Worst Oral Argument Ever

In the brief lull following the property exam, I've been catching up on my email. My legal writing professor sent us a link to an oral argument before the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals. Half of our class wrote briefs on dog sniffing, modeled after the Illinois v. Caballes case decided this year.

Poor guy. But man is it funny.


UPDATE: Here's the docket information in case you can't find it: 04-2732 : USA v. Johnson, Robert Lee

Property Final(ly) over

I have not been a huge fan of property law. It's largely passionless, except for the day we spent on the division of marital property. There's some serious passion in divorce. Also, I pulled the short straw on professors, which didn't help with my love of property law.

One question on the test seems to have stumped an entire class. I don't remember the details, but the gist was, "What three rules interfere with environmental preservation of private land." Rules? *shrug* Too bad he did not ask for theories; I was all over that. But rules? Rule against perpetuities? Zoning laws? Eminent domain? A classmate told me she threw in ten rules and "hoped she got the right three." Heh.

Even though you're only sitting on your bum for three hours, finals are incredibly draining.

Bears tortured for their bile.

I don't even know what to say, except that it is so very sad.

Berkeley is apparently not the home of "Anything Goes"

My favorite quote: "Cars don't have First Amendment rights." Tee Hee.

Last summer, many of the Bay Area hotel employees went on strike for health care plans. Apparently, the Berkeley Claremont employees encouraged passersby to honk in support of the strike. Unfortunately for those that honked late at night, there are laws against that form of political expression.

Even in Berkeley.

Happy Birthday to Me!

I turned 22* today. It was a pretty good day. My mother called at 7:00am because she wanted to be the first to wish me "Happy Birthday." Little does she realize that extra sleep would have been a very nice birthday present, as well. I went to my last class with Professor Rougeau. I'll probably not take another class with him, but I'm glad I got to hang out with him in Contracts for two semesters. He's fun, and somewhat unpredictable. I like that in a professor -- it keeps you on your toes.

Brooke gave me a Haiku greeting card this morning. They're slightly inverted haikus, but they're very cool. Adele sent an electronic greeting. It's pretty funny. It's a nice pastoral scene with spanish guitar. When I played it, my mouse happened to be hovered over the text, and I noticed that the word "joy" was a link, so I clicked. The music changes to heavy metal, the screen turns black, and a roughly drawn little white monster comes on the screen and, in a Cookie Monster voice, says, "Happy Birthday Brian!" The birthday card had an Easter Egg!!

After studying, I went home to prepare for my friends. I invited Alex, Adele, Megan, Kristine, Jaime (who wasn't feeling well), and Brooke to birthday s'ghetti. I made my mom's sauce, and they brought salad, garlic bread and birthday cake (with candles!). They didn't want me to cook at all, so it worked out best that way. We had a lovely time. Adele and Megan had great border-crossing stories, and Kristine is a funny storyteller -- especially about road trips in Germany. The company was lovely, and it was a nice way to spend a birthday evening. Thanks for coming over!

Moses still hasn't recovered from the visitors. He stealth-bit me earlier. As I lay on the couch chatting to my brother, he slowly wandered over, curled up to my feet, nuzzled one and CHOMP! He does not like people in his home. They disturb his routine. Poor little guy. He stares me down from across the room.

It's off to finish my work, talk to K-Woo, and get some sleep. Happy Birthday to me!

















* all over again

Frist's Filibuster

Apparently, Senator Bob Smith (R-NH) led a filibuster, which Frist joined, against 9th Circuiit judicial nominees. To quote from a Smith press release regarding a filibuster that Frist joined:

Paez and Berzon are activist judges. I think they are out of the mainstream of American thought and I don't think either one should be on the court. . . . We have a solemn obligation to make sure our courts are filled only with judges who uphold and abide by the transcendent ideals explicitly stated in our Constitution and the Bill of Rights.

Although I cannot verify this, apparently Senator Smith said the following on the floor:

But don't pontificate on the floor of the Senate and tell me that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States of America by blocking a judge or filibustering a judge that I don't think deserves to be on the circuit court because I am going to continue to do it at every opportunity I believe a judge should not be on that court. That is my responsibility. That is my advise and consent role, and I intend to exercise it. I don't appreciate being told that somehow I am violating the Constitution of the United States. I swore to uphold that Constitution, and I am doing it now by standing up and saying what I am saying.

For another survey of filibuster use, the Senate Democrats have put together a nice history of Republican support for filibusters.

Finally, here is a useful fact sheet about filibusters.

In support of "Nuclear Option," I've heard:

• that the lack of judges on the bench create a crisis and backlog. I suggest President Bush nominate a different set of ten judges to ease the crisis and backlog.
• that the filibuster is unconstitutional because it goes beyond the "advice and consent" role of the Constitution. Perhaps it's only constitututional when it is used to prevent leftist judges.
• people defend Frist's suggestion that it is an attack on Christians. To that, I say phooey. I am a Christian, and I do not see how requiring bipartisan consent of judges shows disrespect for me as a Christian.

Frist should get over himself.

I Have Hope for Papal Love

Perhaps the less-than-welcoming texts that Pope Benedict XVI published while still Cardinal Ratzinger have more to do with his position as a doctrinal enforcer than any personal convictions against women and gay people. I do not expect that the Church will ever change is position on homosexual activity. However, I thought perhaps women might, in my lifetime, play a role within the Church that goes beyond Incubator of the Faithful. In his texts, he adopts a tone that is hard to interpret as anything but hatred for gay people and impatience with women. I hope that, as our pastoral leader, Pope Benedict XVI will soften his demeanor and show love for all members of his flock. No matter how conservative Pope John Paul II was, he embodied Jesus' one and true message: Love.

Charlie the chimpanzee with a nicotine habit

Apparently, tourists continue to give Charlie cigarettes.

Charlie exhibits nicotine-addiction behavior, and even hides his habit to zookeepers.

He apparently bums cigarettes off of zoo visitors. What are those visitors thinking?

My animal morning.

Right when I wake up, I can be pretty irritable because I am not a morning person:



After I've woken up in the morning, but before I have had coffee, I'm really disinclined to move



That little kick of caffeine helps me to be a little more alert:



I am often running late in the morning, so I feel like I rush to school:



At the end of the day, I feel as though I'm barely able to stay afloat:

Bunnies

I saw a bunny today. He hopped across my path and into the grass, stopped, turned and wiggled his little bunny nose at me. His little fluffy white tail was so cute.

Then, he did a most remarkable thing. He flopped on his side and lay in the grass like a cat. I have never seen a bunny do this before. His little bunny belly was soft and white, and he kept twitching his nose the whole time. A bicyclist rode past and startled him into a more bunny-like position.

Of course, I'm not exactly certain the bunny was male. But I'm pretty sure he was.

Chinese violently protest against Japan

Freedom of speech is valuable, but freedom comes with restrictions.

Many Chinese citizens protest Japan's possible UN Security Council seat and its prior wartime history. Some protested peacefully and some of the protesters engaged in terrorism by "stoning Japan's consulate and smashing cars and shops."

One crowd chanted "Kill the Japanese!" while attempting to attack a Japanese driver. Protest messages include, "Say No to Japan in the Security Council;" "Japanese pigs get out!" and "Be Vicious Toward Japanese Devils."

The Chinese should express their discontent with Japan. They should be free to assemble and voice their opposition. Fortunately, the Chinese government did not squelch the speech. However, the government might have done more to prevent the terrorism.

A protester said, "We will play along with Japan and smile nicely at them, but they have to know they have a large, angry neighbor." Yes, you can tell Japan you are a large, angry neighbor. But you don't need violence to do that.

Area 51

In another google map trick, a blogger finds Area 51. Apparently, the feds couldn't get to that one fast enough.

Good Republican Statesmen

We see very little statesmanlike behavior from our congressmen. Ten former republican senators urged the House to reverse the changes they made to ethics rules in January in order "to restore public confidence in the people's House." I applaud their efforts to encourage good conduct.

Three current republican congressmen are asking DeLay to step down temporarily so that the "trumped up charges can be dealt with in a less hostile environment."

DeLay doesn't need to step down. The House should do what it needs to in order to initiate an investigation, and DeLay should cooperate. This whole stepping down thing is crazy. You should only resign if you're guilty of the charges. If the investigation reveals that you are somehow implicated in wrongdoing, you'll be removed. Clearly, DeLay thinks he's done nothing wrong, so it would be silly for him step down. As for the charges being "trumped up," I highly doubt it. One, maybe. But three assertions of wrongdoing must have at least some merit.

Congress redeemed itself

Today, the senate voted against propaganda. Various agencies have released video feeds disguised as news reports attempting to paint the policies and aims in a favorable light. The GAO released a report criticizing the White House for violating appropriations rules against spending federal money on "publicity and propaganda." The White House OMB responded by saying that the GAO "fails to recognize the distinction between covert propaganda and purely informational video news reports." As an aside, the OMB memo provides an interesting little lesson in constitutional separation of powers inasmuch as the Director of the OMB asserts that executive agencies are not bound by GAO "advice."

Basically, the OMB disagrees that the video news feeds constitute "covert propaganda" because the content, although admittedly from an undisclosed origin, is not propaganda.

Ultimately, however, the video news feed practice will probably stop. The Senate unanimously passed a bill that requires the agencies to identify themselves as the source of the media. Given that people are generally skeptical of the government, or at least should be, the video feeds will probably not have the same positive effect as they would had they been "covert" and would no longer be a "cost effective means to distribute information" (see OMB memo).

Tax Avoision

The BBC has an interesting piece where the author thinks that we like being taxed more than our billionaire counterpart.

The following quote got me thinking. The BBC refers to it as "what once seemed like a fringe argument."

From the Greeks through a string of eighteenth and nineteenth century philosophers, there was a sense that there should be "equity" in the taxation of different groups.

Today, this philosophical basis for proportionately heavy taxation on the rich compared with the poor is debatable.

The counter idea, that taxes represent an unfair confiscation by the state, has grown along with the view that taxing the top penalises success.

I'd like to think that it really is still a fringe argument, but there are enough uncompassionate me-centric people in this country for me to realize that it's not.

Tell me how taxing you 30% instead of 22% discourages success. You're still making several gazillion dollars, you're paying some fancy-pants lawyer to hide your dough,and you'll actually only pay 15% instead of 30% anyway. Is it really that important to you, to keep your grubby little fists around your grubby little dough, to see your country's children suffer? How about those proud Americans who worked for so many years and are set to retire. Preserving your gazillion is worth more than making sure that they'll receive their $20K a year? You know, if you gave back your tax cut, there'd be no "Social Security Crisis."

I'm in favor of tax reform. Let's just reform the system so that the ultra-rich people cannot avoid their taxes.

Don't forget, greed is one of the seven deadly sins.

So what, now it's illegal to give a bad loan?

I wish I knew why companies that extend credit willy-nilly should be protected from their bad investments. If I make a lousy investment, the Big G isn't going to bail me out.

Yesterday, Congress passed the bankruptcy bill that makes it harder for Americans to declare bankruptcy. This bill protects creditors who ignore fraud alerts, bait college students with credit cards, and extend credit to people who have no business getting credit in the first place.

"The credit card industry defeated a provision that would have required credit card issuers to tell consumers how much more interest they would be charged if they opted to pay only the required minimum each month. "

It makes me disgusted that my country, my America exists to protect irresponsible corporations, nay, greedy corporations.

"The big winner under the new law will be credit card issuers, whose reckless and abusive lending practices have driven many Americans to the brink of bankruptcy," said Travis B. Plunkett, lobbyist for the nonprofit Consumer Federation of America. "Now that Americans in bankruptcy will have to pay more back to creditors, they have a right to expect that credit card companies will lower their interest rates and fees. We will be watching credit card companies closely to see if they will become more responsible corporate citizens in return for this unprecedented gift from Congress."

If creditors didn't want to be stuck holding the bag, perhaps they should have extended credit less freely.

To those who say that the American's racking up the debt should be more responsible, think of this: Half of all bankruptcies stem from medical bills.

Again, I say shame on you Congress.

Slime Mold Beetles

 Two former Cornell University entomologists named slime mold beetles after Bush, Cheney and Rumsfeld.

Funny scientests.

Estate Tax

The House voted to permanently repeal the estate tax. The estate tax law that Congress enated in 2001 phases out the tax by increments. Currently, estates under $1.5 million are exempt, and the rest are taxed at 47%. In 2009, the tax will be 45% on estates larger than $3.5 million. In 2010, the estate tax will be gone, only to retun to pre-2001 levels (55% tax on estates larger than $675,000) in 2011.

According to the New York Times:

A Democratic amendment to extend the estate tax while exempting all but the three-tenths of 1 percent of estates valued at more than $3.5 million ($7 million for a couple) was rejected, 238 to 194, on a largely party-line vote.

So let me get this straight. These people have a problem levvying taxes on very few very large estates?

Oh, wait, the people who stand to inherit these large estates are the ones who get to vote against the tax bill.

Heh. For shame.

Cats and Kerry

Hunting doesn't really hurt my head, but hunting Fluffy?

--

Kerry is an idiot -- he just blew a spy's cover. Although, Bolton sealed the deal when he responded to Kerry's question using the alias instead of the name given: he revealed the one-key code.

--

The farm subsidy policy will not change under Bush's watch. I really thought he would be able to clean up the program and without serious backlash.

Edwin Vieira

Honestly, I am confused. After rereading an account of last week's Crusade Against Justice Kennedy, I noticed this quote:

Edwin Vieira told the gathering that Kennedy should be impeached because his philosophy, evidenced in his opinion striking down an anti-sodomy statute, "upholds Marxist, Leninist, satanic principles drawn from foreign law." Ominously, Vieira continued by saying his "bottom line" for dealing with the Supreme Court comes from Joseph Stalin. "He had a slogan, and it worked very well for him, whenever he ran into difficulty: 'no man, no problem,' " Vieira said.

I investigated Dr. Vieira, and his writings are schizophrenic or deeply rooted in originalist interpretation. For example, he opposes the Patriot Act in a marginally coherent argument: ". . . today's push for 'homeland security' actually aims, not at the security of the United States or of the American people under the Constitution, but at the Establishment’s security over the Constitution and against the people."

Later in his essay, I fail to join Dr. Vieira on his leap from Establishment Security to flaws in the Federal Reserve:

The Establishment is systematically constructing a domestic police-state apparatus, indoctrinated, trained, and ready to impose on the great mass of Americans whatever harsh measures the Establishment decrees, because it expects . . . disturbances in America of magnitudes far greater and consequences far more reaching than anything a few Islamic terrorists could possibly cause. These must be disturbances that involve very large numbers of average Americans [and] that only a police state can quell, which means that . . . they will be completely justified under the Constitution. And, most importantly, they must be disturbances which, if not quelled at whatever cost, would bring down the Establishment.

What might cause such disturbances? As with most questions in criminal politics, the answer can be found by "following the money". What poses the most dangerous threat to the Establishment's continued rule . . . if not the instability of the Ponzified monetary and banking systems, and superheated financial markets, that provide the foundations for its economic and political power? Any scheme of fractional-reserve banking based on fiat currency the value of which is secured by nothing more than economically unsound debt and the government's power to tax is inherently and inexorably self-destructive. No such scheme can long survive. The Federal Reserve System is just such a scheme. And the Establishment knows it. . . .

Political instability will threaten the Establishment's debt-based currency, the incestuous relationship between the Ponzified banks and the Treasury, and even the Establishment's phony "two-party system" of Mensheviks and Bolsheviks--who, of course, Americans will correctly recognize as equally responsible for the mess, because they are but the two false faces of the same evil political god, Janus Americanus.

. . . To maintain its own economic and political positions, the Establishment will sacrifice the economic welfare and the constitutional rights of everyone else. And to succeed it will be compelled to crack down: first, on people's resistance to its propaganda, agitation, disinformation, and other techniques of psycho-political manipulation; then on refractory dissent; then on rebellion at the polls; then on mass refusals to obey its oppressive "statutes", "regulations", and "judicial decisions"; and, at length, on revolt against every aspect of its misrule. The Establishment is building a domestic police state today for the purpose of deterring, cowing, and if necessary smashing this opposition tomorrow. (literary flourishes omitted where possible)

According to Dr. Vieira, the primary purpose of Homeland Security is not to protect people, rather it is to preserves economic stability and wealth. (Maybe I'm naive, but I think Homeland Security's purpose is less devious and malicious than Dr. Vieira contends. )

To get to the point, his arguments against Homeland Security seem at odds with his castigation of Justice Kennedy. Even if I adopt his originalist interpretation of the Constitution, I have trouble finding fault with Kennedy's opinions that struck down anti-sodomy laws and juvenile death penalty using thebroad interpretation of liberty and life that he advocates. Is there a consistency in his viewpoints that I'm missing?

Judicial Activism, not so much.

Brendan posted about wacky responses to Justice Kennedy's opinion striking down the death penalty for juveniles. Today, Glenn Reynolds illustrates the inconsistency of the activist fringe of the Republican Party. He quoted an article by Jonathan Rauch:

Life is not the ultimate public value for most Americans. Law is.

Conservatives, of all people, should know this, because they have been saying it for years. More than four years before Schiavo, another difficult legal case transfixed the country. In Bush v. Gore, the outcome of the 2000 presidential race depended on Florida's disputed vote. Democrats, having narrowly lost in the initial tally, demanded manual recounts. In an election, they said, accurately determining the intent of the voters is surely the ultimate value. What could trump that?

Law, replied Republicans. They insisted that a fundamental principle was at stake. Florida's election statutes did not provide time or authority for manual recounts, they said; and if the rule of law means anything, it means not making up the rules as you go along.

In my opinion, neither the Republicans nor Democrats have the market cornered on reason and consistency. The traditionally Republican approach, which I would agree seems rooted in tough-love, hard and fast rules, is actually not so rational all of the time. Both sides are guilty of irrationally advancing ideological positions that law and tradition clearly undercut. For example, I'm curious to see how the Supreme Court rules in the medicinal marijuana case. Which ideological position is more important: the anti-marijuana position or the strong sense of federalist values? On the other hand, Democrats have trouble reconciling their ideological anti death-penalty and pro-choice positions.

It's just interesting to see some clearly incoherent arguments advanced under the guise of reason.

America We Stand As One

Here's a music video for your viewing pleasure. "Am - air - uh - KUH! We stand as one!" Dennis Madalone, with his fabulous mullet and impeccable pronunciation, brings us the greatest power ballad of the 21st century. He dedicated it to our brave heroes and loved ones: "They're still with us, but in a different way."

Viewer beware. He's a little creepy, especially when he tousles the hair of playing schoolchildren.

Why is this a partisan issue?

Daylight Saving Time is up for vote in the Indiana assembly today. Aside from the inanity of trying to pass a bill that you know to be unconstitutional, it seems strange to me that this bill represents a "divisive issue among Indiana lawmakers and their constituents." Which party opposes and which supports? Maybe it's geographically divisive, with the Cincy suburbs wanting the state to join Eastern, and the Evansville and Chicago areas wanting the state to join Central. That seems implausible because Chicago and Evansville would more than cancel out Cincy, leaving the rest of the state (who really shouldn't care one way or the other) to garner the majority to pick a time zone and stick with it.

I can't wrap my head around why this is such a huge issue. I'm beginning to think that the parties are simply fighting for the sake of fighting. Fix the damn bill and pass it already.

Why the Patriot Act is scary.

A secret tribunal can declare that you are an "enemy combatant" and hold you indefinitely. In these tribunals, when you are accused of something, you are not given the opportunity to present your own case. You are presumed guilty, and essentially cannot prove your innocence.

These people were detained two years before they had the opportunity to challenge their imprisonment before sham tribunals. Basically, how do you challenge an imprisonment when you haven't been charged? How do you prove your innocence when you don't know the claims and evidence against you? These prisoners have no rights. I think it especially damning that a tribunal president (judge) exclaimed, "I don't care about international law. I don't want to hear the words 'international law' again. We are not concerned with international law."

Although this scenario is highly unlikely, it is based on a true story. Perhaps you live in an American neighborhood with a high concentration of Muslims. Also, your name is Mohammed and you are Muslim. You see a news report asking for information about known terrorists. You recognize one as someone who lived in your building and prayed in your mosque. You come forward with this information. FBI agents pick you up and detain you for questioning, yet do not release you because they suspect you are lying about your involvement or withholding information. They put you before a tribunal, the president of which declares you an "enemy combatant," and they hold you in a cell someplace for two years or more. Of what are you guilty? What does it take to make someone an "enemy combatant"? Basically, there are no hard and fast criteria for status as an "enemy combatant" in the Patriot Act. It's left to the discretion of a tribunal.

Who appoints the tribunals? The same branch of the government that seeks to label a detainee as an "enemy combatant."

I understand our government's need for increased authority to detain, question, or watch people who they suspect of terrorism affiliations. Al Qaeda is shadowy. They are succesful because they are shadowy. Indefinite imprisonment, however, is inhumane, probably unconstitutional in this context, and is not the answer. If I remove one employee from a company of thousands, will that company shut down? Unlikely. In fact, this behavior discourages other Muslims who are also unaffiliated with Al Qaeda from coming forward with information. Isn't the war against terror about information?

The unclassified basis for determining that Mohammed Nechle is an enemy combatant is that he associates with people who have ties to terrorist organizations. Skip to page 12 for the discussion of the convincing evidence that he's an enemy combatant.

Mostly, I'm afraid of "enemy combatant." The G can "disappear" me, call me an enemy combatant and it's possible that nobody will ever know.

Just ducky in Washington, et al

The Secret Service has been protecting a duck that's nesting outside the Department of the Treasury. I like that environmental protection policy; I think we need more of 'em. We should look out for all of our animal friends.

----

The last time I made a web page was in 1999. CSS was just starting to gain popularity and I never bothered to learn it. These templates that blogger.com offers are quite handy, yet they seem to either exclude or render unrecognizable certain html tags. For example, I would like to separate unrelated bits of my witty wisdom (shoot me in the head if I ever take myself that seriously) with an HR tag, or its equivalent. Does anyone want to feed my laziness and give me the Q&D guide to manipulating a blogger.com template?

----

The finger lady apparently has a litigiously checkered past. I can understand that Wendy's and San Jose would want to verify the authenticity of the finger claim. But c'mon, a heightened criminal investigation? I don't think the police really need to raid the family's home as if the finger-claimant were involved in a drug trafficking scheme. Based on the account in the article (admittedly, it is from the San Francisco Chronicle, which is not terribly well-known for its neutral coverage), I picture in my mind a SWAT team kicking down the door with guns drawn, creating mass chaos while they tear the home apart in search of evidence of the suspicious finger. In any event, the police have adopted seemingly intimidating tactics. They should probably tone it down a notch, lest they find themselves on the receiving end of one of this woman's many law suits.

Misogyny and homophobia thrive

This discussion of whether the Catholic church has ever modified it's faith teachings. Clearly, it has. Women are now allowed to receive communion, gay people are no longer inherently bad, and priests are no longer allowed to be married. As well, I think the Church would now condemn the Inquisition and the Crusades.

The comments to the post, however, reveal an underbelly of the Catholic church. It appears that some would like the Church to adopt more restrictive stances against women and gay people.

Embalming

I read an interesting article that described the traditional practice of embalming popes. This year, the Vatican opted not to follow traditional practices. I'm not a mortician (is that a politicall correct name anymore?), and although I am fascinated by death, I am not familiar with the pre-decay duration of a dead body. My only experience is that of a woman who died in our apartment building a little over a year ago. She was dead only a few days before the odor of decay overwhelmed the first floor of the building. Given that the funeral will be almost a week after he died, will the Pope's body, to use the scientific terminology, get yucky?

There is the whole Catholic theological concept of incorruptible bodies of the Saints. The saints are so pure and holy that even the simple biological process of decomopsition fails to substantially affect them. It's kind of creepy, but you can take an "Incorruptible Tour" through Europe and see dozens of saints through glass display cases. I can't help but think that the funerary plans perhaps anticipate the Pope's saintly non-decomposition. I hope that the Vatican wagered favorably. Otherwise, it might be a bit unpleasant for funeral attendees.

TV

First, I must say that the PBS and NPR stations are rather lacking here. They have some good stuff, like All Things Considered, Talk of the Nation, News Hour with Jim Lehrer, Nova and Charlie Rose. But then they have things like Gene Stratton Porter something or other (local fare), and they don't even have the good Jacques Pepin show. We get Jacques Pepin: Fast Food. There are no Julia reruns, and we don't get the great shows where he cooks with his daughter, Claudine. She's the sommelier who is always taking sips "on the sly." You should watch it sometime, Saturday morning, if you get the show.

But tonight, the local PBS actually aired a pretty good non-standard that appears to be one-year-old show about garage-sale fiends. Second-Hand Stories is a great little, and funny, piece about a couple of guys who explore the world of used items in their second-hand ambulance.

You may have already watched it. Like I said . . .

And switching back to basketball, Illinois has made quite a comeback! They just tied the game 65-65 with 5:34 left in the second half. Go Illini! You can do it!

UPDATE: Drat. Those Illini lost!

Basketball and Sex

I entered my very first basketball pool this year. In Brendan's basketball pool, I will be in seventh place if Illinois wins.

My team selection algorithm went something like this:
1.) I like the way "Gonzaga" sounds, so I want them to go very far.
2.) If Team A has a better record then Team B, I pick Team A . . .
3.) Unless I have heard of/know anything about Team B, then I pick Team B.
4.) I don't like Duke.
5.) Go Big East

Although I will win no prize, my possible seventh place finish after ten minutes of effort is nothing to sneeze at.



Perhaps this youthful view on oral sex has something to do with a former president who "did not have sex with that woman." Although I refrain from further commentary about said POTUS actions because it's not really any of my damned business what he does behind closed doors, I will emphatically say that oral sex is sex, with all of the related connotations, risks of STDs and simple fact that some even prefer it to intercourse. I would much rather these kids hit the home run if they'd at least protect themselves.

It's really quite a dilemma. Preaching abstinence, while I agree with it to an extent, will not help prevent the spread of STDs. On some level, these kids think that they are abstaining when in fact they are clearly capable of contracting a Sexually Transmitted Disease. We need to take our sex education a step further, even if it means identifying the various and potentially-unknown-to-youngsters sexual activities. It'd be much more graphic than any education that I received and there may be implications pornography or of encouraging sexual behavior. However, these kids are mistaken, misguided and walking disease-spreaders as long as they don't know the truth. So, in the alternative, encourage abstinence but give them the tools to to take precautions when they plan to do the wrong thing.



Finally, bowling teammate Bowling Injury posted an album of our bowling exploits. Fun times.