Friday, May 30, 2008

Considering ?!?!?

I wonder about our government officials. I really do. Now what? This...

As you've probably heard, there is a problem with the one (and only!) toilet on the International Space Station story here. Now don't get me wrong, I understand space is limited and weight is limited, but only one toilet? That seems dangerous to me (especially in zero gravity, where you can't expect Roto Rooter to make an emergency house call).

Anyways, there's only one, and it's not functioning properly. So we get this quote:
Nasa officials are considering having some parts flown to Cape Canaveral and placed in the shuttle during its countdown
There's the word "considering".

They are considering it. Some weak excuse about the current launch having a lot of weight on it. I would suggest that they find a few pounds to lose (even if ends up being a crew member).

Tuesday, May 20, 2008

Sea Squirts Win! Sea Squirts Win! Sea Squirts Win!

I have mentioned in passing that I am playing on a work softball team. A bad team. Now I don't mean B-A-A-A-D like good, I mean B-A-D as in NOT good. Really not good. Really really not good.

We were 0-5 going into tonight's game against last year's champions.

We went quitely in the first 1, 2, 3, dispite hitting the ball hard all three times. Then, miracles of miracles, we did the same to them. Top of 2, we managed to actually score a run. Then they put up 5. In the third, we put up 2, they scored 1. So after 3 innings we were trailing 3 to 6.

During the top of the fourth, while coaching third base, I had a nice chat with their third baseman (apparently he doesn't know that he should ignore me, while I try to distract him). I told him we seemed to always manage to be close after 4 or 5 innings, then find a way to lose (usually related to being lots older than our competition, and he agreed that we "looked pretty old"). We didn't score and they put a two spot on us, so after 4, we were down 3 to 8.

In the fifth we had a big inning and scored 4 runs, mostly due to their left fielder being unable to make the play on a hooking line drive, and when we then held them to 0 (thanks in no small part to the first double play we had turned all season), we had somehow managed to get to 7 to 8 after 5.

Then God smiled upon us.

Nobody scored in the 6 or 7th (and amazingly in the 6th we turned yet another double play!). In the top of the 8th our best hitter smoked a ball to right that somehow got through their right fielder for four bases (and two runs since it came with a man on base). A quick out in the bottom of the inning, then their best hitter got a triple. The next batter hit the ball hard to second, but since the runner on third had broke for the plate we doubled him off to kill the inning (yes, our third double play of the game and season). At this point we found ourselves leading 9 to 8 going into the 9th.

I think they somehow sensed they were up against fate, because at this point the wheels came off for them and they gave us 3 runs due to a booted ball and two different throws that went into the dugout. Leading 12 to 8, needing only three outs to clinch the win, it was almost anti-climatic when they went down, fly out to right, fly out to center, ground out to third, and...

Sea Squirts Win! Sea Squirts Win! Sea Squirts Win!

Yeah. We B-A-A-A-D! ;-)

Sunday, May 18, 2008

Same Sex Marriages and the Constitution

I want to come at this from a purely secular point of view. The reality here is that while our courts have begun to quote precedence and arguements from other courts, with the possible exception of Islamic courts (and that's a different discussion altogether), they won't reference religious thinking. Consequently I'm going to look at this from the purely secular point of view.

First, let me say that I understand that the California Supreme Court decision is dependent upon their interpretation of the California Constitution. I believe that this needs to be rethought. Why should the Constitution of California rule? Decisions with respect to marriage impact other states and the IRS (as marital state is a consideration in Federal tax filling). As such, I believe the US Constitution should rule.

Now look, I'm not a lawyer. But that seems right to me. So what do I think the US Constitution says on this topic?

Again, I'm not a lawyer. Certainly not a Constitutional lawyer. But I can read. The US Constitution says
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The bold there is (obviously) my emphasis.

See, as I read that little piece of English I see that the government is allowed to do things to promote "our Posterity". And that means they can give special treatment to heterosexual couples - since that is where "our Posterity" comes from. Now that doesn't mean the government has to give any special treatment, but they could.

Let's assume for the moment that I have read that wrong, and that the government may not allow for such special treatment. Well then I have to ask, What stops the polygamists from being allowed to marry? I don't see anything in the Constitution allowing us to forbid that. What stops groups from being married? What stops an adult from marrying a child? A member of some other species? Even an inanimate object? Seriously, if the line can't be drawn between hetereosexual couples and homsexual couples, where can it be drawn, if anywhere - based on the Constitution? I honestly think that the polygamists have a better arguement (at least they produce "Posterity").

I guess I'm not really upset about the decision, if homosexual couples want to pay higher taxes and deal with the fallout of divorces, fine. But I do see a slippery slope looming before us. And that worries me.

Saturday, May 10, 2008

Join Me In the Revolution.

A fellow member of the Feline Theocracy, the great Wollf, has a post on how illegals are trashing the Sonoran Desert. Disgusting. Remember that "they just want to work". Otherwise they are really nice people.

Last night on a local channel (KUSI) they replayed a report on the border here is San Diego. A couple things jumped out at me.

They showed a clip of some Border Patrol agents being attacked by some "people" (and I use this word loosely) with rocks. Big rocks. These folks are presumably Mexican nationals, who wanted to become illegal aliens. The Border Patrol agents didn't seem to be fighting back as much as just trying to get away. So we have Federal Law Enforcement agents, being attacked, and they don't fight back... WHY??? This is somewhere between simple assault on an officer during the commission of his duties and an act of war. In either case the agents should defend themselves. These guys should shoot the attackers.

Before you think I'm overreacting keep listening... They go on to show that somebody strung a wire between the fences at a height that would decapitate an agent on a motorcycle. So clearly the bad guys are not playing nice.
And the response of our politicians? They interview two of them (one Dem and one Rep). Neither one would face up to the problem. What exactly is the keeping these guys from seeing reality?

The time has come to throw them all out. I'll be voting against the incumbents, everyone of them. You need to too. Please, we all know that they all need to go. Not just the ones from other districts, all of them. Remember that the only one you can vote for or against is the one in YOUR district. Please join me in helping to throw them out.

As Thomas Jefferson is credited with saying, "A little revolution now and then is a good thing."

Tuesday, May 6, 2008

Dems Refuse to Decide

Well, not exactly. The black folks are clear. They want Obama. The North Carolina election shows that. The white folks seem to not want him (but that's another post). I think they know that he can't beat McCain. The problem seems to be that they don't Hillary can beat him either.

If Indiana ever decides which they lean, maybe it will be over. Maybe not. The fun may just continue...

Friday, May 2, 2008

Never Overlook the Obvious

The title is one of my favorite catch phrases. I find over and over again even really smart people just plain overlook the obvious. Here's one.

There is a story today over at CNN about how men need a space of their own. They are saying that sure guys let the women in their life decorate the house, but they need to have one room that's their own. That guys (and the women for that matter) need to be able to get away. To have time together and time apart. Is this really news? Is anyone surprised? Who thought this was surprising/news worthy?

I love my wife. I spend large amounts of time with her. We both have "quiet" time away from each regularly. It only makes sense. Same thing applies to our children. Love 'em. Love having time away from them too.

The story also reminded me of what happened when we moved a friend into his new house (and began co-habitating with the lady he ended up marrying - Let's call them Chuck and Mary). Every time one of his things came off the truck, Mary would say "that goes in the garage". Somehow this had happened dozens of times, and yet Chuck hadn't heard it once. Then the inevitable happened. Chuck was there, something of his came off the truck, he said, "that's mine". We all said as one "in the garage". He said "no, put it in the living room". Just then Mary came out and said "oh, put that in the garage". I doubt I've ever seen anyone look more crest fallen than Chuck... But once he came to grips with the fact he was now living in her house, it all worked. That and the fact that his garage was used for him, not his car.

Thursday, May 1, 2008

Roger Clemens, Hall of Fame / Hall of Shame

I have tried not to spend too much of my blog on Baseball and other sports topics. But here's one that seems too good not to at least mention.

First a recap... Roger Clemens got accused of using steriods by his former trainer. Mr Clemens denys this. The same accusation named Clemens good friend and team mate, Andy Pettite. Mr. Pettite says essentially, 'yes I did take HGH. I talked to Roger about it, and he says he did, too. I'm telling the truth because someday I'm gonna have to talk to God about what I say'. So Mr Clemens then says 'no, no, no. My friend is confused. I talked to him about my wife [a non-athlete] taking HGH'. That's right, the big strong athlete threw his wife under the bus and Mrs Clemens stands firm and quiet.

Now the story gets rich... A country singer says she's had a "long term affair" with Clemens, who she's known "since she was 15", with rumors that the affair started then.

I wonder how Mrs. Clemens is gonna take to this development. I can only imagine how my dear wife would react to such news (hint: I would be better off swimming with sharks or teasing hungry polar bears).