Monthly Archives: June 2011

*Sigh*

I remember when Guns’n’Roses was new rock and roll. Not classic rock.

Heck, I knew a girl (whose mother I worked with) who ‘dated’ Slash for a brief period. I also had tea with Arthur Miller during this part of my life, got drunk with some Yale Summer Conservatory students, worked for Daniel O’Connell’s Sons, and had an acquaintance who coached soccer at The Gunnery (where I interviewed for my first library job). Life in Litchfield was always interesting at 21 and that part of New England is freakin’ drop dead gorgeous.

Ah the late ’80’s and early ’90’s. What a waste of my time.


Lies, Damned Lies…

and things Michael Bloomberg says.

 “Government should not tell you what to do unless there’s a compelling public purpose.” He sees no such purpose in blocking same-sex marriage.

Nice of him to pick and choose which activities the government should be allowed to interfere with based solely on his personal opinions.


Better Than I Could Have Phrased It

So, Time Magazine publishes a heavily slanted piece on the Constitution and its relevance to modern-day America (I arrived at this description after reading the article) .  I ran across a fisking of it at Patterico’s in my daily feeds, which prompted me to go read the article before looking into his specific claims of factual errors in the story.

Suffice to say, he’s not wrong. While there is room for interpretation in some cases, and some of them are the sort of small errors I get tired of public figures being “Gotcha’d!” by when speaking in public (but which I won’t make exceptions for in a publication – that’s what competent editors and fact-checkers are for), by and large I agree with him. I expect that if I wished to put in the time I could deconstruct that piece even further.

But mostly I couldn’t believe Time actually allowed this statement to be published:

If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the “necessary and proper” clause, which delegates to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Limited government indeed.

Um, what now? I knew better than that in high school and everything I’ve learned in the ensuing years has reinforced my understanding.

Then I ran across this gem:

I will be removing Time from the waiting room of my law office. Here is why.

Earlier today someone sent me [by email] the clip below with the claim that it was written by a Time author and published in the magazine.

If the Constitution was intended to limit the federal government, it sure doesn’t say so. Article I, Section 8, the longest section of the longest article of the Constitution, is a drumroll of congressional power. And it ends with the “necessary and proper” clause, which delegates to Congress the power “to make all laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other powers vested by this Constitution in the Government of the United States, or in any Department or Officer thereof.” Limited government indeed.

I fired back a rather hostile response [by email] and asked that I not be bothered with things that a little fact checking would demonstrate were obviously false. I told the sender that no matter how far Time had slipped, no literate editor would ever allow this statement to appear in print. I directed the email sender to the Tenth Amendment of the Constitution and told him to file his claim about this article in his “O’Bama birther” file.

To my chagrin he fired back the link to this article. I had to read it twice to believe my eyes. Time really did say this.

OMG

It appears I’m not the only one befuddled by something like that appearing in a (relatively) respectable publication (for anyone not keeping score I’m a bit of an originalist when it comes to Constitutional law).


The Cake is a Lie

…or is it?

 

H/T to Linoge, though my wife had told me about Cake Wrecks before – I just never wandered over there to look around.


Wiki-Wandering

This came up again at dinner last night and its an interesting phenomenon.

From The Urban Dictionary:

after looking up the info you need on Wikipedia, you click on random, interesting-looking links, reading new stuff, until you find yourself reading about something totally unrelated to your original subject.
i looked up “mickey mantle” on Wikipedia. when i was done, i clicked on “new york yankee players,” then “world series champions,” then on “brooklyn dodgers,” then on “leo durocher,” then on “laraine day” then on ” famous mormons,” then on “donny osmond,” then on “tv stars of the 70’s,” then on “david soul”, then on “starsky and hutch,” then on “tv cars,” then on “ford torino,” then on “torino talledega,” then on “richard petty,” then on “stock car champions,” then on “alan kulwicki,” then on “famous persons from wisconsin,” then on “jeffery dahmer,” then on “serial killers,” then on “howard unruh,” then on “camden, new jersey,” then on “campbell soup,” and then i realized i had just wasted the last three hours wiki-wandering!
This happens to me all the time (yes, I’m a reference librarian and I use Wikipedia – it has its place). Look up one thing, click on a vaguely interesting link, and the next thing you know you’re reading about GKrellM, or W. Grant McMurray, or the Ipswichian interglacial period.
Now I don’t think this is  a bad thing. Random knowledge is entertaining and sometimes useful. It is, however, a time-waster right up there with Angry Birds and that penguin tossing game I was so fond of for a while. Heck, it’s even a feature in Wikipedia. I apologize now for the 45 minutes you are about to lose to that link.
That is all.


Dogs and Beds

are a dangerous combination.

So, our not-such-a-puppy-anymore decided to climb into bed with us Saturday morning, and proceeded to take up a good 2/3 of the available space by slllloooowwwwwlllllyyyy expanding himself out between us into the stiff-legged ‘dead dog’ pose he is so find of; this of course forced both of us out near the edge of the bed and ensured an uncomfortable few hours of sleep and ensuing aches and pains. We may need a bigger bed *g*.

And then this morning after I got up he jumps up there, and then the older dog jumps up, and next thing I know I’m on the bed petting them and *wham* I’m asleep again. I’ve determined that they are NOT conducive to my accomplishing things, unless you count spending time with your pets as being productive (which I kinda do).

 


Ryan Couture is Not His Father

He can actually fight at all 3 ranges effectively. That being said:

  • He got fought to a standstill by a kid I’ve never heard of before, who dominated the ring
  • His standup is way bouncy
  • He failed at both his clinch and ground games
  • He was a little…uncomposed, I guess? Not wild but not calculating

Still it was an entertaining fight, the pace was brutal and they mixed it up. He’s a game kid, maybe doesn’t have the star quality of his father’s career (which is over BTW, whether he fights again or not) but he’s a good fighter. I want to watch this Ricehouse kid going forward, he impressed me.

The Strikeforce referees and judges manages to not produce a complete clusterfu*& for once. I’m sure they’ll be back to it shortly.