Brief Update

Sorry about the somewhat extended hiatus, folks, but finals are taking priority over everything else right now. Hopefully I'll be able to post something meaningful tomorrow. Thanks for understanding.

Packers Pick A WR?

Huh?

Isn't that the one position that we didn't need any help at? I mean, I thought Thompson picking a defensive lineman in the first round last year was bad enough. How about the glaring deficiency of both guards last year? I know they picked a cornerback later in the second roung, but how about a strong safety to compete with Atari Bigby for a job? Why not another tight end to complement Donald Lee?

It just seems like the Packers are plenty stacked at wide receiver. Unless Thompson plans to ship someone out. I'm kind of suspicious that he wants to force Driver out like he did Favre.

I also want to offer my apologies for not posting much later, but between recent events and studying for finals, I haven't really had the time or been in any mood to write much. Thanks for understanding.

Condolences

A friend of ours passed away yesterday afternoon. For whatever it's worth, our thoughts and prayers are with his family, especially his wife.

Immigrant Bashing: Yay!

Courtesy of Zach over at Blogging Blue, an idiot Colorado Assemblyman shares his thoughts on immigrants:



Sheesh. The guy makes Tom Tancredo look kind-hearted by comparison.

This, boys and girls, is why people in office really ought to think before they speak.

Quoting Zach (in case the video gets yanked again):

Rep. Bruce was speaking in opposition to a guest worker bill in the Colorado House, and during his remarks he said the last thing Colorado needs is 5,000 more illiterate peasants.

You can hear an audible gasp go up in the chamber when he makes the remark.

Until the End

This song is just too appropriate for the never-ending Democratic primary. It's gone on long enough to even disgust a hardcore political junkie like myself. Completely.



I've said it before, and I'll reiterate it now: I will vote for John McCain if Hillary Clinton is the Democratic nominee. I know that might not make me very many friends on the left, but I simply will not vote for Hillary Clinton and her say-anything brand of politics.

Wall Street Journal Editors Asleep at the Wheel?

That's the only explanation I can think of for them allowing this article to run.

Money quote:

If Barack Obama or anyone else really cares to know what I think, I will simplify it all down to this. The landmark political fact of our time is the replacement of our middle-class republic by a plutocracy. If some candidate has a scheme to reverse this trend, they've got my vote, whether they prefer Courvoisier or beer bongs spiked with cough syrup. I don't care whether they enjoy my books, or would rather have every scrap of paper bearing my writing loaded into a C-47 and dumped into Lake Michigan. If it will help restore the land of relative equality I was born in, I'll fly the plane myself.

H/T: Andrew Sullivan.

What's This?

People are voting today?

Oh yeah. It's PA primary day.

Memo to the DNC: Please don't allow six-week gaps in primaries next time.

I'm crossing my fingers for an Obama victory so we can finally get to the business of campaigning against John McCain, rather than dividing the Democratic Party.

Pope Springs Eternal?

(Apologies for the title, but it's not much worse than the posts I link to, entited "The Audacity of Pope" and "An Inconvenient Pope," respectively. Being a master of bad puns, I had to jump on that bandwagon.)

I don't want to jump into the fray over the Pope's visit to the U.S. too terribly much. My primary reason (as this post by Mike Plaisted and this response by Prof. Rick Esenberg demonstrate) is that the debate on this issue has gotten rather ugly. And I'm certainly not endorsing either of those two bloggers' comments, because I have my own thoughts on the matter, and they are, well, mine.

Moreover, I have a well-established (or at least, as well-established as anything can be after blogging for just over two months) policy of not revealing my religious affiliations aside from the fact that I am not Catholic. In particular, I think Thomas Jefferson gave some useful advice when he said, "Our particular principles of religion are a subject of accountability to God alone. I inquire after no man's, and trouble none with mine." Also, I don't want some commenter telling me that I'm not a true Christian, Buddhist, Taoist, Druid, atheist, flying spaghetti monster worshipper, etc., etc., or that I'm going to burn in Hell for all eternity for my mistaken and misguided beliefs.

I will engage the issue of the Pope and Catholicism on one issue, however. It's well known that the Catholic Church is attempting to make in-roads in Africa. This makes sense, as the Western Hemisphere really doesn't have that many converts available, especially with the vast majority of South and Central America being Catholic. I certainly don't begrudge the Church of Rome wanting to expand itself into relatively new territory. My problem is this: How is it anything other than a crime to be telling people on a continent that has been absolutely ravaged by AIDS that they are sinning if they take a necessary precaution to prevent the spread of that disease (i.e., using a condom)? Wouldn't that be the real deadly sin?

I know the response from Catholics will be that maybe the people in question shouldn't be having sex, and maybe those who respond that way will be so kind as to enlighten me on how exactly they propose to keep an entire continent from having sex. As it is, and as I'm quite the pragmatist, I prefer to live in the real world, where not all sex is confined to marriage, and talk about that.

Prof. Esenberg accuses liberals of hating on the Pope because he is "judgmental about the sexual activities of others," and that, to the left, such a thing is "unpardonable." I would submit that the really unpardonable act is the one I named above: Preaching to millions of Africans that they will go to Hell for sensibly protecting themselves from perhaps the deadliest plague mankind has ever known in a place where literally everyone is at risk, and even marriage is not necessarily a safeguard. Somehow, I can't see Christ putting people in such an untenable position. After all, the man stopped the public execution of an adulteress and assured a thief that they would be together in Heaven, so I think he might have been a little more compassionate and understanding than some are giving him credit for.

Despite my disagreements with them, I have the utmost respect for the Pontiff and the Church he leads. Mr. Plaisted is mistaken if he thinks he can simply write off the Pope as a man with a pulpit and no authority. Like it or not, the pulpit gives him authority with much of the world, even those who do not share his faith. Not to mention the fact that the man is a head of state, however small that state may be. My problem here is that I don't believe you can apply Fourteenth Century solutions to a very Twenty-First Century problem and make everything work out just fine.

Owen Robinson of Boots and Sabers posted one of my favorite Monty Python songs on Saturday, and it happens to be germane to this post:



(Dad29, please don't call me a jackass, like you did Mr. Plaisted. I've tried very hard to be respectful.)

Thoughts While Watching Meet the Press

Wow, David Axelrod (Obama's campaign manager) is taking Geoff Garin (Mark Penn's hapless replacement) out behind the woodshed. This is great. Tim Russert actually had to stop the fight.

I almost feel sorry for Garin. He doesn't seem to have a handle on what his campaign is doing - denying negative ads are running, when, in fact, they are. And having to admit that he doesn't know all of her policy positions ("I'm running her campaign, I'm not her policy advisor") certainly isn't helping him.

Then again, I wouldn't want his job.

Wow.

The Milwaukee Chapter of the Federalist Society linked to my comment on Edwin Meese's speech at the law school.

It's nice to be noticed, even by an organization with which I have some fairly profound disagreements.

Oh, and I'd also like to thank WisOpinion for putting a link to that post on their front page today.

Riverwalk gets goosed

Courtesy of TMJ4:

Territorial Goose Makes Home on Riverwalk

I wonder if they're relatives of the Irony Goose. . .

Mav on Meese

Marquette Law School hosted former Attorney General Edwin Meese III today, and I attended to hear his thoughts on the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, I was somewhat less than impressed. While Meese did make some valid points, I felt he was generally dismissive, at times insultingly so, of anyone inclined to disagree with his positions.

In particular, I objected to his characterization of the Bork nomination as a "perfect storm" of Democrats having taken back the Senate and liberal groups flexing their muscles. What he entirely left out, and what many found most disturbing about Judge Bork, was his decision to obey President Nixon's order to fire Archibald Cox, when both the Attorney General and his deputy refused to carry out such an order. You know, firing the guy who was investigating Nixon for that whole Watergate thing. Nothing questionable about that decision or anything.

In response to a question from a faculty member (I didn't see who it was) about the Court's stepping in to fix something no one else can (Baker v. Carr was being cited, because of the need to fix disproportionate representation in state legislatures, but the professor also alluded to Brown v. Board of Education), Meese said that it is "in the eye of the beholder" when such circumstances exist, and expressed doubt that such times ever really come about. I'd personally like to thank Attorney General Meese for being so clear in stating that he really wouldn't mind if Plessy v. Ferguson were still the law of the land. What's next, reinstating Dred Scott?

As for his comments on Kelo v. City of New London, well, even I tend to agree that that case was poorly decided. But then, I'm just a lowly 1L with a blog.

I do agree the last couple of confirmation hearings have gotten much too nasty, and I commend AG Meese for urging Republicans not to reply in kind should a Democrat be elected to the presidency.

On the whole, however, I felt the speech was simply boilerplate conservative talking points about how liberals are all a bunch of judicial activists, ignoring the recent trend of the current administration doing whatever it wants, regardless of whether there is any law that supports their actions. Why isn't anyone talking about that? Personally, I think this president has done much more damage to the Constitution in his time in office than all of the "activist" judges of the last forty years have, but I'm sure some conservative will come and rip my head off because those judges legalized abortion and disallowed school prayer. And those are so much more important than the president's ability to detain people for months without charging them with a crime, deny access to an attorney, potentially torture them (or send them to a torture-friendly country) , etc., etc. Sorry, habeas corpus beats prayer in my book every time, if only because habeas goes all the way back to that obscure document no one has ever heard of, the Magna Carta.

I suppose I ought not to have expected anything more substantive than "Oh noes! Teh librulz, they are evil and destroying the Constitution!!!1!!one!!six!" As it was, that was really all we got out of the Former AG. I count myself disappointed.

Behold the Lord High Executioner

Hillary Say Anything Watch

I'm convinced that, if given the chance, she will come down on both sides of every proposition by the time this election is over.

Remember how she kept saying Obama would lead the party to defeat? Yeah, she's changed course on that, too.

I thought he didn't pass the "Clinton Commander-in-Chief threshold" test.

Is there anything on which this woman has any convictions? Is there any issue she actually has a real position on? Or does she just calculate everything according to the needs of the moment?

And from what little I've watched this morning, that debate last night was a joke. But then again, the MSM have a vested interest in dragging out the primary as long as possible, so as to keep the ratings for their political coverage up.

Drinking Brazenly?

Jay Bullock brings word that Drinking Liberally will be going down in Bay View tonight. No promises, but Mrs. Mav and I are hoping to make an appearance. After my fortuitous meeting of iTenant at an MCTS stop (retold here), I'm hoping to meet a few other occupants of the blogosphere which I have so presumptuously invaded.

And besides, there's going to be beer.

UPDATE: Okay, stupid question: Is anyone, other than Jay and HRH king capper, going to be there?

Feel free to answer in the form of, "Of course, you idiot!"

Thanks

Public Service Announcement

First of all, I would like to remind all of you that today is Tax Day (as if you could forget!). As Oliver Wendell Holmes (a Republican!) said, "Taxes are the price we pay to live in a civilized society." I'd like to second that opinion, and offer my sympathy for anyone who somehow hasn't remembered to get their taxes done sooner.

But more importantly, I would like to wish a very happy birthday to my lovely wife, Megan, and thank her for her patience, despite my best efforts to drive her up the wall.

Guess I'm Not an Invited Reader

Jessica McBride has just made both of her blogs off-limits to all but invited readers. I think we can safely guess which side of the spectrum they'll all fall on. I wonder if this has anything at all to do with her CCAPing illusory tenant immediately after he revealed his identity. So from now on, one would assume, her blog is strictly a preaching-to-the-choir proposition.

The question I'd like to ask Jessica is this: Why even bother? Sure, it's great to get patted on the back by those who agree with you most of the time, but personally, I find it much more satisfying to engage in debate with those who disagree with me. And if no one was reading my blog, I don't think I'd be motivated to keep it up. Nor do I think I would be willing to shut off my blog to anyone but those I know, and so avoid criticism. But that's just me, the only person for whom I'm really able to speak. Yes, leaving your blog public means you run the risk of the occasional rogue commenter, but McBride moderated her comments, so that wasn't an issue.

I think the moral to this story is that bloggers need to use a little common sense before posting personal smears of other bloggers. And that goes for both sides.

H/T: Whallah!

Mav's Favorite Chicago Brew Pub Loses Lease

Goose Island's original brew pub at 1800 N. Clybourn is closing at the end of the year. Fortunately, it won't affect their brewing operations, so fans of their beer like me can still get our fix. But that pub was a mighty fine place to have a burger and a pint (or two or three).

:-(

H/T: My father-in-law, who Megan and I just took there this weekend, along with her stepmom. Megan even took that nice picture above, which we've titled "Still Life in Beer."

Blogroll Updated

I've been reading Cindy Kilkenny's blog Fairly Conservative for a while now, so I've finally gotten around to adding it to my ever-expanding blogroll. Check her out.

UPDATE: I also added Other Side of My Mouth, so do likewise if you care to.

UPDATE #2: I see that Texas Hold 'Em Blogger was kind enough to link to me, so I've returned the favor. Besides, the man likes Bobby Darin, and therefore can't be bad in my book.

Is Dad29 applying for the position of High Inquisitor?

I only ask because he's once again making all kinds of assertions about "self-alleged 'Catholics.'"

Despite my disagreements with them, I have the utmost respect for people who sincerely believe that abortion is wrong. There's no denying that their position is deeply felt. What I do take issue with is the assertion that their position somehow gives them greater standing to judge the views of others and declare them apostasy.

I'm still not disclosing my religious beliefs (or lack thereof - aside, that is, from my earlier concession that I am not a Catholic), and posts like Dad29's are exactly why I intend never to do so: I can do without some Tomas de Torquemada wannabe telling me that my beliefs are heretical.

On the other hand, "Nobody expects the Spanish Inquisition!"



But maybe I'm just not "mature" enough.

Back in Business

After a relaxing trip to the Chicago area with Mrs. Mav, I'm back to resume life as usual. Hopefully there won't be any more trips for a while, because finals are coming up fast.

Traveling Mav

Just to give a heads up, I'll be in the Chicago area this weekend, so there may well be no posts until Sunday night.

Thanks.

Mav Loves the Devil's Music

Dad29 has an absolutely hilarious post about the evil of, of all things, Rock and Roll. Apparently, Bill Clinton only did what he did because he grew up in a time of sex, drugs, and rock'n'roll.

I refute him thusly:



Yes, that's former presidential candidate Mike Huckabee playing the devil's music on the Tonight Show.

And since Dad29 is specifically referring to the "age of sex/drugs/rock'n'roll" I'll even post this video (sorry for the poor quality) of Gov. Huckabee playing Three Dog Night's "Joy to the World," originally recorded in 1971:



And now I will proceed to post here many rock and roll (hard rock in particular) songs which I find to be awesome, but I'm sure Dad29 will write off as evil. And I don't want to hear anyone say I'm uncultured, since I can listen to Rachmaninoff, Bach, Stravinsky, Beethoven, Chopin, Mussorgsky, and lots of other classical composers all day long.







I like this one especially, because it sounds like some classical guitar piece at the beginning, but no, it's Metallica.





And finally, I'd like to thank Dad29 for giving me an excuse to post this song, which I fell in love with the first time I played it on Guitar Hero 2.



Rock on, Dad29!

Man Sentenced for Beating Beagle to Death

Megan will blow a gasket when she sees this story in today's Journal Sentinel about a guy getting six months in the HoC for killing his beagle with a baseball bat. Megan is a lover of beagles, and I just love dogs period. The details just make it worse:

He said his dog - a 13-year-old beagle named Gabe - was sick. Gabe had been his dog since he was in 10th grade. He loved Gabe, he said. He couldn't stand to see Gabe suffer.

He used an aluminum baseball bat on Gabe. Owen said he thought one solid smack on the head would knock Gabe out.

A neighbor who called Cudahy police said she saw Owen hit the animal maybe 10 times. She said it was the dog's yelps that brought her to her back door. Owen told police he didn't know how many blows it took. He said it was a lot more than he ever expected.

When the judge asked him why he didn't take the dog to the vet or the humane society, the defendant said, "I really hadn't thought about it."

I don't think I'm alone when I ask, "What the hell is wrong with this guy?"

Some people really shouldn't be allowed to own pets.

Sanctimony Alert!

Not to pile on or anything, but McBride might want to brush up on the meaning of argumentum ad hominem. Or maybe argumentum ad baculum (of the form, "Be silent or I will air your dirty laundry for all to see!"). McBride's argument seems to be best summed up thus: "The fact that so many bloggers are taking the low road makes me sick. I will therefore take the low road myself. That'll show 'em."

Har har. My head is going to explode.

As Jay Bullock, Mike Plaisted and others have rightly pointed out, the lack of decorum in the conservative blogosphere (another example here, and here (because the people who disagree with them are apparently full of hate, but they will soldier on), and an extreme example here a few months ago) is pretty remarkable in light of Owen Robinson's apparently sincere plea for exactly that. I hope he puts his money where his mouth is and rejects these mean-spirited, demean-all-who-oppose-me types, but I won't hold my breath. Especially when He-Whose-Tie-is-Too-Long is copy-and-pasting Owen's post to call for civility with one side of his mouth while calling liberals "moonbats" with the other (here, here, I'm sure you get the point).

(And I'll stop here for a second to preemptively deny that He-Whose-Tie-is-Too-Long is an ad hominem. Certainly I don't discredit anything Charlie says just because his tie is almost never tied the right length. Rather, as I said in the original post, it is intended as an intervention to help the man.)

Let me put it this way: Would I like to see some civility? Sure. But I think there are those on the right who are just as responsible for the lack of that particular quality as those on the left. McBride, who dug up and aired some dirt on IT courtesy of CCAP, won't engage in a debate for someone because of that? Sounds awfully bitter. Plaisted's got the best comment on this:

Now, if I were IT, I would be honored by a cheap hack like Jessica McBride flailing around and embarrassing herself in public just because she couldn’t take the heat. It’s like being on Nixon’s enemies list. But, really, none of us on either left or right out here should have to be looking over our shoulders to see who might be ready to expose our public-record weaknesses, much less our private ones.

I tend to agree. I would hope Owen would at least concur with that. After all, isn't she the one not responding to the substance of the argument?

Another recent lowlight is this gem: Dad29 tells a former Marine (verbatim), "Thanks for your service. Now learn to think." Where's Owen's reaction to that? I only ask because my reaction was exactly this:

Whiskey. Tango. Foxtrot.

Read that whole comment section and you'll see Dad and other conservatives label just about everyone who has the temerity to disagree with them as stupid, illiterate, or both. I thought conservatives prided themselves on showing more respect to veterans and active servicemen (and, yes Dad29, servicewomen). Of course, in that same post, Dad is basically saying that rapists in the military can't help it and that women have no business being in the military anyway, and well, you get the point.

I would suspect these not-so-courteous bloggers know what they're doing. They know civility isn't nearly the surefire way to jack up your hit count that insults and smears are. Especially when the other side all links back to them, like I'm doing now. So I think these bloggers are probably winning out in the end. Now, I could get the last laugh by saying something really ridiculous and insulting about all of them, but I won't. I've just given them more credit then they give people who disagree with them, who are all, to review, either dumb, illiterate, full of hate, insane, or criminals. Yes, I'm sure they've all gotten loads of hits off of that. Well done all around. Way to really set that bar high in the civility department.

Please.

On the other hand, I will agree with all of the above-mentioned conservative bloggers' unspoken assertion that if only there were no voices of opposition, there would be no lack of civility. But alas, the plans to turn the Wisconsin blogosphere into a happy and joyous place full of smiling faces, flowers, green fields, sunny days, rainbows, puppies, and everything that is good in this world have been thwarted by those evil liberals again. How dare they?

UPDATE: I'd also like to know what the heck is up with McBride running IT through CCAP as soon as she finds out his name. Does she do that with every blogger who disagrees with her, or just the ones that do so effectively?

UPDATE #2: Zach of Blogging Blue (an awesome blog, if I may say so myself) weighs in here, reprinted at Whallah! here.

Joe Biden: FAIL

I'm watching the Today show, and Biden's on. Now, I'm normally a fan, and I'm liking everything he's saying. That is, until Matt asks him if he thinks Hillary Clinton needs to drop out. "No," he says. "This is healthy," he says. "This is generating enthusiasm," he says.

Huh? Has Biden not been looking at the polls that show close to 30% of Hillary's supporters won't vote for Obama in the general? Has he not seen how ugly the tone has gotten, mostly because the candidates are out of issues? Sure, lots of people are registering Democrat, but I don't share Biden's confidence that they'll vote that way if we can't get our stuff together. Besides, he said we'd have a winner "in the next three or four contests." What? Unless Hillary wins them 100-0, I'm pretty sure that's not enough delegates to win it for her, which means this is all just a formality.

Democrats need to wake up. Americans are watching and saying to themselves, "If they can't even run their own party, how are they ever going to run the country?"

The Ever-Changing Rationale for Staying in Iraq

A year and a half ago, we had to stay because violence was up. Now we have to stay because violence is down. And still the Iraqi government has yet to lift a finger to move the country towards reconciliation.

Does this remind you at all of President Bush's constantly changing reasoning behind tax cuts? Consider this quote from Andrew Sullivan's fantastic book, The Conservative Soul:

Before long it also became clear that, like many fundamentalists, the president had some core beliefs that were impervious to any empirical qualification.

A case in point: Lower taxes were always good, regardless of the economic climate. In the campaign, the president defended his tax cuts as a way to ensure that the burgeoning surplus he inherited would not be swallowed up by the government. When the economy sank in the wake of the bursting tech-bubble and September 11, the president defended the tax cuts on opposite grounds: they were necessary as a Keynesian demand stimulus in a contracting economy. When deficits soared in his first term, Bush cited keeping the tax cuts as a way to prevent a new recession, and thereby prevent future deficits. It soon became apparent that the tax cuts were simply a matter of faith, unrelated to any empirical context or consisten rationale. Even if you supported the tax cuts, as I did and do, it was impossible logically to support every argument the president made in their defense, because they were mutually contradictory, and constantly changing. Try this experiment: Under what circumstances would President Bush actually raise taxes? Not for war; not for soaring deficits; not even with annual growth nearing 4 percent. Only one thing you could say for sure: the president never defended cutting taxes as a way to curtail the power and scope of government. Nor did he insist on balancing the government's books to keep the next generation out of perilous and mounting debt. That sort of conservatism was over.

One of the tests of valid research is that any conclusion is provisional. That is, any finding is subject to changing based upon changing circumstances. Any finding that is not provisional, that never changes, is a tautology, something that is true all the time, no matter what. President Bush's thinking on both Iraq and taxes seems to be that of a man with ideas but no real basis to defend them, and so he throws every argument out there.

I'm not opposed to staying in Iraq a while longer (I refuse to join the withdraw-all-troops-right-this-instant crowd) if someone would just give me a good reason why. Give me some evidence that the Iraqi government has any real intention of stepping up to the plate and getting its act together. Yes, that's a pretty high standard, but don't you think high standards ought to be what we apply when we're talking about leaving American troops in harm's way? If we had to surge troops because violence was up 18 months or so ago, doesn't it make sense to withdraw some now that violence is down? Isn't this especially true since the military is going to run out of troops eventually? Or are our leaders afraid that if they withdrew troops now (no matter how few), it would reveal that the downturn in violence is simply a function of greater numbers of troops, rather than any progress by the government?

The people who insist the surge is working (like John McCain) are half right. As I see it, the surge had two objectives: 1) Reduce violence; and 2) Use that reduction in violence to allow the government to reach some sort of reconciliation. Certainly objective 1 has been accomplished, but, because of the intractable divisions within the government, objective 2 has not. Now, logically, given that the success of the surge was based on the conjuction between objective 1 and objective 2 (of the form 1 & 2 for all you Fregans keeping score at home), as opposed to the disjunction (1 or 2), then the surge, objectively, is a failure. This failure is certainly not due to the efforts of American soldiers, airmen, sailors, and marines, but simply due to the fact that there are probably irreconcilable differences between the factions of the Iraqi government. If this were a marriage, divorce papers would have already been filed. And yet President Bush and General Petraeus want to expend more blood and treasure to keep running out the clock while this joke of a government keeps sitting on their collective asses?

As I see it, the only way to hit the Iraqi government with a big enough stick to get them moving (maybe) is to begin withdrawing troops. No timetables are necessary, stictly speaking. But provide them a clear signal, such has not been done to this point, that the US commitment to their country is not eternal, and if they want their country to be more than a joke among even banana republics, they ought to get about doing something. If that isn't possible, then we have no business being there. But, to quote Barack Obama from this morning's Today show, don't keep moving the goalposts.

UPDATE: It occurs to me that there's one argument President Bush hasn't tried that may yet win the day. Namely, the Chewbacca Defense!

By way of explanation (ignore the subtitles - couldn't find a video without them):



Yes, he could try that.

Apologies

Sorry for the lack of posts today. Regular posting will resume, if not tonight, then tomorrow morning.

Thanks.

Recovery!

Alas, I've gotten over the disease that is "Danger Zone" and returned to my normal self. As I'm sure my readers have noticed, I have extremely expansive musical tastes, stretching from the heaviest heavy metal to Irish folk (and that's just what I've posted here!). But as a bit of a musician (my wife is even more of one), I'd be remiss if I didn't include some true classics here, and I was delighted this evening to find one of my favorite pieces on Seeqpod. Therefore, I am proud to present the opening movement of Sergei Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto in C Minor.



Wish I had hands as big as Rachmaninoff's. Then I could hit some of those massive chords.

Music for the weekend

I can't help but love this song. It's a disease, I tell you.

Blogroll Update

It' s been a good week here at Brazen Maverick. Several new friends have linked, and I've returned the favor to those who I hadn't already added. So please do check out the updated blogroll and visit those sites.

A Request

Read the comments on this post. Absolutely ridiculous.

Some loud music is appropriate - therefore, here's Killswitch Engage's excellent remake of "Holy Diver":



Allow me to be frank: I don't have any problem expressing myself. As I'm sure most attentive readers have noticed, I tend to parse my opinions rather carefully, except when indulging in hyperbole, sarcasm, or other humor, which I take great pains to make obvious. If I mean to say something like "All conservatives are liars," believe me, I will say it. However, were I to say that in particular, I would be insulting many, many good friends, family members, and several of my favorite college professors, who made me better at articulating my opinions. Not to mention the fact that it would be untrue. Therefore, I don't enjoy being falsely accused of saying such things, particularly by a blogger who refers to himself as a "Thoughtful Conservative." (Personally, I know a lot of thoughtful conservatives, so I don't get how that's much of a distinction, but whatever.)

Accordingly, I have the following request: If you're going to take issue with something I say on this blog, that's fine (real debate is a good thing), but at least do me the favor of reading what I say, and not reading some assumption of yours into it. If you're going to apply some stereotype of the "liberal blogosphere" to my blog, then you might as well not read it, because I certainly do not share in every single opinion of every single liberal blog. Not that there really is a monolithic set of opinions required to be a liberal blogger anyway.

If Dean over at Thoughtful Conservative wants to say that I am whiny and hypocritical, and that I think all conservatives are Nazis and liars (as he does with other bloggers here and here), he's free to do so, but he really ought not to read this blog, because he's not going to get anything out of it except what he has assumed. Same thing with liberal bloggers. If they come here expecting me to hold the "party line," if in fact there is one, they will likely be disappointed. But I'd appreciate if both sides (and those in the middle, of course) at least do me the favor of reading what I write, and not assuming there to be some sinister subtext wherein I paint all conservatives with the same brush. There's really no point in blogging at all if I can't at least expect to be taken at face value.

Honest disagreements are cool. I don't mind a conservative blogger holding me up to his fellow conservatives and saying, "Look what this idiot said," so long as he or she accurately portrays what it was that I actually said. But don't build some bogus straw man out of my words and take a flamethrower to it.

Thank you.

Musical Non Sequitur

A friend of mine (now a law student at the University of Richmond) got me hooked on Mark Knopfler during the period we roomed together in college. So consider this one for him.

(I don't want to give the impression that we're somehow not friends anymore - I know rooming can do that to people - so I'll clarify by saying that he stood up at my wedding last summer.)



Cheers.

Bit of Philosophy

As part of an effort to get myself back to reading philosophy, I've decided to start throwing some onto this blog (which, after all, is supposed to involve politics, law, and philosophy). Accordingly, I offer up this epigram from Nietzsche's Beyond Good and Evil:

"I have done that," says my memory. "I cannot have done that," says my pride, and remains inexorable. Eventually -- memory yields.

I think that's a something we bloggers ought to keep in mind from time to time.

"WHAT?!?!!"

That was Megan's reaction to this ridiculous news story on MSNBC.

I tend to agree.

Calling the cops on a six-year-0ld for smacking a girl's behind? Seems just a bit excessive.

It's only going to get worse

The Journal Sentinel reminds us that Chief Justice Shirley Abrahamson is up for reelection next year, and she's arguably more liberal than Justice Butler was. Imagine how awful the ads against her will be. Ugh.

I can hardly wait. *rolls eyes*

Heck, why wait, WMC? Why not start rolling out those ads about Chief Justice Abrahamson being soft on crime, oh, next week? After all, a week should be plenty of time for people to get over the fact that they just witnessed the sliming of a good man and a virtual coup on the high court.

I'm not angry over the election results. I am, however, seriously concerned about the future of Wisconsin's judiciary, both in terms of the court's direction and the tone of judicial campaigns. I don't see anything to stop these campaigns from getting even dirtier. After all, if you were a Gableman supporter, what conclusion could you possibly draw other than dirty ads work?

Clinton Compares Self to Rocky

Fail.

Guess she doesn't remember that when all this started she was the favorite.

Mav is Depressed

Wow, what a horrible April Fool's Day that was. Gableman wins. Walker wins (then again, didn't like Taylor all that much, so maybe this is a wash). And, worst of all, Tom Crean is now the head basketball coach of the University of Indiana.

On the other hand, I suppose it's nice to know that I could sit on the Wisconsin Supreme Court someday if I run enough misleading ads.

UPDATE: Jay Bullock of folkbum has this funny, sad, and true comment this morning.

This is truly sad

The Journal Sentinel has a good editorial today on the death of a Marathon County girl who died of complications from diabetes when her parents, citing their religious beliefs, refused to get her medical attention. Here's an earlier article giving the details of the story. Here's the money quote from that piece:

Neumann's parents said they didn't know she had diabetes. They didn't take her to a doctor. They prayed for healing.

Are you kidding? But it gets worse:

"They said it was the course of action they would take again," Vergin said. "They firmly believe even if they had taken her to a doctor, if this was the time God had chosen for her to die, she would die regardless of medical interference."

"This is not their defense, they aren't crazy people," Vergin added.

Just wow. I don't want to sound like I'm ripping religion in general (again, I'm leaving my personal beliefs out of this one), but this is just ridiculous, and I think most religious people would agree with me. (If you care to, here's the even more unbelievable press release of the group the parents prayed with. The ominous warning about these being "America's last days" at the top should give you a clue as to where they're coming from.)

As for the editorial, this seems like kind of a no-brainer. This is why we have laws against child neglect. A child shouldn't have to die to indulge his or her parents' religious beliefs. Actually, the best comment on this sad story is in the letters to the editor. I'll reprint in full, only because I think the author makes an important point:

If Madeline Neumann's parents were atheists and ardent social and biological Darwinists who believed their daughter was defective and thought the "laws of nature" would decide whether she'd live or die, would we still be debating this issue ("Charges possible in diabetes death," March 29)? I think not - they'd be in jail this moment, facing charges of child abuse and negligent homicide, and rightly so.

But, substitute "God" and "prayer" for laws of nature, and suddenly they deserve special consideration. The Bible includes a passage that allows parents to put their children to death for striking them (Exodus 21:15). Should we allow that, too?

Are children nothing but the property of their parents, to be abused, neglected and even killed in the name of some arbitrary religious interpretation? We don't live in a theocracy - at least not yet - and I feel truly sorry for us when "God" becomes an extenuation, let alone an excuse, for murder.

We revile the faith-based atrocities of our enemies in the Middle East, but somehow Christians allowing their own children to die in the name of their God is a different matter - why? These people need to be prosecuted. All religion is subjective and must never supersede the law.

Al Gennari
West Bend

Why would anyone even consider giving these parents a pass? It makes Christians writ-large look bad (ignorant, anti-science, anti-medicine, take your pick). And, in the end, the JS editorial nails the bottom line:

It is one thing for an adult to refuse medical treatment. It is quite another to impose that belief on a child unable to make her own decisions.

Absolutely. And did it never occur to the parents that God could work just fine through them by their action of taking their daughter to a doctor? What a tragedy.

April Fool's/Election Day is upon us

I can't get it to embed for some reason, but here's a link to Gableman's last chance ad.




That's right. I Rick Rolled my own blog. April Fool.