No God in a paper about religion?

Interesting, not only can the government restrict free exercise, they can restrict free speech now? Here's an interesting article about a midterm about religion and its place in government in which the author was not allowed to use the word God. Interesting little world we live in now, isn't it? I like OpinionJournal's Best of Today comment (scroll down to the very bottom for this part) that even though she got a failing grade on that paper, she still got a C in the class, proving she's at least as smart as John Kerry (as Best of Today always refers to him: 'The haughty, French-looking Massachusetts Democrat, who by the way served in Vietnam' - although sometimes they call him the 'failed presidential candidate' as well)

Norman Day?

Ok, so I was under the impression that July 4th was Independence Day. However, when I did a google search for the Norman Independence Day celebration, this is the website I found. Something that says that the 30th annual Norman Day celebration is July 4th, 2005. Someone want to explain why the Christmas tree is now a holiday tree while you are explaining how the celebration of our nation's birthday has suddenly become a celebration of Norman? Forgive me, but I'm just a bit confused!

The sense of Cal Thomas

Cal Thomas writes an insightful editorial about why we should and shouldn't be too concerned about the recent 10 Commandments cases. Why we should be? Because the High Court still hasn't provided a good framework for deciding these cases or figuring out what displays we have to remove from public property. Why we shouldn't be? We don't really need the displays there in the first place. I would make an addition to his analysis, though. I believe that one reason we should have these displays is to remind us of the historical part religion has played in the creation of this country. Although, as the Court has reminded us time and again, religious displays or religious words (e.g. 'Under God' in the Pledge or 'God save this United States and this honorable court' in the opening of every court session) are only allowable so long as they have been stripped of all religious meaning. Maybe we really should get them out of the public sphere if they are merely words, devoid of all meaning.

If you can't do the time...

I'm not a big fan of Jim Carrey's, but there is a scene (actually a line) in Liar Liar that I find to just be hilarious. One of his clients calls to tell him that he has just knocked over an atm machine and wants to know what he should do. Carrey takes the phone and, frustrated with the fact that he can't tell a lie, yells, "Quit breaking the law!" I love that scene and I have to admit that my short time here at the U.S. Attorney's office has made me want to yell that line a time or two. What brings me to this rambling discourse today? I just returned to the office from the sentencing of a bank robber. First, though, those words just conjure up images of masked bandits riding into the Old West to point their guns at the bank teller and shout "stick 'em up!" Even after all I've seen about modern bank robbings, I still think of that scene whenever I hear those words. But, on to the more interesting musings. You might be surprised with how few criminal acts (not to mention civil lawsuits) actually go to trial. The statistics are something like 10% of cases in the federal system actually go all the way through trial to sentencing. So what happens to the rest of them? A lot of the defendants plead out and a lot of cases are thrown out on technicalities (defendants have rights you've never even heard of). That's what I was mulling over while sitting in the courtroom watching this sentencing (by the way, he got 9 years, just in case you were wondering), the interesting ways that our justice system works. Can you imagine any other justice system in the world that grants as many rights to defendants as this system does? Not only do we grant the right to a jury trial (and rightfully so, in my humble opinion), but we pay for the lawyers - both sides! This, again, is right, if you ask me, because everyone is entitled to a fair trial with competent legal counsel. However, if you had broached this as a possibility any time before the US was created, I think people would have looked at you like you were crazy. To continue - not only do we do this through the trial, but that continues through all appeals (in forma pauperis). Then, once these persons have been convicted and sentenced, we, all at taxpayer expense, house them and send them through drug rehab (there has not been one defendant sentenced in my short time here who has not been required to go through a rehab program). Did I mention that this is all at taxpayer expense? Why don't those in Hollywood get the drift and commit crimes so that they can go through drug rehab for free? Of course, there's also the option of not getting involved with them in the first place....Anyway, I was just thinking about how fair our system seems to be, at least compared to other human systems. Being a human system, of course it has its faults, occasionally an innocent is falsely imprisoned, there are some trampling of rights, but overall, it isn't so bad. However, it is a faulty system. Compare it to the perfect justice God will exercise over all creation at the end of time (at least time as we know it - who knows what's after!). "Just as man is destined to die once and after that to face judgment, so Christ was sacrificed once to take away the sins of many people; and he will appear a second time, not to bear sin, but to bring salvation to those who are waiting for him." Hebrews 9:27-28. Amazing, even in our attempt to be a secular society, we have attempted to imitate the justice of God coupled with His infinite mercy. I thought of this while I was watching the defendant make his statement - he basically threw himself on the mercy of the court, asking forgiveness, and saying all he wanted was to see his grandchildren; and the court reduced his sentence somewhat. We attempt to couple mercy with justice in our system. In our human way we attempt to imitate God because, after all, that's how we are created - in His image. We just don't realize what we are doing. That reminds me of Matthew 7:11 - "If you, then, though you are evil, know how to give good gifts to your children, how much more will your Father in heaven give good gifts to those who ask him!" If a human institution such as a justice system knows that mercy is a good thing, how much more mercy does our Father in heaven give to those who ask him! Those are just some reflections on the goings-on of today.

Here's Johnny....

If we wanted to know what John Kerry would say if he were president, we would have voted for him. As it is, a 5-4 decision by the Supreme Court is good enough, but 51-49% vote in the country is not. Mr. Kerry seems to think that he actually won and that, for some really strange reason, we care. (click here for an interesting 'what might have been')

Drum roll please...

Well, here they are, the last decisions of the Supreme Court for the session:
The 10 Commandments are allowed on Gov. property (probably if they've been there forever - this was the Texas case) but not inside government property - excuse me, at least not inside this particular Kentucky courthouse (because there is a frieze inside the S.C. itself that has Moses carrying the 10 Commandments). My real point here is that this seems like a pretty tenuous distinction to draw. But, I guess they couldn't swing the fifth vote unless they drew it (our swing vote on the Court has her own test for these types of cases, and I guess that the monument inside the courtroom constitutes a governmental endorsement of religion but the display outside does not - your guess as to why is as good as mine). This is a very narrow ruling, though, and we really shouldn't be too concerned that it will erode our free exercise of religion rights - this was an establishment question and the Court decided that the display was tantamount to the government establishing a religion. Interesting case.
Next: Watch out Napster! Be very, very careful if you use (or advocate using) the internet to swap music files. Those file sharing services can be sued and the government is cracking down on this practice anyway. My advice? Pay the small fee to get the songs legally rather than try to get that off your record.
Hmm: not odd that the Court would rule that the government has more power under the eminent domain clause than it should and yet rule that the government has more power to regulate your choices as a consumer of broadband internet, is it? Of course not - in this era of big business and even bigger government, of course the government knows more about what you should have available to you than you do. Who knows, maybe they're right, after all, I'm merely one voter out of 250 million (although not nearly that number of people vote - shame on you if you don't!).
However, no news as to any retirements! So, maybe Rehnquist will give us one more session (I still think he'll retire before the recess is over).

And, on a side note: can we please leave JFK Jr. and Princess Di alone? I wonder what happened to respecting the memory of the deceased? (I'm not talking about the Stalins of the world, but I don't really want to know about his alleged affairs either)

And one more comment on Guantanamo (not mine, and it's an older editorial, but it still contains some relevant information).

Commentary on embryonic research. I don't completely agree with Krauthammer on this one, but I most emphatically agree with his last paragraph - tomorrow will be too late!

Foolish Talk

"But among you there must not be even a hint of sexual immorality, or of any kind of impurity, or of greed, because these are improper for God's holy people. Nor should there be obscenity, foolish talk or coarse joking, which are out of place, but rather thanksgiving. For of this you can be sure: No immoral, impure or greedy person - such a man is an idolater - has any inheritance in the kingdom of Christ and of God." Ephesians 5:3-5. At Trinity this morning, Pastor Rogers said some things that really struck me. While he was discussing 'foolish talk' (from verse 4), he mentioned 'atheistic talk.' While that sounds straightforward, he also included some things I hadn't thought of, such as: talking about the future as though we control it and worrying about the past as though we could change it. I have a tendency (I think it partly comes from being asked 'what do you want to be when you grow up' too many times as a child - ever notice how much our culture inculcates that idea into children?) to talk (and think) about the future as though it is something owed to me. Then Ronnie pointed it out today that this is like assuming God doesn't exist. Pastor Rogers talked about the rest of the verses, but that was what struck me the most. That, and he pointed out that one of the problems with the foolish talk and coarse joking is that it displaces the praise and thanksgiving that rightfully belong to God.

Heads up!

I really should stop reading editorials because they have a tendency to upset me, but I have found some that I think everyone would be interested in, so I have included them.

Enlightening the stupid, God-fearing Georgia redneck. Trust me, that is sarcasm, it's really an interesting editorial about the treatment of deeply held religious beliefs on liberal campuses. And speaking of religion, here's an article about nature-worship being anti-thetical to reason. And, while we're on the subject of religion, an editorial about religious 'retards' (it's actually a satire and quite funny - well worth your time - plus there's a great comment at the end about the author: "he plans to raise Cain as long as he is Abel.").

Preschool politics. This is one that I agree with completely. I think that what has been coming out of Washington lately is atrocious and absurd.

This one has the funniest line I've read in a while: "The bipartisan divide exists because those chromosomally damaged right-wingers aren't going away until we find a cure." If anyone read the NY Times article saying that some political beliefs may be in our genes, you'll understand why I think this is funny (he describes that and some other stuff in this editorial).

Wow. This is one scathing commentary on stem cell research. I'm not sure I had ever heard much less made this analogy myself.

I retract just about every Guantanamo comment I've ever made. I apparently don't know enough about it to make any comments. So, I have included three editorials by persons who seem to know more about it than I do (disclaimer: I don't necessarily buy into any of these - especially Ann Coulter's).

Ok, sorry to burden you with all this reading (I just found this great site with all these great editorials and I thought I'd pass them along), but most of what I have included really is worth your time and includes many interesting views as well (feel free to pick and choose, I think I did an ok job of describing what each is about). Enjoy!

Correspondence

I found these rather old (2002 - so, before the Iraq war started) letters on this website, Americanvalues.org. I recommend reading them, but don't start unless you have some time. They are long and involved, but very insightful as to what, perhaps, are some of the problems in starting a world discussion about the terrorism situation. The site also prints, in totality, a letter from bin Laden that illuminates some of the problems with this discussion.

Children, please!

This is why we can't get anything done, either on the domestic agenda (social security) or internationally (John Bolton). The liberals keep harping on the conservatives, and the conservatives are so insensitive to the desires of the electorate (to please, please, please stop the fighting and get something done) that they can't keep themselves from biting right back. Everyone is too concerned with calling everyone else names to worry about anything else. Howard Dean and Karl Rove - just to name two- need to go back to kindergarden and learn how to play nice.

Bad Court!

The High Court gets it wrong in this case, in my opinion. Just in case no one's been watching this case (it is a constitutional case, so I have somewhat), here's what it's about. The State has the right, under the 5th Amendment's 'Eminent Domain' policy to 'take' private land for the use of the State. Up to this point, this has been used againt private property only when the State intends to build a road or something similar for the benefit of the public good (the process? The State 'condemns' the piece of property, pays the owners and takes over). Now, the Government can take private property for shopping malls? At stake in this case was the development of some people's private property (on which were their homes) for the use of a hotel! Great - so the State gets more taxes from that than from the homeowners - does that make it right? The majority of the Court (with Stevens writing the opinion) says that what is at stake is the local government's rights (to oversee these projects without court supervision or a court looking over its shoulder to say whether the project is important enough to take private property). I just think the Court is plain wrong. Here are the constitutional ramifications of this decision: up to this point (as previously noted), the concept of eminent domain, in the Fifth Amendment, was fairly narrowly construed. This greatly increase the rights of the Government as against private citizens when it comes to this policy - now the government can decide that it needs private property in order to put in a convenience store! O'Connor delivers a stinging dissent with the dire prediction that everyone is going to lose their homes (I don't know about that, although we might be moving farther to a socialist state). She was joined by Scalia, Thomas, and Rehnquist - the so-called 'conservative' section of the Bench. Ok, I guess private citizens are now expected to 'take one for the team' so that the State can get more tax revenue.

Robert Horry - Stud or Dud?

I found two very interesting, diametrically opposed, articles this afternoon chronicling the much acclaimed and often maligned Rocket turned Laker turned Spur (maybe next he'll attempt to change his name into a symbol). One editorial calls him a legend and the other calls him a con man. I merely provide both and allow you to decide.

Sham Enviromentalism?

Phyllis Schlafly asks a very important question in her article: what is more important - human lives or environmentalism (not the environment, environmentalism)? Accusing the EPA and other environmental groups of arbitrary power use, Schlafly indicates that the DDT scare is overstated. An interesting editorial.

Happy Birthday Kevin!

Today is Kevin's 23rd birthday, so I just wanted to say happy birthday to a wonderful guy! You know what they say.....it's all downhill from here!

Book Quiz

You're Les Miserables!

by Victor Hugo

One of the best known people in your community, you have become
something of a phenomenon. People have sung about you, danced in your honor, created all
manner of art in your name. And yet your story is one of failure and despair, with a few
brief exceptions. A hopeless romantic, you'll never stop hoping that more good will come
from your failings than is ever possible. Beware detectives and prison guards bearing
vendettas.


Take the Book Quizat the Blue Pyramid.

Tolerance

I found this very interesting comment on one of my new favorite websites (the site linked on the right side, OpinionJournal). Very insightful in my opinion.

Zen and the Art of Political Tolerance
Yesterday's items on assorted left-wing kookery brought an interesting comment from reader Brian Francoeur:
"The anecdotes on the insane, frothing-at-the-mouth liberals venting their spleens made me chuckle. There's nobody more intolerant and narrow-minded than an tolerant and open-minded liberal, is there?
Here's something I've noticed recently: Once I embraced the idea within myself that I wasn't going to even try to be "open-minded and tolerant of all cultures and ideologies" I actually became more open minded and tolerant than I was before! Isn't that wild?
It's like I have this big sphere of stuff I'll tolerate, and the stuff I won't tolerate exists outside the sphere. Take liberals for example. I tolerate 'em, sure. As a matter of fact, I think they're probably pretty necessary for a healthy society (can't have day without night and all that). Plus, if there were no liberals, what would people bicker about? The designated hitter rule?
But once you get into the spittle-flecked ravings of Ward Churchill or the creepy "pedophilia is a healthy life choice!" attitude of Nambla, well, they exist outside of my tolerance sphere, and I feel perfectly free in either ignoring or heaping big piles of steaming disgust on them. Intolerance is more tolerant than tolerance! Funny old world, isn't it?"
There's something wonderfully Zenlike about this.

I retook the classic movie test, and I thought some people would be interested that this is how it came out, so I decided to post this one as well.

What Classic Movie Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

What Classic Movie Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

I found this test on someone's site - don't know if it's very accurate (although, I have been thinking about looking for buried treasure lately...), but it's fairly interesting nonetheless.
And here's the other test I found:

What Famous Leader Are You?
personality tests by similarminds.com

I don't really know what to think about the 'assassination victim' part - is that a compliment or an insult? Hmmm....maybe I'll have to go to a theatre across from a warehouse to think about it...or maybe I'll just take a drive through Dallas....

Haha - Ahnold The Governator

Ok, rarely will I link to Bill O'Reilly, especially when the Gov. of California is the guest, but this is too funny. Click on this link and read the transcript out loud in the Governor's voice (you know, the same voice he used for: "I'll be back". It's hilarious! And, if you can't figure out why it's so funny, call me and I'll read it for you. There's just something about that voice...

Tearjerker

Woman is kept alive to save unborn baby. You have to read this story. It's depressing and uplifting at the same time. You never know how much you can handle with God's help until He starts stretching you to your limits.

Lewis Quote of the Day

C.S. Lewis was a man blessed by God with insight and intelligence. Lewis also had the ability to see to the core of society and see some of the huge problems we, in our fallen and depraved humanity, struggle with. What is more, Lewis had the guts to write about the problems in a no-nonsense way. Here are Lewis' words on one of the fundamental problems of the modern world:
"The ancient man approached God (or even the gods) as the accused person approaches his judge. For the modern man the roles are reversed. He is the judge: God is in the dock. he is quite a kindly judge: if God should have a reasonable defence (sic) for being the god who permits war, poverty and disease, he is ready to listen to it. The trial may even end in God's acquittal. But the important thing is that Man is on the Bench and God is in the Dock." From "Undeceptions"
A very concise summary of how we tend to approach God anymore. We don't expect to be judged, we expect God to live up to our expectations and to prove to us that He exists. "Prove to us that You exist and that we need you" seems to be our attitude. I am reminded of Jesus' story about the rich man and Lazarus and what He said: 'If they do not listen to Moses and the Prophets, they will not be convinced even if someone rises from the dead' (Luke 16:31 NIV).

You have to be kidding me!

Ran across this story about a woman in India being forced to marry her rapist. Click here for story. I thought it had to be a joke, but under Islamic law (so states the article), she's become 'unpure' and must purify herself and then marry her father-in-law who is also her rapist. Sounds rather insane if you ask me.

Guantanamo Bay

Let me open this with the statement that I do not believe all the allegations made by Amnesty International of the abuse and torture at Guantanamo Bay, nor do I think that it should be open to journalistic scrutiny. That having been said, I have a more philosophical approach to the issue today. America, when dealing with prisoners, be they convicts or not, must hold itself to a higher standard than the nations with which we are dealing (remember, they still stone women for adultery in some of these places). The State Department should deal swiftly and conclusively with these allegations and at the very least attempt to prevent cruel and unusual punishment (I'm not concerned here with the Geneva convention - remember, most of these countries didn't sign the treaty brokered there, and we're dealing with terrorists, not nations anyway). If we stoop to their level, we are no better than they are, and the entire point of us being over in Iraq is that we have a better system of government (democracy) than they did (totalitarian dictatorship). In America, we do not allow any prisoner to be held without some reasonable suspicion, and none to be held very long without at least an appearance in court to decide whether they are dangerous to the community. I understand that there is the argument that the US Constitution only applies to US citizens, but we are holding persons not merely without a trial, but for years without a charge against them. Not even serial killers in the US get this treatment. In effect, we punish the crime before it has been committed, and we as a nation have strived to never do that. We don't punish thought (trust me, the prisons would be overflowing), we punish action. I am not saying we should let them all go or that we should give them all trials. In fact, if we're so convinced they have information vital to the security of this country, I'm not even above a little bit of coercive interrogation techniques. But the allegations and the pictures coming out of Guantanamo are a bit more serious. Surely we have enough respect for human life because it is human to treat any prisoners with a little common decency. [I do take issue with persons who have problems with Guantanamo but who also advocate on-demand abortion - human life is human life]

Last Schiavo battle - the autopsy

Terri Schiavo's autopsy report. So, the autopsy of Terri Schiavo revealed that she was in a persistent vegetative state. Great. In other words, the report revealed nothing new. The medical examiners speculated that there was no abuse before her collapse (the body didn't show signs of any abuse, but, after 15 years, would it?) and that she would never get any better. Although we don't know any more about her collapse in 1990 than we did then, I suppose everyone can get some rest now that there is 'conclusive' evidence that she would not have gotten better. So much for erring on the side of life - we didn't have any of this 'evidence' before the courts decided to let her die.

Homosexuality promoted in public schools?

Check out Peggy Noonan's article here:
Battle over Pro-Gay Curriculum Heats Up
. Does anyone else find it disturbing that the public schools, which are supposed to be teaching our nation's children how to think, not what to think, are only presenting one side of the issue? The reassuring thing is that the court sided with the parents on this one. Chalk one up for the system!

Recent Supreme Court Decision

Recently the US Supreme Court (S.C.) decided a case that will be fairly important to criminal lawyers and their clients. In United States v. Booker, 543 U.S. __ (2005), the S.C. held that the federal sentencing guidelines, up to this point considered mandatory, are merely what the name suggests, guidelines, and are not to be imposed mandatorily. There are two types of what is called a 'booker error': Constitutional and non-Constitutional. The Constitutional error involves a judge sentencing a defendant based on facts that the judge found. Since, according to the Sixth Amendment, every criminal defendant has a right to a jury of his or her peers, every fact used in a trial must be proved to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt. The non-Constitutional booker error is the imposition of the guidelines as a mandatory sentence rather than a discretionary sentence. Lest any detained persons get too excited though, at least in the 10th Circuit, this S.C. decision does apply retroactively. So, if you've already been sentenced, forget attempting to appeal it on these grounds - you're out of luck. However, if you have yet to be sentenced, the court will have to take this new decision into account. That one is for all you Constitutional nuts out there (of which I happen to be one).

Reality Television has Gone Too Far

Lest anyone think that I am unduly prejudiced against this 'genre' of television, I offer the evidence that I did watch a few episodes of American Idol (granted this was because I was tied to a chair, eyes propped open with toothpicks, for this subjegation to endless bad auditions and ear-splitting singles - sounds like torture worthy of Guantanamo) and a former roommate of mine knows the latest winner. However, I do believe that reality television should be publicly flogged for several reasons. 1. The name is misleading - there is nothing real about any of these television shows. You tell me, do you think you'd act the same all the time if you knew a camera was following you around? And what is real about shows that make a person jump off a 50 foot building to overcome their fear of heights (FearFactor - I don't know if this has ever actually happened on the show, and if it hasn't, I'm sorry, but I'm just using it as an example)? Question: has anyone had an employer treat him or her the way Donald Trump treats his possible future employees? 2. They lull us into a false sense of participation, vicarious at that. Get up off your couch and go do something - don't just watch someone else do it. 3. These shows have produced some of fortune and fame's worst stories: anyone remember Richard Hatch? 4. I don't know what to blame it on - does anyone know what the original 'reality show' was? Was it MTV's Road Rules? Well, MTV wins some and loses some (so much for musical television - what happened to the videos?, but thumbs up on Napoleon Dynamite - your mom goes to college). 5. True proof that reality television went to far: the show where an adopted woman attempted, by process of elimination, to figure out which of 12 men was her dad. I blame Springer and Geraldo for that one. 6. Speaking of Springer and Geraldo (his career before becoming a journalist), have we really become the kind of people who want to know every detail about every sordid part of everyone's life?
We as a society have gotten so caught up in and dependent upon the sordid details of everyone's lives that we've neglected our own lives. I could (wouldn't, but could) sit and watch 12 hours of someone else's life and never get off my couch and do anything I wanted to do because I'm so worried about whether Jim Bob is going to be chosen to marry someone I don't even know. The points are: 1. don't air your dirty laundry on television and 2. real life is out there - go find it.

Coaching change in the NBA

Phil
So, it's true. Phil Jackson is returning to coach the Lakers. I wonder what he is going to do with them now that Shaquille O'Neal and Rick Fox are gone. Just to let everyone know where I stand on this team - I don't like them one bit. I'd apologize to all the Lakers fans out there in LA, but it's their fault for not choosing the Clippers to support instead, and I'm not sorry that I don't like them. The fact that Phil and Shaq and Rick were gone had moved me pretty far back into indifference toward the team (I wasn't quite there - they'd have to get rid of Kobe Bryant first). However, the news that Mr. Jackson is returning has cremated the last shred of redemption the team might have had with me. I fault no one for liking them, even though I don't understand it. Go Phoenix!

C.S. Lewis on 'ordinary people'

“It may be possible for each to think too much of his own potential glory herafter; it is hardly possible for him to think too often or too deeply about that of his neighbour. The load, or weight, or burden of my neighbour’s glory should be laid daily on my back, a load so heavy that only humility can carry it, and the backs of the proud will be broken. It is a serious thing to live in a society of possible gods and goddesses, to remember that the dullest and most uninteresting person you talk to may one day be a creature which, if you saw it now, you would be strongly tempted to worship, or else a horror and a corruption such as you now meet, if at all, only in a nightmare. All day long we are, in some degree, helping each other to one or other of these destinations. It is in the light of these overwhelming possibilities, it is with the awe and the circumspection proper to them, that we should conduct all our dealings with one another, all friendships, all loves, all play, all politics. There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilization - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub, and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendours.” From The Weight of Glory

RE: Title of this Blog

I thought it might be a good idea to inform anyone who might stumble across this site about the name. Otherwise, they might think I'm crazy, and that's only partially true. The title is derived from a line from my all-time favorite movie, Fiddler on the Roof. "As the Good Book says, if you spit in the air, it lands in your face!" It's like throwing a boomerang - what's the point? It just comes back to you. Here's the idea: the point of this blog is to get some ideas out there and to start a conversation with the world. The real effect of it will probably be more to allow myself to vent. Hence, the idea of spitting into the wind.

In the beginning...

A girl had a dream...that dream found it's expression in...this website! Not really. The actual reason for this blog is that I've been accused of using someone else's (not to name any names :p) for my own personal diatribes, and so, I have been challenged to start my own. Well, fine. Here it is in all it's glory. Expect commentary on life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness, God, sports, politics, the law, and anything else that strikes my fancy on any given day, plus a lot of parentheticals. If you don't like randomness, you can probably leave now :). Other than that, thus starts the madness...