If They're Smart ...

I wonder if the Supreme Court might just do the right thing here, and deny cert.

Let's see:
Plenty of the current players on the Court were there the last time they made the (disastrous) decision, in retrospect (or not, if you're forward looking, with good eyesight). Taking on the Bush/Gore case, and "settling" that one left nobody happy.

Had they not intervened, and let the Florida Supreme Court decide, the ballots would have been counted, no? And didn't an inquiry by the Miami Herald show, after the fact, that Bush still would have won.

Surely the Court can now see how they tarnished their reputation, seemingly getting involved in something political that they would have done best to keep out of. Do you honestly think they want to court that kind of reaction, an appearance of political involvement, again?

When all they'd have to do is refuse this one, let the lower courts stew in the muddle for a few more months, while the current 2012 political election campaigning continues to play out? Why take it now? Why not just avoid the whole appearance of involvement in politics, wait and see who wins, and what is done (possible partial repeal, if there's a Republican clean sweep in all the branches? NOTE: the two political branches that is: the executive, and the Senate and House in the legislative.

Why dirty their hands? First of all, wouldn't Kagan have to recuse? Wouldn't it look funny if she didn't -- coming into her current position not so recently from a political appointment?

[Some say Thomas too. Not too closely following this, but he spoke out on the issue (or his wife lobbied this way or that, perhaps?) so some are saying he should step away from being an immediate decider on this one too?]

If you don't take this one up now, and the elections don't clarify anything, won't the Court surely get another turn at bat? Where they could -- if it's clear they are needed -- take action on this one, with time to spare before the Mandate is imposed, and all the non-promising and pragmatic aspects of ACA kick in? (Too bad, really, that it occurred in stages: first the "freebie" giveaways, and then, years later, the reckoning with the "how are we gonna pay for this??" pricetag?


Is John Roberts, and the rest of the team, as pragmatic as promised? Not so much ideological as some might think -- they can save that for the privacy of their individual voting booth, of course -- that they want to step in the muck now, probably understanding that either way they decide, one quarter to one-half of the country, depending how you read the current tea leaves, is going to be disappointed or outraged? (Probably more the latter the way our current politico-entertainment media models are sold, on air, tv and print?)

When do they have to decide whether they're up to deciding to take on this one -- now! with all due haste -- anyway? Never got that much into the intricacies of the Court's workings to know that off the top of my head... And the law proffy types are too busy opining sometimes to give us the basic facts... (I could look it up, yes I know...)

For the purpose of my argument here though, I wonder if the Gore/Bush mess taught them anything? Now I gotta tell ya, I'm one who is offended by the predictors -- again, often your insider, educated law proffy types -- who predict this is all a matter of vote-counting political gamesmanship. Clearly, based on precedent, it's either Constitutional or not. And clearly, whether we like it or not, we've got to accept the results, if the system as a whole is to work...

(That's why, despite disappointment, people indeed did learn to accept the Court's ruling, even before the recount numbers were in, because at some basic level of authority, you accept what the Man Refereeing these things says, or else you just quit playing the game altogether. Hattip: a solid sporting education.)

That doesn't mean though, that an ump has to be forced to see this one as the deciding play at the plate. You can't bump those calls aside, in that they're not politically convenient now. And yes, generally when the lower courts are mixed, the Court is expected to step in and clarify, to not risk sowing further confusion.

But ... think that timeline again. Is it really so bad, on an issue like this, to have it perhaps decided politically, on what was, essentially, a middle of the night, the night before Christmas, political arm-twisting decision that brought us here to this point today? Dance with who brung ya.

If the legislature, with or without the approval of the voters, represented citizens' interests this way, wouldn't it be more palatable if the voters, who clearly must understand what's on the line in this election -- if they somehow were misled in the past, thinking other issues -- the economy, getting us out of wartime -- were essential votes way back when.... (Like the beginning of September, I ask: is it me, or does that now seem so very long ago... ?)



It's not political to punt. It might, indeed, be the most face saving think the judiciary could do now, to balance the way the 3 branches are supposed to work. If we "over-corrected" in the past, where the Judiciary perhaps stepped too far in, binding us precedentially to some issues that might have best been resolved in the two political branches, why not respectfully be a bit more minimalist now, and see how these types of issues resolve themselves over time.

The saying is: the wheels of Justice grind slowly. One major election -- when again, perhaps people didn't quite understand the stakes of what was coming, in the healthcare reform/business intervention field -- is honestly not that long ago, in judicial aging.

Fine wine, like good precedent, is best set when there's time to consider all the issues, when you take your time, and indeed -- what care is it of the blind lady of justice -- that the next election might determine future "deciders" depending on who wins in the one branch, and who retires/dies in another?

Will they be courageous enough to realize -- as the vote-counting, "it's all political", sophisticated-in-a-bad-way, Court watchers/predictors seem to think think they cannot -- those peripheral issues don't matter much? Are they really champing at the bit to have to decide this one .... now!


I hope not.

(You have your hope, I'll have mine. And together we'll be fine* ...)

-------------------------------
* Cuz it takes,
different strokes to rule the world,
yes it does...
It takes, different strokes to rule the world.


And honestly -- think back to the founders now -- do you think they'd prefer the enlightened, empathetic judging of such important societal issues fall to the representative branches of the people, so more ... diversity of opinion might be heard, or did they imagine we'd otherwise be appointing the elite judiciary to make these calls, based on their demographic and empathetic qualifications?

I vote the former.
Keep grinding forward ... slowly.
(Sometimes you/I anyway don't like it, but probably there's a reason -- so binding! -- things move seemingly so slowly in that branch... Nothing wrong, or cowardly at all, in understanding that role, and declining to take this one now.)

Woo Hoo ! !

Neck and neck with our ally Israel...
it appears the U.S.A. -- *biiiggg chest puff* -- is indeed Number One!* ... at targeted killings assassinations today.

Our own citizens now too.
Nevermind this, "Bring 'em in Alive, Afford 'em a Trial" template nonsense of yesteryear. (And don't tell me we've no choice but to return to a higher-tech Wild West code in the absence of something better. Can't fool me!)


With some even calling for less citizen influence in our government today, why not let our "We Think We're the Wisest Minds... Nevermind our Record, We Paid for the Paper Credentials to Show Ya" youthful mentality carryon over to military strength?
Nevermind that other countries will better copy our actions and technologies tomorrow. Damn it -- beat that chest: We ARE (currently anyway) Number ONE!


(feel all better now?
but... will you remember this tomorrow?
Enough of a political bump from the man who seems to be choosing/preferencing violent action, over diplomatic skills* to lead his foreign policy triumphs?)


* If I had told you, 3 short years ago,
that President Barack Hussein Obama would be denying the peaceful request of the Palestinian people coming to New York and asking for a two-party solution -- especially in light of all the relatively non-violent civil adjustments being earned and undertaken in surrounding Arab countries -- would you have betted the President would have been more "captured" by lobbying foreign interests, than to step up to the platefor his unique time in the spotlight, -- as only a man with his promised "come together" skills with his personal traits and unbringing might have done so -- to at least grasp at the golden ring that appears to be within grasp at the closest length this go around*, or would you have laughed in my face?

"Verbally approve? Is that all it would take? Why this man -- look at the newfound promise of him, we've simply never had that well-balanced "walk a mile in anothers' shoes" perspective in the Highest Office before... He'd NEVER back away from a diplomatic "fight" like that; this is where he absolutely shines at bringing diverse constituents together? Don't you know anything of his scholastic/career successes? It's a unique path, surely, but who says what he's bringing to the table isn't exactly what's needed at this time in the early 21st Century to bring about peace, now that we're all drearied by endless war..."

You'd have laughed at me.
Come on... admit it.

Instead... we'll have to go with the "We've Got to Fulfill the Book..." promises of the other party, and perhaps wisely -- looking forward with good eyes --hope that enough of those in that camp really aren't promise keepers too...

I'm kinda amazed that enough haven't yet tired of the spilling of blood, the ineffective chest-thumping killings followed by no real resolution, that we continue on down this path. Funny, but down deep, in his freer thinking moments?

I wonder if our young President and his wife wish they might have been freer to act, decide things differently -- shine on uniquely -- these days too.



* Actually, I suspect Israel leads us in this killing game, but you know how secretive/manipulative they always try to be in admitting these things...

Busy... Busy... Busy... (Rest... and Repeat).

Click the list, and see the 4th, (=Dec. '10) and 5th, (=Jan. '09) entry down for the proper (secular) etymology...

And whatever you do,
make it a great weekend out there, eh?

Yes. You. Can.

ADDED:
Suggestion? Open a little Bradbury this October, and kick back ...

(Because Awareness of the Dying Season only makes You Realize Life More Precious, no?)

Happy New Year !

to our Jewish friends celebrating their religious holiday:

There was a cartoon in an Israeli paper where an Israel tank with a Star of David on it was crossing the Tibetian border and Tibetians were throwing rocks at it.

The Israeli soldier quips "Wow, anti semitism even here!"

Keep smiling... and pushing back.
The life (lives) you save ...

Hat tip: Fred4Pres

"Stop Swiping, Swiper!"

Maybe we all need to use that Dora the Explorer line (correction: "Swiper, No Swiping!") to childishly encourage our alleged ally Israel to come to her senses before it's too late, once again:

JERUSALEM — Israel announced plans on Tuesday for 1,100 new housing units in an area of South Jerusalem outside Israel’s pre-1967 boundaries. The move reflects Israel’s continued rejection of Palestinian demands for a halt in settlement construction as a condition for peace talks.

The Palestinian leadership immediately condemned the plan.

The two sides are under international pressure to resume peace negotiations, on the heels of the Palestinians’ contentious bid for membership as a state in the United Nations.

Over the last 18 months, Israel has repeatedly made awkwardly timed announcements of building plans in disputed and occupied areas. The Palestinians walked out of nascent peace talks a year ago after a 10-month Israeli moratorium on settlement construction expired.

The prime minister of Israel, Benjamin Netanyahu, has refused to renew the moratorium, saying that the last time, the Palestinians waited nine months before sitting down to negotiate with Israel. Mr. Netanyahu says he wants immediate, direct talks with no preconditions.

“It is a pretext they use again and again,” he said of the Palestinian insistence on a moratorium, in an interview published in The Jerusalem Post on Monday. “I think a lot of people see it as a ruse to avoid direct negotiations.”

Mr. Netanyahu faces strong opposition in his governing coalition to any additional freeze on construction.
...
A spokeswoman for Israel’s Interior Ministry said that the plan for new housing in Gilo, in south Jerusalem bordering on the West Bank, was being posted for public comment for 60 days, a necessary step before final approval. She said the timing was driven by the lengthy approval process, and not by any political agenda. Construction is not likely to begin before 2013.

The Gilo area was conquered from Jordan in the 1967 war, along with East Jerusalem and the West Bank, and Israel later annexed it to the city of Jerusalem, a step that has never been recognized internationally.

You risk big, every now and then, you lose big too...
Don't Forget It, Eh?

In other news:

Separately, the Israeli government said on Tuesday that an Israeli military court had released Al Jazeera’s Afghanistan bureau chief from jail after convicting him of conspiracy on behalf of Hamas, the militant group that controls Gaza. The journalist — Samer Allawi, 45, a Palestinian based in Pakistan — was arrested Aug. 9 at a border crossing between the West Bank and Jordan.

Under the terms of a plea agreement, he was fined and sentenced to time served plus three years, which the court suspended. He was released on Monday.

The Israeli government said in a statement that Mr. Allawi had agreed to use his position at the network to help advance Hamas’s goals.

Al Jazeera issued a statement saying that it strongly denied the “malicious accusations” made against Mr. Allawi, and that his release was a clear indication that they were baseless.

The situation there reminds me so much of the speech in this film, given by Father Doran in the Church before he kicks them all out and locks the doors. Something about, "For what? Land? Would you kill for it?"

Excellent movie. The brogues are thick, so you might have to rewind if you're unfamiliar with the language, but well well worth watching...

Adult Hockey Players ... Behaving Badly.

Racially hurled bananas, verbally tossing around the "F" word... hockey was never a "gentleman's sport", but really, it needn't come to this:

Feisty Rangers winger Sean Avery confirmed that Flyers forward Wayne Simmonds called him a homophobic slur during the first period of the bitter preseason contest. A video replay showed Simmonds hurling the epithet toward Avery while on the ice near the Flyers bench.

"To be here now having to answer the questions about what he did is disappointing for me. I'm disappointed for him," Avery said.

Rangers coach John Tortorella said: "I did not hear it, but I'm sure Sean Avery is not lying about it."

Simmonds, who is black, was on the other side of a racially offensive display last week when a fan hurled a banana into his path during the Flyers' exhibition game against the Red Wings on Thursday in London, Ontario.

The 23-year-old winger said he did not remember everything that was said between him and Avery during the game but did not deny crossing the line.

Simmonds said he felt Avery sucker-punched him in a scrum early in the first and said the two continued to verbally spar after that.

"Honestly, we were going back and forth for a while there," Simmonds said. "I don't recall everything that I did say to him but he said to me some things I didn't like and maybe I said some things that he didn't like. I can't recall every single word I said."

Avery felt he said nothing to prompt such a response.


Flyers coach Peter Laviolette didn't comment on the exchange. As for what he saw of it, Laviolette said, "It was a couple of guys battling out there."

The Gay & Lesbian Alliance Against Defamation has contacted both the NHL and the Flyers about taking action on the incident.


"Hate speech and anti-gay slurs have no place on the ice rink," GLAAD acting president Mike Thompson said in a statement. "The word that Simmonds used is the same word that is hurled at LGBT youth on the playground and in our schools, creating a climate of intolerance and hostility. He should not only apologize for this anti-gay outburst, but the Philadelphia Flyers and the NHL have a responsibility to take action and educate their fans about why this word is unacceptable."



When asked if he felt slurs such as the one he received Monday night should be treated the same as racially-charged language and other egregiously offensive on-ice displays, Avery pointed to a recent example in the NBA.

"Kobe Bryant got fined ($100,000)," Avery said, referring to the April incident in which Bryant was fined for calling a referee the very same derogatory term Simmonds used during the game.

NHL deputy commissioner Bill Daly had not seen the video clip when reached by email Monday night but said the league is "looking into it."

"We have (the) ability to discipline for language used on the ice," Daly told ESPNNewYork.com via email, although he noted that the league has never employed that authority in the case of an anti-gay slur.

When asked if he would like to see the league take a hard-line stance on the incident, Avery didn't want to comment.

But the 31-year-old forward -- who has been an outspoken advocate for the LGBT community -- appeared in a public service announcement in May supporting gay rights and marriage equality.

"It's an issue," he said. "It's an issue that people are dealing with and trying to overcome and ten years ago, maybe it wasn't so much an issue but it's certainly an issue politically with people in the game. And just in life in general."

At least, nobody's gonna be tempted to kill themselves over it, let's just agree they're role models there, eh?

ADDED:

(Reuters) - Philadelphia Flyers forward Wayne Simmonds will not be disciplined over an alleged anti-gay slur directed at a player because the claim could not be substantiated, the National Hockey League said on Tuesday.

New York Rangers forward Sean Avery complained Simmonds had made an anti-gay remark toward him during the first period of their pre-season game on Monday.

Television cameras appeared to show Simmonds making a remark at Avery, but the league said it was unable to verify its nature after conducting a probe.

"Since there are conflicting accounts of what transpired on the ice, we have been unable to substantiate with the necessary degree of certainty what was said and by whom," Colin Campbell, the NHL's senior executive vice president of hockey operations, said in a statement.

"Specifically, Flyers player Wayne Simmonds has expressly denied using the homophobic slur he is alleged to have said.

"Additionally, none of the on-ice officials close to the altercation in question heard any inappropriate slurs uttered by either of the primary antagonists."

Maybe they're just considering the banana incident too, as offsetting penalties?

The slur allegation marks the second controversy involving Simmonds within a week.

A banana was tossed from the stands in the black player's direction during the Flyers' game against the Detroit Red Wings in London, Ontario, last Thursday.

The NHL swiftly denounced the unknown perpetrator as "stupid and ignorant," while the city's mayor apologized on behalf of London residents.

Randy Barnett Works the Beat.

Here he is, covering last week's Seven-Sky v. Holder case in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit:

Last Friday, I attended the oral argument in the Seven-Sky v. Holder case in the Court of Appeals for the DC Circuit. There has been very little press attention paid to this hearing, most likely because the press was anticipating important developments in the Eleventh Circuit case involving the 26 state Attorney’s General and the National Federation of Independence Business (in which I am involved). But the hearing was very interesting if for no other reason than the intellectual fire power of the panel: Judges Harry Edwards, Laurence Silberman (who previously wrote opinions holding that the independent counsel law and the DC gun ban were unconstitutional), and Bret Kavanaugh. The lawyers for each side had their ups and downs. The low point for the government was when Judges Kavanaugh and Silberman pressed counsel for about 10 minutes for a single example of any economic mandate that would be unconstitutional under the government’s theory of constitutionality. To their evident frustration, she refused to provide any such example. The low point for the challengers was attempting to wrestle with Judge Kavanaugh’s reading of the text of the Anti-Injunction Act, and with Judge Silberman’s capacious interpretation of Wickard v. Filburn.

Near the end of the government’s time, however, Judge Kavanaugh laid out an explicit four-point analysis that summarized several lines of questions and that might well provide the structure for a majority opinion in the case. So far as I know, this has gone unreported.
...
1. First, although judges should approach all acts of Congress with a presumption of constitutionality, given that in 220 years, the Congress has never claimed the attractive power to mandate that private citizens send their money directly to private companies, judges should at least be “hesitant” before endorsing such a power.
...
2. Second, this claim of power is “uncabined.”
...
3. Third, Congress could have accomplished all or most of what it wanted to accomplish simply by exercising its tax power but it chose not to.
...
4. Therefore, why then open a new chapter of Congressional power by extending the commerce power in so dangerous a way? Here Judge Kavanaugh made what was, for me at least, a new argument against sustaining this power: Unlike the tax power that is limited to monetary exactions (except for penalties imposed for failure to make payments), sustaining economic mandates under the commerce power would empower Congress to impose any penalty up to and including prison terms for violating its economic mandates. Judge Kavanaugh seem sincerely troubled by the dangerous nature of this new (i.e. unprecedented) expansion of federal power from what has previously existed until now. [True, the ACA contains only tepid penalties, but if the Commerce Clause rationale is successful, the sky is the limit.]

While some press accounts have focused on Judge Kavanaugh’s forceful questioning about the AIA—and it was indeed forceful—I thought the government’s counsel was effective in countering his textual analysis to the point where he volunteered that it was a “close” issue. In the end, I feel confident that the AIA issue will not prevail, especially given that both the government and the challengers agree it does not apply for good reasons, and all but 2 federal judges so far have concurred in this assessment.

Of greater concern is Judge Silberman’s interpretation of Wickard, but that issue merits a separate post.

Tone Deaf Andrew Sullivan...

objects to Mitt Romney's campaign slogan:

And have you noticed Romney's creepy slogan: "Believe In America"? Ugh.

This from the "Know Hope" spokesman for Obama's policies, who continues plugging that one, even when it's become clear for some time to everybody else in his shared country that it's gonna take an awful lot more than just pushing "hope" to bring about the promised "Change" we were all told, once upon a time, to believe in...


(I wonder, is it the "Believe" part he objects too, or the putting "America" first once again, part that brings about his case of the "Ugh"s?)

Either way, betcha it sells well with the America people, especially those believers who understand it takes a busload of faith to get by these days, even hard work under that hope-preaching, but not really delivering, messiah.

Then again, Andy's gotten hisself married these past few years, with an automatic legal immigrant card now that the HIV+ ban has been lifted, and jumped around from publication to publication, surely boosting his career take...

So Obama's America has been berry, berry good to him, one might say.

I Feel Your Pain, Paul.

As someone who earned a Bachelor of Science in journalism from a reputable national school, yet came of age in the early 90s with industry "hiring freezes"* on (except for the black and "minority" journalists, who were actively courted based on their skin tone and "insider" status -- see the Jason Blair story for how well that worked out) it's like what's happening to your field has already happened to mine...

I’ve never liked the notion of talking about economic “science” — it’s much too raw and imperfect a discipline to be paired casually with things like chemistry or biology, and in general when someone talks about economics as a science I immediately suspect that I’m hearing someone who doesn’t know that models are only models. Still, when I was younger I firmly believed that economics was a field that progressed over time, that every generation knew more than the generation before.

The question now is whether that’s still true. In 1971 it was clear that economists knew a lot that they hadn’t known in 1931. Is that clear when we compare 2011 with 1971? I think you can actually make the case that in important ways the profession knew more in 1971 than it does now.

I’ve written a lot about the Dark Age of macroeconomics, of the way economists are recapitulating 80-year-old fallacies in the belief that they’re profound insights, because they’re ignorant of the hard-won insights of the past.

What I’d add to that is that at this point it seems to me that many economists aren’t even trying to get at the truth. When I look at a lot of what prominent economists have been writing in response to the ongoing economic crisis, I see no sign of intellectual discomfort, no sense that a disaster their models made no allowance for is troubling them; I see only blithe invention of stories to rationalize the disaster in a way that supports their side of the partisan divide.
...
And all this makes me wonder what kind of an enterprise I’ve devoted my life to.

In fact, it's so similar to the way I felt about journalism after seeing Ezra Klein's media star rise, following his creation of Journolist, which pretty much gutted the neutrality of the profession.

Been there.
Felt that.
Hang in there...
You'll Get By.

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

* They didn't give a damn how good a writer/reporter you were, they weren't even looking at your work if you weren't black or minority. Still have the "your clips are great; you scored highest on our copyediting tests from all test applicants whose campuses we visited... yadda yadda" --- a working-class white girl simply counted for less than a mediocre-educated black one. What can you do?

Me? I mastered desktop publishing -- went into public relations putting out newletters for a public finance firm, and then a local hospital undergoing a $13 reconstruction building project... and then went to law school, on a merit scholarship owing to my LSAT score. Still, writing -- not "practicing" law -- is more for me. I simply couldn't adapt to that drier, more advocative writing style ... not when there's so much out here that needs to be better covered, in non-legalese speak.

Chin up, Paul.
You'll be ok too, in time.

And we forgive you too, for your role in that Journolist thing, and for shining Ezzie's star too, based on your own reputation. Let's see what he can do by himself now, though? Stand or fall on his own work record, his own two ...

Never quite understood why you adopted that one for your protege in the first place, except ... I guess people really do prefer their own when it comes to promoting. Anyway, clean slate. All is forgiven. He and Annie aren't you and yours, if you catch my drift...

Sincerest Form of Flattery, Indeed.

Michael Gerson...

“Atticus was right,” Scout says of her father. “One time he said you never really know a man until you stand in his shoes and walk around in them.”

This is easy to dismiss as sentiment and sugar water. It is, in fact, the answer to everything — to racism and bullying and genocide, and the daily abuse we inflict on each other. Do to others as you’d have them do to you. Don’t judge so you won’t be judged. Walk in the other guy’s shoes for a while. It is the only effective response to the Beast who is constantly reborn.

This is the hope that unites parents and teachers: not that human nature can be changed but that moral education is possible. That a 13-year-old, like many who came before, might glimpse real courage in imaginary lives. That the end of innocence might be the start of sympathy. That even junior high can include a little grace.

At the end of “To Kill a Mockingbird,” Scout says, “Nothin’s real scary except in books.” It isn’t true. A lot that is human is scary. But the answers are found on the reading list.*

echoes me here:

It all goes back to consistency. If you don't like it being done to others, don't do it yourself. Be prepared to apply your principles across the board.
...
Our laws, and most online contests or campaigns, draw a distinction between youth and adults. Leave the kids out of it: they're still growing, and learning, and truth be told: they should be focusing on their educations, which go far far beyond whom they might choose to sleep with when they grow up and are mature adults.

And here I was, humbly pretending nobody reads this blog...
Heh!

* which makes it all the more sadder, really, that nobody pulled that boy off the online social sites, and sat him in a room, alone, with the great books. (Try the short story Paul's Case, by Cather, for starters...)

----------------------
ADDED: I'm also pulling this post, from back in October of last year -- 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? -- highlighting my use, now commonplace, of the term "double down". It's f'n everywhere these days -- talk about picking up another's wordplay and running with it...

Technically, it's a gambling, a blackjack term. (I'm only speaking on this, not for credit, that's not me... but because it seems to have entered the mainstream lexicon now, and is so often wrongly used. It doesn't just mean: recommitting to what you're already working with.)

By using basic strategy you can determine when you should double down based on the mathematics of the game The reason that doubling down is so favorable is that you are doubling your bet when you have the best opportunity of beating the dealer. Most of the time, this is when the dealer is at their weakest. This happens when the dealer shows an up card, which can possibly cause them to bust.

Many computer simulations have been run to determine the frequency that a dealer will bust based on their up card. Take a look at the table at the bottom of this page.

The worst cards for the dealer are the two through six. They will bust more times with these cards showing. Your double down will be successful more against these cards. There are other situations where you will double down with a ten against the dealer's nine or an eleven against a dealer's ten. These are close calls and some newer players hesitate to do this. Although you will not be as successful with these plays as many times as when the dealer has a smaller card it is still the correct strategy to do so. In the long run you will win more money by doubling in these situations than you will lose.

So thanks for reading people,
just be sure, if you're taking my words out of context and adopting my style for your own, that you fully understand the words you're choosing to use.

First few times I saw "doubling down" in the political circles, I was flattered. But as everyone seems to ape everyone else when they get paid to put out daily analysis and coverage, and the election's still over a year away, it gets tiresome.

Glad I don't take my money that way.
Leaves me free to ... keep it real here, stay creative, enjoy the simple healthy life (been paddling and gardening way before some folks latched on to these photo ops).

A well-rounded intelligence, a solid educational foundation, and a healthy appetite for reading all things -- why, you can't swipe that and pass it off as your own. Not for too long anyway...

Who will go the distance...



ADDED BONUS:
Here's the full post from last October:

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.

posted by Mary at 5:49 PM

** Damn! I called that one correctly also -- looking at the election results where the voters could not be denied. They simply do not like the ACA, or Obamacare, if you will...

With today's stories about the price of premiums going up, up, up ... I wonder if anybody will call Mr. Ezra Klein for what he is -- a young shill, pretending to sell his policy wonk skills, but his track record is dismal, to say the least... oh what the hey. He'll be off making his moolah in a non-profit advocacy role soon enough, I think. Never was a real journalist, in the first place. Simply never bothered to learn the old established rules, before he broke 'em...

The WaPo bought his youthful exuberance, but day to day to day? His work simply does not hold up. The old guard will realize that soon enough, I think...


FINALLY:
If you're still reading? FWIW: The only thing less funny than the thrice-told Pet Atop the Car Carrier kneeslapper is a dead hooker joke. I know, I know... who am I to judge? But trust me? Steer clear of emulating older, unwiser others, and breaking new ground for funny in such a troubled economy.

That skinny white dead hooker you're funning about?
That's the type of person you ought to be writing about these days...

Nevermind the victim jackpot winners -- see here and here*. How 'bout a little press coverage toward those struggling, and making it, without becoming fully dependent on other people's money, without which, sadly, they fall right back into the "hold the door open for me?" category...

(I mean: nothing against a good pity story. But trust me, the crippled boy making fun of America's mops isn't going to be the one to create a better mousetrap mop to help society better itself. And in time, I suspect, he might just regret trading up his own people, his mother, and his country and culture for the ... "good life" he's currently enjoying here in Boca Raton (the mouth of the rat), America. Call it a hunch...

If that seems harsh to you, today, wait and see. Don't stop thinking about his tomorrows, now that you've got him where you want him and all.)


* The only thing I can say about Blow's piece -- forgive me, my immediate reactions are rarely that of the crowd -- is that little Madison, the girl "who brings the sunshine into the basement?" She's gonna be a Sugar Daddy's delight in years to come...

What I mean is:
this program to provide poor people with artwork, and waterfront housing? A gift, through no direct efforts of their own, other than not to color on the walls and keep the new buildings clean? That kid will never learn to work hard, and do what it takes to sacrifice, work hard, study, work hard, and lift herself. No matter what she does in life, how can she compete with $85,000 annually handouts?

Judging by Blow's response, and the child's eagerness to please after spending half her 4-year-old life in this environment, let's just say ... she'll make somebody a nice geisha girl, that seems certain.

They mean well, but sometimes freedom and independence -- not just finer more gilded cages -- truly are the best lessons for lifelong success. How's about some stories on folks like that? Not jackpot winners, or wasted victims being helped by the goodness of one's friends (always named, naturally), but on those struggling today and getting by, and bettering themselves, who will one day compete honestly, and win too, thanks to the leveled playing fields.

It's not enough just to gain the win, it's the connected direct lessons that teach the value of education, hard work, and independence -- relying on yourself to take care of you, even if it means a lesser standard of living today but being able to really play.

Hope this makes sense; not too worried about the cold reactions, because indeed, I do have a heart. It's just the superior down-the-road vision that makes this things clearer to me, I think.

I think...

the Palm Beach Posts needs to hire more conservatives, pare down on their long-employed liberal editorial board, and ... get some creative minds working there.

How long is much, much too long, anyway?
How much is too much, salary-wise?
(When will the Dolphins win one?)*

Is Marco Rubio auditioning for vice-president?
by Opinion Staff
...
Maybe the Republican nominee won’t pick Sen. Rubio. He just got elected last November. Of course, Mr. Obama ran for president after just two years in the Senate. But we think Sen. Rubio is auditioning for the second spot on the ticket. What do you think?

Click the link below to take our poll.

Is Marco Rubio auditioning for vice-president?

* Threw that one in because, without the sports coverage, who would keep on reading? The people interested in the ... (comped) wine reviews in a down economy? The ones who want to see the black woman feature writer chat with her sisters and friends during all the "live blog" reality shows? The folks who believe in those dummied-up liberal editorials?

No really, without the sports, who reads that paper these days?
Randy Schultz needs to retire, for the good of the paper, and take his liberal buddies w/him.

Sharp Rise in U.S. Health Insurance Cost, Study Finds

Well, duh!
If you increase the giveaways to the poorest of the poor, who sometimes get lucky and hit the jackpot with all expenses covered; if your plan does nothing to address the "invisible" immigrants that nobody wants to see, but naturally, we must continue treating them at ERs and for childbirth expenses; if your plan doesn't address one iota the skyrocketing costs of medical care (nor the need for tremendous treatment to protect doctor's from outrageous medical tort suits) ... what do you expect?

Those who do pay, will be asked to pay more, more, more, with little "more" received in return.

Just imagine what they'll be paying in premiums, if the rug is pulled out from under the mandate -- legally, by the Court -- and all those non-consuming, non-insured customers aren't forced to pay premiums to help share the costs of medical services they don't consume...

Then, with no repeal of the entitlements already in place, can you imagine how quickly the premiums for families and those who pay-as-they-go will skyrocket?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions, they tell me...

On "Cyberbullying".

Sullivan -- eager to get in on the "victimized to death by bullies" meme? -- misses one very basic point here:
namely, Step Away From the Computer.

Julian Sanchez explains how online harassment can add up:

One reason "cyberbullying” may present special problems is that the Internet and social networks dramatically increase the realistic number of people who can pile on a single victim in a short period of time. Each aggressor might rationalize their own part in the distributed bullying as just one or two comments, though the victim perceives an overwhelming assault when these are all combined.

For an analogy in the physical world, we can look to street harassment, which is enabled by the high volume of anonymous, brief public interactions characteristic of urban environments. Some men, of course, engage in vulgar and intimidating speech that anyone would consider harassing in itself. But often, the harassment is a distributed phenomenon.

Many of us would not particularly mind a single stranger yelling out "Hi, gorgeous" or "You look good today!" once every other month—and I’ve seen men (inexcusably obtuse, to be sure, but not obviously malicious) react with genuine surprise when such remarks are not welcomed as compliments, not realizing they’re the tenth person in as many blocks to volunteer a similar comment to the same woman.

I simply don't buy that cyberharrassment is any more dangerous than street-level, or daily classroom harassment.

One of the counselors, who knew and was professionally trained to help the young boy who ended up killing himself, recommended he stay off social media sites. Would that have saved his life? Probably... perhaps not, if indeed depression or other underlying illnesses made his freshman year so hard he saw death as his only way out at the time, thinking like a child.

Point is,
nobody in that child's life -- his parents primarily -- took the counselor's advice and "protected" him from the bullies' hate, directed at and targeted at him.

Step Away from the Computer. Don't reveal too much online, and if you're getting egged on or otherwise harassed, the power is in your own hands. Pull the plug and don't let the child read it. Empowerment.

If you love your kids, and they ever speak of suicide, wouldn't you watch them closely? Wouldn't you take the professional counselor's advice?

No matter how much they want to post online "It Gets Better. Look at Me Everyone!" videos, or no matter what they'll be missing out on in not participating in a pop star's latest release... You're the parent. Do what needs to be done.

Save your kids.
If they're being harassed online, get them out of that environment. Much much easier than passing a federal law to make childhood behavior criminally punishable.

It seems so easy, in retrospect, no?
(Of course, no suicides = no publicity campaigns and no visible "victims" either.)

Gaga Joins Savage...

in exploiting the death of one poor boy who killed himself, allegedly because he was "bullied to death."

Where is Freddie Mercury* -- a true artist -- when you need him?

"I am meeting with our President," Lady Gaga tweeted following the suicide of bullied fan Rodemeyer. "I will not stop fighting. This must end. Our generation has the power to end it. Trend it #MakeALawForJamey."

After Rodemeyer's tragic suicide, Lady Gaga wrote that she believes bullying should become a federal offense.

"Jamey Rodemeyer, 14 yrs old, took his life because of bullying," Lady Gaga tweeted Wednesday. "Bullying must become be [sic] illegal. It is a hate crime."

Rodemeyer, a 14-year-old gay male from Buffalo, made an "It Gets Better" YouTube video earlier this summer to urge outcasts and the bullied to keep going and brush off the mean kids.

"It gets better," Rodemeyer advised YouTube users in May. "Look at me, I'm doing fine. I went to the Monster ball and now I'm liberated, so it gets better."

Rodemeyer took his life a little more than a week ago. In his last blog posts he wrote about wanting to see his late great-grandmother, and thanked Lady Gaga.

Keep milking it lady.
There's a shelf life on this kind of artistry, y'know.
See ... Madonna.

------------------
* Following the enormous conjecture in the press over the last two weeks, I wish to confirm that I have been tested HIV positive and have AIDS. I felt it correct to keep this information private to date to protect the privacy of those around me. However, the time has come now for my friends and fans around the world to know the truth and I hope that everyone will join with me, my doctors, and all those worldwide in the fight against this terrible disease. My privacy has always been very special to me and I am famous for my lack of interviews. Please understand this policy will continue.


ADDED: Freddie would have turned 65 earlier this month. He was, is, a classic. Trivia note: Scott Milburn turned me on to Queen way back when. One of the few to vote, in our classroom, if we had to do away with either tv or radio, he'd keep his radio on...

Romney Rubio 2012.

No "wish list" here.
I just call 'em as I see 'em.

Fall Color Report.

Click here for "weeks until peak".

Better Lead than Dead.

Parents get shooting range moved out of school ... out of concern for users' safety?

SHEBOYGAN, Wis. (AP) — The Sheboygan Rifle & Pistol Club has moved its shooting range out of a local middle school after parents raised concerns about exposing students to lead.

The club had an October deadline to either upgrade the range's ventilation system or move out. The shooting range, built and operated by the gun club in conjunction with the school district, has been housed at Urban Middle School since 1955 and has been used by the club and the Community Recreation Department.

Lisa Janeiro, 45, was among the parents who raised concerns about how children were being protected from the range's lead residue.

"We just asked some questions about what safeguards the district had put in place to make sure students and staff in the school weren't being exposed to high concentrations of lead," Janeiro said.

"It turned out in the end that generally, people (in the school) were not being exposed but it was likely users of the range, unbeknownst to them, were. Really, the worst part was the district seemed to be unaware of that situation."

Or is that just a smoke screen?

Gun club president Reed Vanness said the lead issue was being addressed and anti-gun sentiments prompted the move.

"It was politics," Vanness told The Sheboygan Press. "There were a couple people who did not want us in the school. They decided to try to get us on lead contamination. For the last number of years, we cleaned it during the summer and every night after we used it. We passed environmental studies every time. The school board just decided maybe it was time, maybe we didn't belong there."

What kind of message is this sending?

In the meantime, longtime club member and instructor Augie Margenau is wondering what message closing the range sends to young people with an interest in safe shooting.

"I'm unhappy that it's gone," said Margenau, 71, of Sheboygan. "I understand concerns about lead but our safety record is great. It's just something I wish we could pass on to next generation."

Scharrer said the Community Recreation Department is still working with the club to offer shooting classes. Currently a BB gun safety and shooting course is being held at the club's headquarters on Monday nights.

"We're continuing to keep the lines open with the club as far as offering classes through them and whatever they can do out there at their location," he said.

Just in Time for Halloween...

Protesters to post "anti cheese" billboard in DePere, on the way to Lambeau Field.

Think of the children!

“Our greatest concern is for children who are fed cheese products by their well-meaning parents,” says PCRM nutrition education director Susan Levin, M.S., R.D.

“Cheese is loaded with fat, cholesterol, sodium—and calories. It ought to come with a warning label so consumers understand the health risk.”

Nevermind Cow Tipping...

UW-LaCrosse students perfect the art of "Squirrel Tossing":

Police say a drunken crowd tossed a dead squirrel around and tipped over a car in La Crosse this past weekend.

Lt. Brian Thomson says some college-age people began throwing a dead squirrel back and forth in the street near the University of Wisconsin-La Crosse campus on Saturday night, the second night of the city's annual Oktoberfest celebration.

Police put a stop to the squirrel tossing, but were later called back to the area. Thomson says a crowd of hundreds that covered several city blocks had gathered and tipped over a car.

Thomson says the crowd righted the car at some point and many ran off as police approached. No one was hurt or arrested, although officers issued a number of citations for underage drinking, public consumption and urination.

Warriors...

grinding it out.

You can watch the games on RiceLakeTV, it turns out.
And forward to catch the action from above.
Who knew?

(Keep your eyes on #24 defense, and #14 the quarterback)

Enjoy.

I went looking for some Tanya Tucker, and stumbled upon this Crystal Gayle to wind down the weekend...

Let Me Be There.

Have a great autumn weekend ahead...
It don't get no better.

ADDED:

FORECAST FOR THE WEEK AHEAD: The constellation Libra is the only inanimate object of the zodiac, and yet this realm is full of personality and movement. It deals in the most intricate areas of the human psyche. It delves into the most complicated questions — questions like “Why do we love whom we love?” and “What should the rules be and who should make them up?” These types of questions can never fully be answered, but that doesn’t stop us from trying during this the first full week of the 2011 solar passage through Libra. Libra’s endless questioning will be aimed at personal relationships and societal trends alike. Progress in many areas will be slow, but that can bring about a favorable outcome. We are more concerned with the feelings involved in our interactions. Getting the cooperation of loved ones and peers is crucial to our success. If we cross the finish line but no one is there to cheer, it will feel like a hollow victory, if it counts as a victory at all. So this work — the work of team building — is vitally important. Mercury joins the sun in Libra, adding two cents’ worth of charm and diplomacy to our communication.

Garden Update.

Well since you asked*...
I stopped at the church gardens yesterday evening, before the game, and after picking up Buddy for the weekend. (Mal is helping somebody break down a greenhouse on land that got foreclosed on, I think, and it's not really fair to leave him in the old van all day, even if he gets out for walks and air and affection, etc. Buddy, not Mal.)

While Buddy romped at the gardens, I noted the new peas coming in, and picked and ate some broccoli. It really does taste better steamed a bit... The onions are fun to find. And there are still a few tiny baby eggplants, but I didn't bother picking them yet either.

At the community garden, the spinach continues to grow. And the celery will make for some nice tuna salad. The Thai basil continues to amaze my tastebuds; somebody tell me what the heck you do with chard? Eat the stalks or the leaves? It's still too pretty to cut -- yellows and reds and purples and greens.

The side of the gardens I lined with a flat of discounted flowers this year survived the frost too. And the rest, we've already cleaned up.

Maybe I'll have pictures tomorrow...

*Mary, Mary, quite contrary...
How does your garden grow?

About That Booing...

It's sad. That it's the media meme of the moment, that is. Just when I thought everyone was over playing politics with the gay people, here we go again...

If you listen close, and if it turns out only a few individuals booed... and then you see the tremendous media backlash, against a manufactured crisis, when it turns out there's so much more real work to do on gay rights...
well shame on that.

Again, get over it media folk.

"Sticks and stones may break my bones, but boos can never hurt me."

Save your space for something that matters, some real news issue. Making up something out of nothing really, so's all the "media spokespeople types" can offer up their say -- see here and here, for just two -- is silly and wasteful.

One day,
we'll look back and wonder why they were so willing to cover fluff, and not do their jobs fully. Because they thought it was funny? To make fair game of gays? To protect us from boos?

No thanks.
Not like that...

ADDED: An assistant sociology professor at City College of New York? Really? That's the best you've got? He speaks for whom exactly? Changes are, the California-Irvine grad/UCLA film studies major is grabbing whatever he can to build his career... And the gay rights issue certainly is handy, eh? Spare me.

Thinking Outside the Box.

Now there you go.

In other news:

Rice Lake scored a touchdown in the final minute of the game to remain undefeated in Big Rivers Conference play with a 23-21 victory over Hudson Friday night in Rice Lake.

Good game.
Very good game.

Something 'bout the word CZAR.

It must just be thought to connotate (or connote) Power:

MADISON, Wis. (AP) - Gov. Scott Walker is laying out the duties for his so-called deer czar.

Walker promised during his campaign to appoint someone to oversee deer management, hoping to appeal to hunters who have griped for years about the Department of Natural Resources' herd control policies. Hunters insist the policies have grown so draconian they've devastated the herd, leading to anemic hunts.

Walker issued an executive order Friday telling the Department of Administration to retain an independent expert in deer management.

The order requires the expert to begin a review of the DNR's management practices by Oct. 1 and deliver a preliminary report by March 1. It also directs the DNR to cooperate fully with the expert.

A Walker spokesman says the administration likely will announce DOA's selection next week.

When I was in Madison, we had an Alcohol Czar, appointed by the mayor, I think, to crack down on underage and binge drinking. Now this.

I can see the need for the position, but not the need for that term ... even here, in the hinterlands. (I like that one better than "flyover country" myself. Which I first heard used in Madison, in fact.)

From the ABA Journal.

7th Circuit Slaps Lawyer* for 345-Word Sentence and Briefs Full of 'Gibberish'

The plaintiff and concert goers "were stunned on the day of the family-oriented event, when an even more menacing law enforcement presence was created when [the sheriff's] armed deputies, without prior consent or permission, warrant or probable cause, arrived, not a part of any agreement and a surprise and upset when it arrive, uninvited, on and entered and trespassed on Plaintiff property with drug-sniffing ‘K-9’ dogs, obviously and unfortunate that Defendants were ‘looking for trouble’ where there was none as distinct from 'looking to serve.' "

Hey, sometimes I try to pack too much info into a sentence too, but if you read it slowly, generally it makes sense. And then, this is a blog, not a brief. And it's not my third try to get it right either...

A federal appeals court is so aggravated by the quality of an Illinois lawyer’s legal writing that it has ordered him to show cause why he shouldn’t be barred from practicing before the court.

Lawyer Walter Maksym was “unable to file an intelligible complaint,” despite three tries given him by the trial court, according to the opinion by the Chicago-based 7th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals. “Each iteration of the complaint was generally incomprehensible and riddled with errors, making it impossible for the defendants to know what wrongs they were accused of committing,” the appeals court said. In addition, “Maksym’s appellate briefing is woefully deficient, raising serious concerns about his competence to practice before this court,” the court added.

Now surely he could afford a proofreader, or freelance editing help, what with the unemployment rate these days... Maybe, it's the odd spelling of the last name (presumably pronounced Maxim?) that makes it genetic? Or ... who would have thought it? -- health issues?

Maksym had filed the suit on behalf of an outdoor concert promoter who claimed the county sheriff was forcing him to hire his deputies for security, report the Chicago Tribune and the Legal Skills Prof Blog. He was also one of the civil lawyers for Drew Peterson, a former police officer accused of murdering his third wife. Peterson’s fourth wife is missing.

Maksym told the Tribune that the problems were related to his treatment for cancer. "It was an isolated period where I was suffering from health problems that affected my ability to practice," he said. Over 38 years of practice, Maksym said, he has an “impeccable record.”

The 7th Circuit affirmed dismissal of Maksym's complaint with prejudice, issued the order to show cause, and directed the court clerk to send its opinion to Illinois lawyer ethics regulators.

The district court was well within its discretion when it refused to accept Maksym’s second amended complaint, the appeals court said. “Though the complaint was far longer than it needed to be, prolixity** was not its chief deficiency,” according to the appeals court. “Rather, its rampant grammatical, syntactical, and typographical errors contributed to an overall sense of unintelligibility. This was compounded by a vague, confusing, and conclusory articulation of the factual and legal basis for the claims and a general 'kitchen sink' approach to pleading the case.”
...
Maksym has represented Drew Peterson on civil matters, but he has never been affiliated with the criminal case, according to a statement by lead criminal defense lawyer Joel Brodsky. Maksym did excellent civil work for Peterson, Brodsky says, but Peterson has asked Maksym to temporarily step aside "while he focuses on his personal issue.”

And on that note...

Have a great Friday and a wonderful weekend. Enjoy autumn!

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

* No. They didn't literally slap him...
(Though if he'd had a good nun in his background, he'd never be in this mess now.)
;-)

ADDED:
** Prolixity? Well, nobody likes their pages pre-licked, afterall. Could easily catch something that way, I think...

File Photo.

Posted for fun:


It's from a tractor pull, taken at night.

ADDED: You might like to see a demolition derby too some day. Hard to see the hits though. Especially if, like me, you've ever been in an accident (belted in, but still...) and know how hard the hits really are.

Estrich Congratulates Obama on DADT repeal.

or, To Everything: Spin, Spin, Spin...

She neglects to mention, of course, that it was a group of gay Republicans -- the Log Cabin Republicans -- who successfully sued to get the Don't Ask, Don't Tell law (a Clinton-era hangover) off the books.

Estrich no doubt means well, and remember -- she's a paid Democratic publicist -- but she really should get her congratulatory facts straight.

Finally, after a federal judge declared the law unconstitutional in a case brought by the Log Cabin Republicans, Secretary of Defense Robert Gates gave a press conference urging Congress to act. The White House didn't even have the courage to include the families of gay and lesbian service members in the kickoff of the first lady's consummately nonthreatening "Joining Forces" initiative for military families last April.

Unlike Harry Truman, Barack Obama didn't want to get ahead of the curve.
...
The gay community has always included gifted wordsmiths like Black and playwright Tony Kushner, whose "Angels in America" introduced millions of Americans to the aspirations of its gay population in the midst of the AIDS plague. In the opinion of many, Moises Kaufman's "Laramie Project," about the murder of gay youth Matthew Shepard in Wyoming, did more to save lives than all the hate crime laws in America. "8" is no "Angels in America." But it may do the job.

More important, it's a job the gay movement can do for itself. The days of political leaders like Harry Truman and Earl Warren appear to be behind us. Barack Obama and Anthony Kennedy are not the enemy, of course. But with friends like those ...

Consistency Counts.

Many online commentators have spent the past few days arguing against America's death penalty, because you have questions of guilt and innocence in some cases. They cite this execution as an example.

Nobody much has mentioned this execution, in their arguments though. I wish they would.

Let us know that you've indeed grappled with that fact that many killers, who we are convinced were guilty, deserve to live out their lives in prison because it's consistent with your call against the death penalty.

Catholics have done that, I know, and I'm sure there are others. Those who understand that, despite what many victims' families want: black and white, it's better for the nation as a whole not to be executing anyone. Period.

You might argue that way for moral, religious, or other reasonable reasons. But let us know, indeed, you understand the big picture: that just as a moratorium on state-sanctioned killings might let innocent men live, it might let guilty men live too.

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

Another area that is very puzzling to me, is why the mainstream media continues to hype the suicides of teens that allegedly were "bullied to death."

Life is Hard.
Bad Things Happen.
Suicide is Death.
Don't Kill Yourself.

Those are four, easy, three-word slogans that to me, are much much more effective than "It Gets Better". Maybe, maybe not.

Something tells me, publicizing every child crying out for attention, who chooses to kill himself or herself, is going to spur more self killings...

That's why, despite the way communities often come together after a death, especially a child's death, it bears repeating: Sticks and stones may break my bones, but words can never kill me.

Dan Savage appears to think he and his campaign can magically stamp out bullying in schools and off-school properties across the nation. Nice try, but something tells me, it will never happen.

Instead of painting all gay kids as weak victims -- unintentionally or not, that seems to be what's happening -- how about acknowledging, like many loving people and churches do, that suicide is NOT the answer. Put the empowerment in the hands of those who most need it: the victimized, not the bullies.

Look, it might be tough, in plenty of places, to be "out" as a teen, focusing your whole identity on your sexuality. That's why, many of us think children should be protected. Their messages of encouragement and self-love, no matter how appealing or convincing, should not be included in any online campaign. Don't post them, period.

Our laws, and most online contests or campaigns, draw a distinction between youth and adults. Leave the kids out of it: they're still growing, and learning, and truth be told: they should be focusing on their educations, which go far far beyond whom they might choose to sleep with when they grow up and are mature adults.

Don't bring that into the classroom, period.

I really have problems with Dan Savage saying this is an anti-bullying campaign. Don't believe him. He's the one, afterall, who totally understands the power of words, and bullying, who has invoked another, less mainstream-publicized campaign, to use the power of words to bully politician Rick Santorum.

It's about consistency. Please, don't pretend you're anti-bullying, when really, you seem to be about pushing a pro-gay agenda, no matter who is hurt in the end. You're using these children, and trust me, there's another copycat out there, seeing how this young man "made it big" -- he showed all of them, eh? -- and got his name and pictures splashed on the nightly news (NBC) and this morning on CBS, where Mr. Savage, conveniently, put his face forward to publicize his work.

Remember, this is the same man who started his gay advice columns with "Hey Faggot..." just a few short years ago. So which is it then? Are words so powerful and harmful they need to be policed? Or would we be better off teaching youngsters how to remain resilient -- the age-old "sticks and stones" message -- and to respect life enough, no matter how down they get?

I vote for the latter. It's not that parents, teachers, role models and community members should allow bullying. It's just -- something tells me, you'll never ever ever stamp out that form of namecalling, especially in youth and teens. It's a way of figuring out who they are, and sadly, poking at others with words is a rite of passage. Fat kids, kids who are too black (or too white -- yes, it happens!), skinny kids (happens too!), kids who are too dumb (or too smart! again...)

Highlighting someone's "sexual orientation" is just one category of many, and unless you believe gay kids are somehow weaker, or the words they face are worse than what the fat kids faced (ever read Blume's Blubber?), then why not work to empower them? Don't Kill Yourself. No Matter What.

That would be a message worth publicizing, no? And perhaps Dan Savage could take down his own dirty-words bullying, that he's effectively employing against his "enemy" online...

He'd be consistent at least. I don't blame him for the deaths of these young people, anymore than I blame those kids who didn't know the power of their words. They're kids afterall. Savage is an adult, though an obviously immature one at that.

Happened to me too. I used a screenname when I first got my computer and was chatting in the online chat rooms, that later turned up as a pejorative in the Urban Dictionary. My surname was used as a fictional name in one of those Onion stories, coincidentally poking fun at gay folks. Coincidence, I'm sure. But personally, it highlights to me: 1) Never ever trust anyone you're chatting with online. It might be an outlet, or a way of expanding your world to you, but it could just be a game to uncaring others. 2) the power of bullying works both ways.

It all goes back to consistency. If you don't like it being done to others, don't do it yourself. Be prepared to apply your principles across the board: if you don't like seeing the white victims calling for the death penalty for the person they think killed their loved ones, be prepared to explain to the family of the man dragged to death in Jasper, Texas too, why they should accept a life imprisonment instead of the death penalty for the one who killed their loved one too.

Life is Tough.
You be Tougher.

Don't fall for any easy online campaigns, that a cynic might suspect are generated more to call attention to the organizer than for any lives they might save. (Again, I sure wish this particular campaign would pull -- today -- all of the videos and messages sent in by youth. They'll have their turn. It might save lives, if you let them know, "Kids, don't think that 'you'll show 'em all' by committing suicide and becoming a media martyr. You might get your face on the news, and everyone will be all sad when you're gone to see what ... the bullies did to you. But you'll be too 'dead' to enjoy your personal little victory...")

Teach them instead to be strong, to know that it's one thing to be killed, but another thing to deliberately choose to end their own lives. They hold that power. The person thinking of suicide. Don't let the bullies win. They will always be there -- those who understand the power of words, and work online to employ hate, in this direction or that.

Be Better than That.
Choose Life.

I know I'm just writing for me here. Nobody much links, and outside my own circles, I'm probably talking to myself. But if one person in media power gets this, how wrong it is to publicize Dan Savage, or a cheery but ineffectual campaign to end bullying via online videos, then maybe they'll stop reporting on the many many many kids who kill themselves -- for a variety of reasons -- every year.

My wish for Savage is that he understands that what worked for him -- no real education, no real job outside of being a sex advice columnist and professional homosexual -- is not what today's kids need. Sure, it got better for you. But for the rest of them?

They have to get beyond their sexuality, and get educations. Think about where, and how they're going to work, and support themselves. And potentially, their own families. It's wonderful you found a rewarding path doing what you do. I know you indeed mean well, but how many self suicides will be encouraged by this art project? Leave the kids out of it. Let the local role models -- teachers, coaches, religious people, parents, the ones who really know and love them, at a day-to-day level -- be there for them honestly, and help them get through life, just as these types of people have for generations.

There's a reason that in nature, mothers often teach young ones to hide, not to draw attention to themselves. They're simply more vulnerable as prey. You might not like it, might want everyone -- even kids -- to be out and proud and attention seeking as all get out. But at what price?

Personally, I'd much rather have an unsatisfied, living child with me to grow up and make his adult decisions as an adult, than I would to have my boy's life and death publicized on a national news show. I suspect many think the same way...

Stick with teaching "Sticks and Stones may break my bones, but names can never kill me." Teach them the sin -- or the consequence, if you prefer -- of ending their lives much much too soon. Teach them of the power they have, and let them know of all the STRONG popular gay children, who used internal defense mechanisms like humor, and being themselves but still fitting into the group, to get by...


[Aside: Scott Millburn, a classmate of mine, was elected our junior high class president in 8th grade. He's out now, wasn't then, and I'm not privvy to say what was going on in his head as a boy. He was well-liked, by both boys and girls, but I do remember the occasional "fairy" teasing -- much like we teased the girl with "Gongo Congo" lips, way before the Angelina Jolie days; and we teased the boy who always wore dirty clothes; we teased on hairdos (mine, I recall, it was a hard hard day; tears were even involved), pretty much everyone got the angry hateful words directed their way at one time or another for being "different". At graduation though, we had all grown up a bit, and yes, there was a lot of love for each other in our small class, despite all the "hate" hurled on our way to growing up.]

Down deep, Savage knows he'll never stamp out bullying. He chooses to continue to engage in it, even as an adult, for the power it holds. Just leave the kids out of it for now. Sadly, I suspect that in many many places, listening to their own instincts about how to act, is much safer than trying to be a lightning rod for gay rights, when they really aren't ready to deal with the consequences.

No More Martyrs.
That's my hope.

Right Place, Right Time.

Had to park in the lot at the local hospital last Saturday morning when I was out covering the start of a 5K/half marathon race. The camera was handy when this chopper took off...

Knocked over my unlidded coffee cup sitting on the trunk, but do I sound like I'm complaining? I've never gotten that close before...

Stanley Fish...

on Israel and the academy:

Why has the conflict between Israel and much of the Arab world become a third-rail topic in the academy? Why do so many of the incidents in which academic freedom is invoked by both sides center on that conflict? How can even a non-event, as this appears to be, release virulent energies and give rise to rants and counter-rants that threaten to go viral?

I have tentative answers to these questions, but they don’t really satisfy. For example, academics are always looking for an underdog to champion. I am old enough to remember when it was Jews. After Jews came women, then African-Americans, then the oppressed blacks of South Africa (remember divestment?), then Native Americans, then Latinos and Chicanos, then gay, lesbian and transgendered people, then the disabled and, for some years now, Palestinians. (Commentators on the right complain that conservatives and Christians never make the list.)

There is also the fact that Jews are disproportionately represented in the academy, and as scholars dedicated (in theory) to objectivity and a universal rationality, they may be bending over backward to avoid slipping into a tribal identification. (Hence the very vocal insistence on the part of many Jewish professors that criticism of Israel and anti-Semitism are very different things.) And then there are those academics (Jews and non-Jews) who feel that the whole of American foreign policy is distorted by what has been called the “Israeli lobby” and believe that unless the imbalance is corrected, we are in for a very bad time.

Missing the Point.

See Bruni, Frank.

Over the next 14 months, we shouldn’t be impressed by someone who can imitate ordinary. We should figure out who promises to be extraordinary. And that determination should be guided less by what candidates eat or drive than by what they’ve done with the reins of power, whether holding them with chapped or manicured fingers. 

It's about what you can do.
Yourself, independently.

If you kill, butcher and smoke your own, why, it's a bit like growing your own. It decreases the need to rely on others, and the commercial system. (Frank: Love ya babe, but do they sell venison sausage at the CostCo's near you? Can't buy wild venison here... you want it, you gotta go out and get it yourself.)

In law school, there's a saying (not for the offspring of tenured profs hoping to cash in on the system themselves, or for the corporate go-along-to-get-along types either): You eat what you kill.

Obama's never done that. Lived off his own skills and talents. Nor has Hillary; she (and so many Democratic women. See Pelosi, Nancy) came up through their men. That's why -- say what you will about Sarah or Michele, they got there on their own two. And it matters.

It's not about dirt-bike-riding, or bow hunting (a very legitimate pursuit here in the hinterlands. Don't poke fun, please, and we promise not to laugh at how you spend your leisure time on the coast, Frank.) It's about ... wait for it ... independence.

The thing I've lately learned is: the more the dependent people want to make their choices, they also want to foist their choices on the rest of us. If it only works this way for them, then they want to rope everybody into their own way of doing business.

Healthcare mandates (with no out for those who don't run up bills they can't pay for). Unpopular wars, because somebody overseas, or their lobbyists, has us convinced that it's in the American taxpayers best interests to sign on. Entitlement programs that benefit some (hello Boomers!) at the expense of others (tough luck being born in the late 60s and 1970s, kids!)

Technology promises to free us. From the public education systems that are pretty much bad jokes in some places, concerned more with transferring cultural values best delivered at home, and less with education.

And here's a harsh one: perhaps, if we stopped subsidizing births -- and let people cover the costs privately -- we'd have a better stock of citizens. The liberals, you see, who believe in open borders, then turn around and want the rest of us to pay for their policy choices.

Independence. It means figuring out the price tag early on, and then deciding whether or not you can pay when the bill comes. Some want their choices, and then expect others to pay too.

Some eat what they kill.

You decides, as the rest of the country will soon, which kind of America works best.

PS. I'm partial to the jerky myself. Salty sure, but like anything worth enjoying: moderation, moderation, moderation.

This country is diverse, geographically, and with our regional cultures. Here, the public meetings still include a Christian prayer. Personally? I like living with majority Christians. Others probably wouldn't leave New York if you paid them. It's that choice that makes our country great.

Pretending we're one homogeneous society, where your choices will be mine and vice versa, is silly. Stupid, really. We're so busy making fun of the other guy -- whether it be here in flyover, or there you Coasties, that we forget it really does take all types.

What will it take for us to remember, and honestly respect, our differences?

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

ADDED: This "highlighted" comment, from Ray of Miami, seems to say it all:

I'm a hunter too. Big deal. I wouldn't say it would make me a president.
When I was younger, I decided to try bowhunting. It was the cruelest thing I had ever seen.
Did you know most bowhunters don't make a kill on the first shot? No, they have to shoot over and over again while the buck goes into convulsions and crys just like a baby until it bleeds out.
I never had to take more than one shot with my gun. One shot and it is over.
So, how does torturing a deer or other animal make you, "tough" or a good candidate for any office?
Sounds like a psychopathic abuser to me.
Making your own sausages? Wow, I'm impressed he can do something Martha Stewart can do.
Geez, what have we come to in this country when childish bravado can go on a political resume?

Torture, eh? Childish bravado? Unless you don't eat meat, and don't condone America's foreign policy these past several years, I suggest you leave the hunters out of it. Bowhunting, instead of sitting in a tree with a rifle, is actually a more humane sport, as it encourages cleaner shots to save time in tracking, and it also permits the animal a better chance on the ground.

Bow hunting season opened here Saturday. It's not for sport, but to fill freezers. You have to travel into the cities, or an hour south on 55 into Eau Claire, if you even want to visit a CostCo, I think. Never been in one myself. (You can't assume all your modern city conveniences are available in rural areas.) It really is sad, to me, the way we disrespect the choices and living conditions of others, because some think that what they've got is indeed available to all.

Come up and visit northern Wisconsin, Frank. Whoever highlights those comments is missing something basic. If you think all bowhunters are like the ones on tv, in it for the sport and rich and entitled, you'd be wrong. It's sad to paint people like that, perhaps some of the kindest, animal-respecting people you might ever meet.

I understand why hunting perhaps turns the stomach of many. I don't hunt myself, but I do respect those who do, the vast majority -- here anyway -- who respect the animal, the land, and the want a healthy, and cheap -- if you process it yourself -- source of meat for the winter.

Winter? I don't think men like Bruni really know the meaning of the word. Regional differences and all...

Meanwhile, over at the WaPo...

the columnists there appear to be taking Mitt Romney's campaign seriously.

You know, like plenty of people out here are.

Nevermind pet care, nevermind good hair. I wonder, is it perhaps because they listen? Romney's been the most credible Republican candidate in the race since ... last time around.

But as the Estriches, and plenty of others, wondered aloud early on: Not us, of course, but people -- you know, those types in flyover country -- will they really stoop so low as to elect a ... Mormon??

Yes, we will.
So c'mon media types and get over the Perry hysteria, and the Obama "I might have nothing, but I'm the best hope ya got!" threats.

Cover Mitt Romney's campaign seriously. If you still have it in you, that is...

Distinguish on the state and federal levels the importance, and Constitutionality, of mandating healthcare. Ditto the gay rights thing. (which I think, is one day going to be decided by the Constitution. This patchwork idea of human civil rights is insulting, but the loudmouths in the currently "more equal" states would never admit that...)

Tell us about the Olympics success -- why, here's a man who pulled a poor plan from the face of financial disaster and turned it around. How?

Those businesses where he outsourced the jobs -- still, he made hard choices that allowed businesses to survive, no? We'll need that to reform entitlements, particularly to the Boomers, in the days to come.

Give the man credit -- he worked both sides of the aisle and delivered in Massachusetts.

In short, he's everything Obama was promised to be, minus the brown skin, with the results to show for it. Stop pretending Obama is "cool" as in Cool Hand Luke. (That comment really got me -- what a diss to Luke.)

Try growing up a bit, and stop playing the 60s divisive cards. And finally, on a personal note? Call me sexist, whatever -- can't we please elect a man who has raised a son one of these days? These daughter-only Daddies have their perspectives skewed, I think...

And really, we haven't had one since GHWB. That's a damn long time. It's personal, but 3 in a row, and look at where we're at -- Clinton, GWB, Obama ... nothing wrong with thinking a bit more independently, because they know -- as presidential men -- come what may, the daughters can and will marry well. The sons? They're more left to make it on their own, perhaps facing themselves the consequences of a father's policies and decisions.

It makes a difference. Nothing against men with only daughters, but honestly? I think you're missing something basic there. If you've got sons at risk, you rule differently, I think. 20 years is a long enough drought really.