could end up accepting the government’s Commerce Clause or Necessary and Proper Clause arguments when he decides later whether to grant summary judgment (though I think that improbable based on what he wrote in today’s opinion). Whatever he decides, the case will be appealed to the Eleventh Circuit Court of Appeals. It is quite likely that the issue will eventually be decided by the Supreme Court. It is still my view that the Court is more likely to uphold the mandate than strike it down, though the latter is far from impossible. That said, today’s ruling is certainly a victory for the anti-mandate plaintiffs.

Wisconsin Law Professor Ann Althouse:

Because it is a penalty and not a tax, the act cannot be upheld with the taxing power. The question must be the scope of the Commerce Power.

So let me confine myself to the individual mandate. Judge Vinson rejects the due process argument, because the scrutiny in this area is minimal and Congress had a rational basis for the mandate. But the Commerce Clause challenge survived.

At this stage in the litigation, this is not even a close call. I have read and am familiar with all the pertinent Commerce Clause cases... This case law is instructive, but ultimately inconclusive because the Commerce Clause and Necessary and Proper Clause have never been applied in such a manner before.... There are several obvious ways in which Heart of Atlanta and Wickard differ markedly from this case... Those cases... involved activities in which the plaintiffs had chosen to engage. All Congress was doing was saying that if you choose to engage in the activity of operating a motel or growing wheat, you are engaging in interstate commerce and subject to federal authority....
... The individual mandate applies across the board. People have no choice and there is no way to avoid it. Those who fall under the individual mandate either comply with it, or they are penalized. It is not based on an activity that they make the choice to undertake. Rather, it is based solely on citizenship and on being alive....

George Washington Law Professor Orin Kerr:

Congratulations to Randy Barnett in particular for the new Florida decision refusing to dismiss the challenge to the individual mandate. The language the judge uses at various points in the opinion very closely resembles the language Randy has used in framing the challenge. That is a major accomplishment.
...
As to the merits of Judge Vinson’s opinion, I found it a bit frustrating. In particular, it seems to me that Judge Vinson’s opinion never actually addresses the necessary and proper argument that both Ilya and I agree is the best argument in favor of the constitutionality of the mandate against the claim that it is beyond the scope of Article I power. At page 61, Judge Vinson insists that he is familiar with the cases, and he announces that based on his knowledge this is a hard question. Oddly, though, Judge Vinson doesn’t actually articulate the legal standard offered in those cases and explain why those cases don’t answer the question here.

I find that pretty frustrating. ...

Russ Feingold's New TV Ad on YouTube.

I don't understand / like this ad:
Russ Feingold sweeps the kids' toys off the table *, like an angry man. Maybe he should have tried the magical trick of pulling the tablecloth underneath out, while the nice items** stay put?

That's a cool act at least...
------------------

* I have that black folding table; $20, years ago, at Target.

** I guarantee you the older adults this one is aimed at -- especially the Depression generations -- will be thinking that way: Why ruin the nice things by mistreating them like that??

They're less ... disposable in their mindset that way, than the typical Boomer, in my observation. (I think plenty are still reckoning with their actions in that Clunker (but running!) Trade In, that put to an early end so many decent, aged perhaps, but high mileaged cars. Don't underestimate the psychology, I'm telling you.)

Survivor Update.

¡Mira! It's the Plinko game from the Price Is Right, combined with an athletic "catching" component...

(We're so hard up to see actual competition this season, as up to now they've been combining the Reward and Immunity contests into one activity...)

UPDATE: OMG!
They're really going all out: a WATERBOARDING challenge!

The longtime swim instructor in me likes the idea of timing the breaths: just exhale when the head is submerged, as no water can come in the nose when the air is rushing out.

But what's this?

A SPITTING competition? In his day of contagious H1N1? I know we're looking for something that all ages and sexes can participate in equally, but really...

How bizarre, how bizarre.

What a Difference...

a Year Makes...

October 12, 2009.
Rice Lake.

Nevermind Wickard then.

When I opined last week on the need for the Supreme Court to overrule Wickard, I'd forgotten how slowly those wheels of justice grind, and why.

Nobody likes to tell their elders they got it wrong.

We've seen reform in the Blue Brotherhood, breaking the traditions of silence that protect the bad apples. We've seen the Catholic clergy step up -- finally -- to address the fact that pedophiles are rarely reformed, despite what the psychological experts might have promised in recommending a career transfer, not outright retirement, or confinement.

But the boys in the Black Robes? Not sure if they're evolving as rapidly, though some say the inclusion of women helps -- because they presumably are better at admitting their error = less personally invested, not so driven to "save face" by never admitting you got one wrong.

Did you know, Korematsu and Dred Scott were never overturned by the Courts outright, as futher amendments and legislation voided the need. We talk down those decisions now, but the Court is still on record as having gotten it ... wrong.

So now here come the constitutional healthcare challenges. Georgetown Law Professor Randy Barnett says there's no need to address Wickard even -- they don't have to "correct" the robed eminences of the past, in order to stop at the pass this further economic grab by the federal government...

Requiring an individual to purchase a product (insurance) they don't use or need, solely on the poor prediction that statistics show one day they might need to consume healthcare services and not be able to afford them paying outright, is a gross overreach.

If you listen to Paul Krugman, you understand it's a cost shift. The only way the numbers add up is those currently not paying premiums and not consuming... continue not consuming but are forced to pay premiums to cover those with pre-existing conditions. But what if -- like so many insureds now -- behaviors change? Isn't that a big problem with the current system? People pay those premiums and want to get ... their monies worth. God help us if all those mandatorily required to support the system suddenly start making appointments and are now sharing those waiting room chairs. (Never underestimate psychology in strong-arming someone to pony up for a gift you are so generous as to provide to another.)

The Court can forsee the consequences of expanding the government's reach into our personal economic decisions here -- look at the effect of decades of entitlement promises now, the bills coming due, that has yet to be addressed before we promise more.

Professor Barnett, amongst others, urges the Court to shut the door on expanding the Commerce Clause reach, even if there's no will amongst the Justices as of yet, to correct the poorly reasoned Wickard decision.

Yet, like the government, Judge Steeh is silent on the radical implications of accepting this new doctrine. Imagine all the slippery slope questions in oral argument when the “economic decisions” doctrine is more seriously considered than it was by Judge Steeh.

Conversely, there are zero slippery slope objections to striking down all economic mandates that reach inactivity. Why? Because the individual insurance requirement is the only such economic mandate ever enacted.

So it is the only law that would be unconstitutional if the Supreme Court concludes that Congress has no such power to impose economic mandates under the Commerce and Necessary & Proper Clauses.

For all these reasons, Judge Steeh’s opinion yesterday serves to highlight for other judges, and Justices, the truly revolutionary implication of upholding this mandate without even attempting to deal with these implications. In this way, it actually contributes to the constitutional case against the individual mandate.

He's writing the way out -- should it come to that without political resolution -- for the conservative and moderate justices who understand the limiting role of government, and the need to protect individual interests from the promises, still to be fulfilled, of well-heeled "experts".

Chi! Chi! Chi! Le! Le! Le!

What wonderful news to wake to... "We are all Chileans today."

We feed on good news, and this miraculous rescue... what a story. Everyone coming together -- it's not just the technology, it's the ability of all these groups to come together to work effectively and put these lives first.

I know American technology and NASA contributed greatly here. But I confess to my doubts: had this happened here in America, had our miners managed to find a pocket and hold out during those early days of rationing food, when there was no assurance they'd be found anytime soon... would American groups -- could they? -- get their acts together quickly enough to unite for life like this?

After Katrina and the questionable handling of the oil spill, one wonders.

Divided, we're falling...


Which brings me to today's NYT editorial opining on Russ Feingold's senatorial career here in Wisconsin. James ("it's the economy, stupid.") Carville had his moment, but this NOvember? It's the unwanted healthcare bill, stupid.

Many people are uniting against -- I think before last December's vote, the representatives were warned that they would be tracked on whether or not they represented their constituent's wishes. But they didn't listen.

Take your medicine, they told us.

We know best, they reassure us as we watch more and more of the economic experts who "sold" this thing head for the exits, tempted by better paychecks and all the beneficial allures of the private sector for those with public experience skills and contacts to sell.

The Tea Party movement last Spring and this summer began awakening our representatives to the fact: amnesia is not a side effect/ people haven't forgotten nor accepted what the administration twisted through...

At their typical Town Hall meetings and listening sessions, the "Yes" voters got an earful. We don't want it. We can't afford it. There are better ways -- more efficient, less overreaching -- of covering our poor and needy without remaking the system to affect us all negatively. (Everything government eventually touches turns to rot.)

Cut the costs first. Tame the out-of-control entitlements ... not by promising more and more to those who maybe never even asked. (Did every middle-class family who would benefit by keeping a young adult covered on a personal plan agree to the tradeoffs involved in financing such perks? Or was that a Rahm Emmanuel -- "throw it in for political advantage" -- miscalculation, as I hear surprise in the voices of these candidates when they don't hear simultaneous crowd applause when they list these perks, including the promise of "unlimited, uncapped coverage for pre-existing conditions, no questions asked, what's not to like???" Thing is, it's not enough. All the promises in the world are a bit like those coupla hundred dollar rebate checks the Republicans sent us all; nice and we'll take 'em maybe, but do you think those perks if they affect us personally will buy our votes?)

The sad thing is ... it didn't have to be like this.

If only the administration had ears out here in the Real World (and no, I'm not pulling a Palin): it really wasn't hard to see this justifiable anger and there was (still is?) an opportunity to change course.

Let me share this:
Every Republican I know of who voted candidate Obama,-- fringe voting independents too -- did NOT do so over the healthcare bill. They wanted us out of George Bush's foreign wars ... enough, according to the conservative hawks who like to see America getting the benefit for our bucks, instead of spending a lot of money to make our foreign policy standing in the world ... falter.

(Have we polled the people on the need for taking the fight into Pakistan? Do you think anybody besides committed bald armchair militants backs the increased, not-so-much-improved reliance on targeted drone killings? ... Listening ears, people.)

They might have been voting against John McCain's flipfloppedness. Is he for true immigration reform and securing our border -- helping build a strong defense here at home -- or is he playing politics on these issues? People rejected him, and took a chance with Obama.

He listened to his experts, not his voters. Instead of asking where the anger was coming from, why there was such passionate pushback on this particular issue, He stroked the media, this new Media that believe they are paid not to ask questions but to employ their expertise to convince us to ... take our medicine.

(Remember, the Ezra Klein/Paul Krugman liberal group JournoList was in full force both at electiontime and in the selling of this healthcare bill, over the strong objections of the American people. They were busy concluding this anger came from ... racism. As if.)

Now, it's reckoning time. (Think: "the bill's come due" because despite the promises of the finance guys heading for greener pastures, people can independently calculate the price tag of these pretty promises.)

I agree with today's editorial in that I feel a bit sorry for Feingold.

Though warned, I don't think he saw this credible challenge coming, because he's always been busy playing Democratic counterpart to John McCain's Republican Maverick. Most times, going against Washington wars or voting against pork and ill-thought-out social issues was enough. He didn't need to poll us, because that's what enough of us preferred to.

But now? He stopped listening to the people he was chosen to represent, and while some might give him points for voting with his heart, he got this one wrong big time. Anyone who saw businessman Ron Johnson absolutely clean Russ Feingold's clock in that first debate couldn't help but feel a bit sorry for Feingold, busy pandering that he was us. He was independent, and bipartisan, and held the sole dissenting vote many many times: what's not to like?

He gambled on this particular bill which doesn't reform or remake the healthcare delievery system so much as it cost shifts... taking from those who have good health and no pre-existing conditions; affecting those who have worked for years at a particular job, perhaps solely for the healthcare plan which they might have made personal calculations was worth the tradeoff in salary dollars; costing more for the payers-in who are increasingly resentful of politicians making promises they personally never have to cover.

Feingold is not up against a witch or a Nazi this frightening election season -- there's no evidence that it was a blue-eyed conspiracy to bring Johnson into the political mix.

It's the healthcare bill, stupid.

Feingold said he would try to stop the deficit by ending earmarks and push for giving the president line-item veto power. Feingold also suggested that his plan to cut items out of the budget would save half a trillion dollars over the next 10 years.

On health care, Feingold defended his vote for the law and challenged Johnson on his statement that the law was the greatest single assault on freedom in his lifetime.

"Does it really invade his freedom to make sure that over a million Wisconsinites don't get denied coverage because of a pre-existing condition?" Feingold asked.

But Johnson said the law was an incredibly expensive overreach that would threaten what he called the finest health care system in the world.

After the debate, Johnson told reporters that he would prefer the bill be replaced in small increments rather than a full repeal, as he once advocated, largely because a Democratic president would likely veto such legislation.

"I would suggest we would replace, then repeal," he said.

He said that if the Republican Party takes over Congress, bill writers "should start writing replacement bills from day one."

"The difference I think is that Republicans would write the bills," he said.

or,
Can You Hear Me Now?

From the Times editorial public comments section:

"Mr. Feingold’s independent mind, and his refusal to follow the big-money line on issues like trade, campaign finance and Wall Street reform, should have endeared him to Tea Party members and other independents who are angry at Washington conformists. If they had taken the time to listen."

I'm a Wisconsin voter and your description is 180 degrees from reality.

If only Feingold had listened. I attended three of Feingold's listening sessions in Racine and Kenosha counties this past winter when the health care debate was raging. At every meeting Feingold was urged by attendees to vote against the bill but he arrogantly decided that he knew better. So he's now reaping what he sowed.

jan1215 Racine, WI October 13th, 2010 7:42 am

"How will it play in Peoria" becomes "How will it play in Racine?" That's who Sen. Feingold needed to listen to, not the Times editorial board that no doubt means well, but isn't invested in our people here and doesn't understand their priorities and needs.

Nobody wanted this healthcare bill, except the politicians who were convinced they had a good crisis on their hands and so it was time to take advantage and "sell" the public on the need for major change.

No thank you, the people are politely saying. If only we would listen...

"What Women Think"

or, Why Brett Favre is no Ben Roethlisberger.


Christine Brennan, on Good Morning America now with George Stephanopoulos, notes that 44 percent of NFL fans are women, and so the Brett Favre allegations are being taken seriously because the NFL cares "what women think."

As a woman, can I say -- Christine Brennan does not represent my way of thinking.

If the Jets "reporter" who received these messages and photos isn't complaining -- it was another who allegedly sold the material to the new media -- then why pursue such nonsense?

Because it's work related? Because the woman, who parlayed her looks into media work, was a contractor for the Jets, where Favre was also employed? Bull Roar.

This is silly, empowering women to expect special treatment. Labeling as "harrassment" anything that has to do with sex. Picking up on private matters -- remember, nobody complained then or now -- and acting as though we are somehow working towards Pink progress, by painting sexual women as innocents who can't handle an allegedly unsolicited picture or voice message.

You want to know, NFL, what women think? I'll play...

For God's sake, make your donations, do your publicity, but get rid of the Pink shoes and ballcap brims and everything pink you're inserting into the game this month on behalf of breast cancer. Gaaag!

I didn't like it when half the comics in my Sunday paper went Pink for the cause this past week, and I can't stand seeing these players forced to play along in Pink because the NFL has made some sidedeal with the Pink corporate interests...

That's what I think.

More football, less pandering to the ladies. Christine Brennan doesn't speak for me, and the big-bosomed FSU woman in the cowboy hat who allegedly was harrassed by Brett Favre?

Something tells me she's a big girl, and can handle herself, having seen a penis picture before. Putting that kind of sexual play into the same suspendable category as what Ben Roethlisberger allegedly did (his NFL sentence even later reduced for "good behavior") ... that doesn't help women at all.

In fact, it sends just the opposite message really. Seeing as though Rothlisberger's alleged victim actually complained about a rape and all.

Are You Still Free? Can You Be?

On the Still Discovering America tour...














since 1968. Happy Columbus Day to you (traditional);
Happy Birthday to Me.

Made more sense when we were a "couple" in the traditional sense, but I used to joke Norm that Mal and I were gaining on him. We'd have tied him in January 2012, and collectively surpassed his years of experience in January 2013.

Columbus: there's a man in history some can relate to...
You get the idea he'd rather have been on the water and pouring over his maps than groveling for the financing, but a man in all ages does what he must, I suppose.

Then, for all his great accomplishments, all the deals he crafted that were reneged on, all the discoveries he didn't realize he'd done, they say, he dies penniless, shackled on later journeys, a presumed failure. ...

History now kinda has Columbus down as one of its greatest Losers. And this is all before the Evil White Man rewrite, courtesy of the PC times of 1992...

And yet...

Imagine those last nights on the first journey, competing with his own men and barely hanging on to his ship. In Caribbean waters sailing into the unknown, he knows it's out there, but his men are of lesser faith. He negotiates for time, wait and see what will be... understanding even if they don't, how close the New World really is, though even he can't comprehend where his journey has taken them all...

And lo!
On the morning of the 12th: solid land. Just the beginning really...

Stand up in a clear blue morning...
Until you see, what can be alone
in a cold day dawning

It casts a toll... on you. (That's how I heard it anyway.)

Make it a great day; you never know how close you are...

Don't Quit!
When things go wrong, as they sometimes will,
When the road you're trudging seems all uphill,
When the funds are low, and the debts are high,
And you want to smile, but you have to sigh,
When care is pressing you down a bit,
Rest if you must, but don't you quit.

Life is queer with its twists and turns,
As everyone of us sometimes learns,
And many a failure turns about,
when he might have won had he stuck it out;
Don't give up though the pace seems slow,
You may succeed with another blow.

Success is failure turned inside out,
The silver tint of the clouds of doubt,
And you never can tell how close you are,
It may be near when it seems so far;
So stick to the fight when you're hardest hit,
It's when things seem worse, that...

You Must Not Quit.

~ C. W. Longenecker ~

ADDED:
Speaking of the Americas, how 'bout those Chilean miners -- the government, families, and corporate interests -- people across the world working together and keeping the faith that all 33 can be brought home safely...

With the eyes of the world on Chile's no-expense-spared effort to ensure all the men emerge unharmed, the miners' physical and mental health was being fastidiously monitored. Precautions were taken against all manner of complications — aspirin to prevent blood clots, a special drink to settle the stomach, video monitors to watch for panic attacks.

And officials said the men were so giddy with confidence they were squabbling on Saturday, the day drills broke through to them, over who would get to be the last to take a twisting, 20-minute ride the half-mile up to a rock-strewn desert moonscape and into the embrace of those they love.

A tentative but secret list was drafted of which miners should come out first when the extraction begins, probably on Wednesday. But Health Minister Jaime Manalich said the otherwise cooperative miners were so sure of the exit plan that they were arguing about sequence.

"They were fighting with us yesterday because everyone wanted to be at the end of the line, not the beginning," he told reporters.

Let Us Rejoice and Be Glad.

Warriors.

Friday !

-----------------------
or,
The Chitty Chitty Bang Bang Childcatcher.

Of course, they probably skipped the padlock and chicken wire on the back, back then.

Can somebody gently pull Glenn aside ?

BECAUSE FRIENDS... don't let friends ... write dumb.

October 7, 2010
YOU KNOW, I’M WATCHING GREG GUTFELD SPECULATE THAT FRED PHELPS IS GAY, and he makes a good argument — costumes, a cappella singing, obsession with pop culture . . . Sounds plausible to me!

UPDATE: I wonder how long until we see FRED PHELPS IS GAY! bumper stickers? Not that there’s anything wrong with that!

ANOTHER UPDATE: Reader Mark Alger writes: “I keep wondering whether the existence of homosexuality is proof that God hates Fred Phelps.”

Posted by Glenn Reynolds at 11:11 pm

Translation:
If you got a good sense of humor, by all means: Work it, son~!

But, if you don't have an ear, or a sense of what passes as plain funny -- or not -- these days? Trust me, best stop digging if it ain't getting better with practice.

Always best stick to stick with what brung ya, and I'm guessing Glenn never won the popularity award as Class Comic.*
Just a hunch...













* Not that there's anything wrong with that... *Rimshot*

So Just Overrule Wickard Already.

Mistakes happen, and to my law student mind, that stuck out as one of the Court's most inconsistent, poorly reasoned decisions.* Over-reaching for the conclusion you want -- in wartime nonetheless -- nevermind precedent.

I think I referred to it as the infamous Wickard in a Con Law paper once, drawing a word circle with a big question mark from the prof. No editorializing on law school papers -- strict rulebook styles to follow and all.

* A bit like Roe really which, even if you breathe a sigh of relief at the outcome, had to rely on penumbric reasoning to get there. Not a good sign.

Don't go there, Joe.

or, Ovens or Obama: Choose wisely, people...

VP Biden begins to pull out the scare tactics, campaigning today in Madison, Wisconsin.

On Thursday, he took a jab at the House GOP's "Pledge to America," governing agenda.

“The pledge half baked … folks, we’ve been in that oven before," he said. "This pledge is a threat to America."

Remember, this is coming from the same fellow who urged disappointed gays and other progressives to "buck up" (stealing a line from Sarah Palin) and "stop whining" that their pet causes weren't better promoted when the Dems still held a legislative majority.

Just a week before that young man jumped off the bridge. If only he had kept waiting on the someday promises of the libs, stopped whining, and bucked up.



(Hey, if you're gonna play the "scare game" ...)

Freedom dies a little bit...

"if the commerce clause can be used to cover any activity where costs are shifted from one person in society to another." (from the public comments section.)

Ilya Somin on the Volokh law blog looks a bit closer at today's Michigan ruling that upholds mandating the purchase of health insurance for all.

The problem with this reasoning is that those who choose not to buy health insurance aren’t necessarily therefore going to buy the same services in other ways later. Some will, but some won’t. It depends on whether or not they get sick, how severe (and how treatable their illnesses are), whether if they do get sick, they can get assistance from charity, and many other factors. In addition, some people might be able to maintain their health simply by buying services that aren’t usually covered by insurance anyway, such as numerous low-cost medicines available in drug stores and the like. In such cases, they aren’t really participating in the same market as insurance purchasers.

Of course, many people will buy the same service later, and for some the probability of doing so is quite high. But the individual mandate makes no distinctions on any such basis. It sweeps in nearly everyone. If the mere possibility that you might purchase a similar service somewhere else is enough to count as “activity” and therefore regulable under the Commerce Clause, then almost any regulatory mandate would be permissible. For example, a requirement that each citizen purchase a gym club membership and exercise for one hour per day could be defended on the basis that, otherwise, people will be less healthy, which will make it more likely they will spend more money on medical care, health insurance, and perhaps other forms of exercise.

The opinion also claims that the Commerce Clause covers “economic decisions” as well as “economic activity.” “Economic decisions,” by this reasoning include decisions not to engage in economic activity. That, however, would allow the Commerce Clause to cover virtually any decision of any kind. Pretty much any decision to do anything is necessarily a decision not to use the same time and effort to engage in “economic activity.” If I choose to spend an hour sleeping, I necessarily choose not to spend that time working or buying products of some kind.

Another noteworthy aspect of the Michigan decision is that it ruled that the Thomas More plaintiffs had standing and that the case was ripe. In this respect, it was similar to the earlier Virginia ruling, which also came down against the government on these points. It looks like standing and ripeness issues will be less of a problem for the anti-mandate plaintiffs than I at first thought.

Well, that's one judge's opinion, eh?

Let's see what the American people have to say on the issue come NOvember...

ADDED:
Georgetown law professor Randy Barnett, also writing on Volokh, has this to say about today's decision:

In the course of dismissing the plaintiff’s Commerce Clause challenge, the Judge Steeh has vindicated an important element of all such pending challenges: this claim of power by the government is without any precedent in experience or in law. In Judge Steeh’s words:

“The Court has never needed to address the activity/inactivity distinction advanced by plaintiffs because in every Commerce Clause case presented thus far, there has been some sort of activity. In this regard, the Health Care Reform Act arguably presents an issue of first impression.”

Never before in American history has the U.S. Government imposed an economic mandate commanding that persons engage in economic activity. Given that there is no current Supreme Court doctrine recognizing such power in Congress, the appropriate stance of a district court judge is to follow Supreme Court precedent and deny this claim of power until the Supreme Court decides in due course to expand its doctrine.

Instead, Judge Steeh accepted the government’s expansion of Congressional power beyond regulating economic activity to regulating economic “decisions”:

“While plaintiffs describe the Commerce Clause power as reaching economic activity, the government’s characterization of the Commerce Clause reaching economic decisions is more accurate.”

But this was not “plaintiff’s description.” It was how the Supreme Court itself described its own doctrine in each and every Commerce Clause case that allowed Congress to reach wholly intrastate activity because it was necessary and proper to the regulation of interstate commerce.

By inventing a new “economic decisions” doctrine, Judge Steeh has gone beyond the Commerce and Necessary and Proper Clause doctrines established by the Supreme Court.

----------------
There's still time for the politicians to step back up to the plate and get this thing right... Will they listen here, or double down?

I'm hoping a new crew brings a new attitude and humbles some of the players who just can't fathom that what they twisted and compromised to get through -- and tried unsuccessfully to sell to the American public through liberal media mouthpieces represented on Journolist, including Krugman at The NYT; Klein, Ezra at WaPo; and Klein, Joe at Time -- is ... faulty.

Just a thought.

Non Serviam. **

Was going to let it pass, but I wanted to comment on the 32-question Pew Survey on American religious "knowledge" that some are discussing, analyzing, picking over, and drawing some mighty ... judgmental conclusions on.

I know we've been trained in our better recognized academies to not put our faith in religion, and yet at the same time as a society, we've picked up a big case of celebrity Idol worship (ie/ "Obama!!! :-), unconciously perhaps, owing to the very understandable human need to find things bigger than ourselves to Believe In.

We all worship, it's just what we value that differs.

But people, people... (people!)
Drawing too much from too little in an admittedly well publicized and well funded study here?

Yes you are. (Can I get a little skepticism, please?)

Only a convert Christian believes that the points you get for faith "knowledge" -- the kind that's measurable in reading a form and filling in the best answers you can think of on the spot with the time you got -- in some way offers fair conclusions on Judgment Day (the day the 32-question test was administered. Heck, no complex essays even.).

This is why our cumulative records presumably matter -- with more weight given to a pattern of change progress over time: "where you are going" so to speak, compared to "where you were coming from" the day you first graced the Earth with your presence.

At least, that's what I've been led to believe St. Peter -- the gatekeeper, right? -- is going have on his little scoresheet, seeing whether you made the First Team immediately or not.

(Did they ask the Mormons and Jews who scored high anything about the Rock of the Catholic Church? Who the first accepted "Pope" was, perhaps? That's the problem with concluding too much based on too little: Isn't it more likely that in America today, based on sheer numbers and representation, that non-Christians know more about the ... "majority" faith than Christians know the fine print of others' myth traditions? Certainly changing, but it is what it is. And what of it?)

People can be forgiven for not knowing say, that Muslims hold the character trait of self discipline and self control in great regard. But it would help if more of us perhaps, had picked up that basic fact in our daily lives. (Or is that just the Christian in me talking, with our holding the character trait of forgiveness -- second chances/the hope of redemption -- in high regard?)

That one hit me -- in fact -- when I was loudly and aggressively playing ball in a frontyard game where you fall down or get hit with the ball but get up again across the street from a dignified Muslim family who had their windows open... I'd never make it in that faith myself, too loud and rambunctious, but behavior like that situationally can bring out the best in others. As can extending a "forgiveness" in accepting that others perhaps will never live up to your own particular faith foundations.

And what of it?

America, especially the South of William Faulkner and Flannery O'Connor***, has always ... perverted the faiths, taking a bit from here and there and investing a lot of time and imagination in making the teachings fit the daily livings.

You might not like it, just as a newfound convert to a religion -- like someone grappling with a new language -- might not like all the ... "exceptions", the breaking of the otherwise solid grammatical and foundational rules to fit the situations that arise*.

You might even conclude that such perversions of the language get to be so gross as to not fit in the structure as a whole: that's not X faith branch anymore, that's so changed as to be unrecognizable under the traditionally accepted definition or label.

Fair enough. But if you truly want to understand Americans, you have to learn way more than the basic rules, or anything offered up on a 32-question test.

I just don't think you get to make -- unchallenged and unquestioned -- all these lofty presumptions based on a flimsy Pew survey, putting all faith in statistics and not looking to the individual complexities that contribute to the miraculous Whole.

Too simplistic for the facts, those known and still unknown.

--------------------


God bless, everyone,
and make it a great Thursday.

Here's an inspirational fortune-cookie for today:

"To the World, you might be one person.
But to one person today, you might be the World"

flipside:

"So get out there and Rock it, baby!"

none of this

"No one told you when to run...
You missed the starting gun."

*Heck, some might say even the President erred in picking here and there from Old and New Testaments. "I am not my brothers keeper" references a very different story than Matthew's "least of my brothers", which is more how we should voluntarily choose to help our lessers, but it's never a family or community charge. Free will and all.

That's mixing apples and oranges, the purists would say, but the President and his speechwriters took what they needed, and the allusions probably go over the majority of Americans' heads.

And what of it? If they received the message intending to be sent, like the Latter Day Saints, aren't they just building something new based on an older foundation? Quibble about the direction headed certainly, but let's not waste anymore Time or copy putting our faith in a Pew survey that might just have underlying societal motives, imagine that.

** Now how come that one didn't make the 32-trivia question list? Interesting indeed!

And where are all our statistical agnostics anyways before we dutifully surrender our traditional faiths to our paid secular brethren? Anti-fallible folks operating in the name of science and numbers can be just as mistaken -- and in a way more costly way too -- as those who practiced earlier methods of grappling to find some Truth.

*** Flannery O'Connor:

O’Connor was unsurprised by such obtuseness. “I have found,” she wrote with dry amusement, “that anything that comes out of the South is going to be called grotesque by the Northern reader, unless it is grotesque, in which case it is going to be called realistic.”
...
Yet O’Connor, to her credit, took the homespun beliefs of her fellow Southerners with the utmost seriousness. Even more surprisingly, she regarded them with exceptional imaginative sympathy, seeking to portray in her fiction the sometimes bizarre ways in which spiritual enthusiasm manifested itself in the lives of people who, lacking an orthodoxy to guide them, were forced to re-create the forms of religion from scratch. As she explained in a 1959 letter:

The religion of the South is a do-it-yourself religion, something which I as a Catholic find painful and touching and grimly comic. It’s full of unconscious pride that lands them in all sorts of ridiculous religious predicaments. They have nothing to correct their practical heresies and so they work them out dramatically.

Her sympathy, she added, arose from the fact that “I accept the same fundamental doctrines of sin and redemption and judgment that they do.”