Tuesday, January 31, 2006

Kennedy, Alito and the Supreme Court

Well it looks like Justice Alito has been confirmed after all. This entire episode is just another step in the ever quickening downward march of the “loony left”. Alito is, by the statements of everyone in the legal profession that knew him (from both sides of the fence) a fair, intelligent and open minded judge.

That is just not good enough for those on the left. A good and fair judge is not enough. You must be a warrior for social change. A progressive. That is the new code word for liberal, in case you did not know. The word “liberal” has been so tainted that a new “code” word was needed. Progressive was picked.

This mind set is very well illustrated by one of the poster boys for the “progressives”, Sen. Ted Kennedy.

Sen. Ted Kennedy on C-SPAN said in a speech to the President, of Justice Alito, “And that is what we are doing (voice quavering) with this nominee. HE FAILED TO DEMONSTRATE before this Judiciary Committee that he was committed to the continued march for progress...”.

I did not realize that the Supreme Court was responsible for continuing the march of social progress. I thought the point and purpose of the Supreme Court was to uphold or strike down laws and court rulings as judged by how well they conform to the framework of the constitution. To rule on law, not make it. I guess that makes me also, out of the main stream…

Friday, January 13, 2006

The Oscars

I don’t watch the Oscars. There I said it out loud. I also don’t watch the Golden Globes, the Peoples Choice Awards or any of the other “entertainers honoring entertainers” award shows. I don’t care much if they are sports stars, music stars, movie stars or any other ‘stars’ of the entertainment class. All of those ‘shows’ are just self congratulatory self-love fests of ego stroking.

Part of my disdain for these public shows of self adulation is rooted in my general apathy toward the entertainment industry as a whole (which in my mind includes all of the groups mentioned above) and partially because nothing that happens in the lives of highly paid, generally over indulged stars has any affect on my life (unless one of them happens to decide to give me a few million dollars). It is really sad that more people can tell you who JayLo is currently dating/married to/going with/whatever than can tell you the name of the Secretary of State of the USA or has a clue about the current political scandal in Canada.

While we are on the subject, I really do not care what Sean Penn, George Clooney, Ben Affleck, Alec Baldwin, Kirsten Dunst, Ted Nugent or any other celebrity/star thinks. All of these people are paid to entertain me and that is all that they should do. Anything they say that is outside of a paid performance should carry the same weight and get the same attention as that of any random, anonymous person off of the street. To allow these folks to comment on any subject outside of their chosen field of pursuit and treat it as some sort of insightful addition to the debate would be hysterical if not for the fawning multitudes that fall all over themselves to drink from these self anointed fountains of wisdom.

I am not saying that this group of people can not contribute to the debate on any subject or that they should not be allowed to talk at all. I am just saying that their comments should be treated just as those from any other random person and not as a holy mandate. You would not normally ask your mailman for information on spinal surgery. You would not normally ask your doctor about setting up a collage trust. Why would you think that an entertainer would have much relevant to say concerning world affairs or politics? Is the thought that because they are so wealthy that they can afford to spend more time actually learning all about these subjects and can spend huge amounts of time discussing the finer points with other deep thinkers? I think not. Me thinks it is just because they are ‘stars’. Well this is still America and anyone has the right to say whatever they want but I have a right too. The right not to have to listen to them exercising theirs.

Hypocrisy Example #219

The controversy following revelations that U.S. intelligence agencies have monitored suspected terrorist related communications since 9/11 reflects a severe case of selective amnesia by the New York Times and other media opponents of President Bush. They certainly didn't show the same outrage when a much more invasive and indiscriminate domestic surveillance program came to light during the Clinton administration in the 1990's. At that time, the Times called the surveillance 'a necessity.'

When a Democrat does the same thing as a Republican, the Democrat is doing it for noble and good reasons while the Republican is doing it because they are just plain evil. Media bias, what media bias?

Four Kings

I saw Four Kings last night for the first time. It was their second episode. Most likely, I will not be watching any more.

It is about four single guys that are sharing an apartment in the city. That means that the show is about four different flavors of ‘hound dogs’. Last night’s episode was mostly about trying to hook up, specifically trying to get a one night stand. I can only assume that this is what each episode will be about as it involves four single guys, trying to hook up.

There was one part that was rather amusing though, if I am not giving the writers too much credit. One of the regulars had to baby sit an ex-girlfriends young twin daughters. The guy was having trouble sleeping and the twins said that they could help by singing him to sleep. They then broke out in song. I had a flash back to those old Japanese monster movies from the 70s. A few included a pair of vary tiny (like 9 inches tall tiny) twin native girls that could sing to attract monsters or to put them to sleep. I hope that is what they were going for because if it was, it was quite inspired.

Monday, January 9, 2006

The deafening silence of NOW

The silence from NOW is not quite unexpected. This is really not much different than the deafening silence from NOW during the Clinton/Lewinsky scandal. They are all for woman's rights until it runs up against their political leanings. It was fine for Clinton to take advantage of a much younger, subordinate from what is arguably the most powerful of power positions because, one can only assume, he was/is a Democrat.

This is in sharp contrast to the allocations against Arnold S. (when he was running for governor of CA) that he had groped women some 20 years earlier. With Clinton, we had the stained dress, with Arnold we have hearsay. I am not saying it didn't happen, I am just contrasting the difference in positions and coverage and cover afforded to those on the left versus those on the right. Also where is NOW on the ritual mutilation of girls that takes place every day in Africa? I guess they have more pressing matters here at home.

Up in smoke

Very interesting OpEd on the affects and side-affects of anti-smoking laws.

I don't smoke. My wife used to. My dad smoked for over 40 years and my mother never smoked. I am of the opinion that if most folks practiced a little common courtesy and that the issue of whether you are or are not allowed to smoke somewhere were governed by the owner of the place, this would be a non-issue. If a place allows smoking and you don't like it, don't go there. Either enough folks will be like minded to cause the owner to change his mind or another business will pop up to cater to your needs.

I can see though that there may need to be some specific no smoking areas, like airplanes, where everyone is packed into a small space with no fresh air but that too can or could be managed by the business.

Too many folks forget that you should only make rules/laws on the minimum necessary and they should be as general as possible. The best set of 'laws' ever written are the 10 commandments. Religion has nothing to do with it. Read them. They cover all behavior in just 10 rules. Nearly anything that you can do today can be fit into these 10. Everything else is just thinner slices of the same bread.

Wednesday, January 4, 2006

Behind the minimum wage


New year, new start

Well I am back from my CHRISTMAS vacation, yes I said CHRISTMAS, not holiday. It is indeed a holiday but the word holiday is descriptive, not a noun. My wife and I decided to get out of town this year, way out of town. Out of the country in fact. All the way to Jamaica. We stayed in one of those all-inclusive resorts. Had a very good time. One of the things I like best about an all-inclusive is that they are all inclusive. You are not reaching into your wallet every 5 minutes for every little thing that you want to do. Included in your stay is food and drink (to include alcohol), the room and activities. In our case activities included a wide variety of non-motorized activities like snorkeling, scuba diving, sailing, swimming, volleyball, etc. One of the things that I liked about the place that we stayed is that at 11:00PM sharp, the outdoor shows end and silence takes over. There was at least one club that was always open so those that wanted to party-on could but those of us that wanted to or needed to sleep, could too. As with most vacations, it was a bit too short.

Got to play with a new video camera that we got just in time to take with us. A Sony DVRDVD403. Was very nice. Uses mini-DVDs. Either DVD-R, DVD-RW or DVD+RW. Each has different benefits and features. The camera takes videos and stills at 3 mega-pixels and has a number of very nice features. I just wish the zoom was better, more like that on the DVRDVD92.