As we approached Twinkle, I was excited. It was five o'clock, giving the mountain a twilight darkness, illuminated by halogen lamps lining the slopes. With a plan for finishing, I intended to focus and enjoy the final runs of the afternoon. The slope cleared, so we headed down the mountain.

Danielle skied to the center of Twinkle. I'd moved past my need to hug the slope's edge, so I followed her to the middle. I'd started to think ahead, so I began planning my entry into the Lower Shuttle. Coming from the middle, I'd have enough speed to make it up the incline, but I wanted to zip through it.

We moved down the hills of Twinkle, turning left and right. Approaching the last hill before the shuttle, we positioned ourselves for the sharp left turn. Over the hill, I crouched into a balanced stance, then pushed hard on my right ski. My body turned left at once. Still trailing Danielle, I zipped into the Lower Shuttle.

Once in, we encountered a kid skiing through ahead of us. We shaved off some speed to avoid wiping him out, then skied next to him. Danielle complimented the kid on his skiing, which earned her a shy response. I anticipated the incline, realizing that I wouldn't have enough speed to hit the top. I glided until I stopped, then trudged my way over to Danielle.

We chatted as we worked our way to the top, then continued with the short trip to Mistletoe. Once at the opening to Mistletoe, I paused to once more adjust my gear against the falling snow. Danielle skied ahead.

Standing by myself, I watched other ski by me. I scanned the bottom of the slope, noticed Danielle had moved to the chair lift, and prepared to join her. I set off for the bottom.

I skied left. I skied right. I skied left. I skied right. My left ski stuck in the snow.

I tried to recover control of my left leg, but couldn't save it. I slammed into the snow, twisting to my left as I went down. I tucked my arms close to my body as I fell, driving my right shoulder into the slope. My head bumped the snow. I slid down the mountain, coming to a stop after a few feet.

I rested in the snow, laughing at my ineptitude. I sat up and looked around to assess the damage. I had control of my arms and legs. I knew where I was. I knew who I was. Everything was fine.

Verifying how well the skis were hinged to my boots earlier in the day, I questioned whether or not the ski would separate from the boot in a fall. I proved that it would. A man walked up to me, bringing my ski, as well as my poles. I thanked him and scanned the slope to determine how many people were behind me. I needed to move out of the way, but standing up with two skis was hard. Standing with one would be troublesome, at best.

I used one of the poles to unlock the other ski from my boot. I needed to get down from the slope. Once it was loose, I gathered my skis and poles in my arms and stalked down the slope. I wasn't angry, but I wasn't going to try to reassemble myself on a hill with others streaking past me.

At the bottom, Danielle saw me walking down the hill. I motioned to her to join me as I continued walking towards the lodge. Even though I wanted to continue skiing, I knew I should stop. That was the best decision I made all day. Give me that much credit.

I explained to Danielle what happened to me as we continued on to the lodge to return our equipment. Once in the lodge, we undertook the arduous task of removing our boots. Sitting on the bench, I realized how sore I was from being out-of-shape. No muscle group was screaming in pain, but a general ache had gripped my body. And we needed to munch some fine Indian cuisine.

We drove back to Danielle's house, changed into dry clothes, and proceeded to India Gate. We nearly slept at the table while waiting for our food. We ate copious amounts of fine Indian food, though we missed the ambience of squinting, long-haired guitarists we'd experienced in the past. We drove back to Danielle's house. We watched a little Canadian tv and fell asleep.

The next morning, I awoke and fell the same dull ache all over my body. Even though general soreness isn't fun, it felt good to have exercised and moved around.

We enjoyed a lazy Sunday, floating around the house, eating some leftover Indian food, and looking at scrapbook pictures. In the middle of the afternoon, Danielle drove me to the airport. I caught my flight home and went to bed early again.

On Monday morning, I woke up a little more sore than I'd been the day before. This is common, so I thought nothing of it. I went to work, moved around as little as possible during the day, then came home. Once home, I watched some tv, talked to Danielle on the phone, and went to bed.

When I awoke on Tuesday morning, the right side of my chest hurt worse than almost any pain I'd ever felt. I couldn't turn my torso. I couldn't sit up without pain. I decided not to go to work.

Around 10am, I called my Mom to chat. When she asked how skiing had gone, I told her I'd had a good time, but I was sore and couldn't go to work. Being a mom, she told me to go to my doctor.

I'm a man, so I didn't need to go to a doctor. However, I researched chest pain on the web and discovered some potential negative side-effects to injured ribs, mainly pneumonia. I called my doctor and made an appointment.

At my appointment, I explained what happened. My doctor listened to my chest and said everything sounded fine. Then he placed a hand on my chest and a hand on my back, then squeezed. My chest lit up with pain.

He told me I'd probably broken a rib or two, because the "poor man's test" suggested it. When squeezing my chest like that, it would only hurt if I'd broken something. He offered to refer me for an x-ray. I declined since it was a $75 confirmation that wouldn't change the treatment.

I hope I never break another rib in my lifetime. The pain is awful and constant. I couldn't sleep on my stomach for several weeks. The pain woke me up in the middle of the night. I got no more than 2 hours of consecutive sleep for the next 2 weeks. My ribs didn't stop interrupting my sleep until late last week, 5 weeks after the fall.

I can't wait to ski again.

P.S. I'm skiing at Kissing Bridge tomorrow.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

The Political Hate Speech Drinking Game™ is expanding at an alarming rate.

The Washington Post surveyed citizens in the D.C. metro area and found a real beaut to add to the game:

"The president has to do something when you look what is happening out in San Francisco," said Richard Kreiner, 69, a federal contractor from Columbia. "You have this clown violating the law."

Not to be outdone, Senator Rick Santorum offers this nugget:

"We're in a process of vigilantes, of people taking the law into their own hands and changing what marriage is in this country," he said, alluding to same-sex marriages in San Francisco and one county in New Mexico.

I'm bot nombed, but I'm blightly suzzed.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Virginia's General Assembly believes that a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage should happen, preferably as soon as possible. My fear is that supporters will rush an amendment through Congress. If an amendment gets out of Congress and goes to the states, it will pass quickly. This scares me.

If this passes, the Constitution is going to read something like this: Bill of Rights, more rights, more rights, more rights, no alcohol, more rights, alcohol, more rights, more rights, definition of marriage. Regardless of a person's belief about same-sex marriage, defining marriage in the Constitution is inappropriate.

As a result, I moved up my timeline for notifying my Congressmen and State legislators. I've sent the following letter to each elected official:

Yesterday, President Bush announced his support for an amendment to the U.S. Constitution. As a constituent of yours, I'm STRONGLY OPPOSED to any such constitutional amendment.

Our "leaders" have framed this debate around defending marriage against activist judges and politicians. Any potential amendment doesn't defend marriage; it discriminates against a segment of our population. Amending the most sacred document in the United States to include discrimination and a reduction of rights is atrocious. It failed with Prohibition and it will fail again.

Also, with adultery and divorce still existent in America, I do not understand how barring same-sex marriage is the best and most-appropriate defense of marriage possible. It's easy to attack a minority of the population. If you truly wish to defend marriage, use the Constitutional amendment process to outlaw adultery and divorce. Attack the majority and see how that works out for proponents of this potential amendment. Any potential amendment is not a defense of marriage.

Just because a group is in the majority doesn't mean it's correct. Slavery was "overwhelmingly" supported in America. Segregation was "overwhelmingly" supported in America. History has shown support for these to be morally wrong and history will reveal the same regarding support for any anti-same-sex marriage amendment. Same-sex marriage will not rip apart the fabric of society.

Currently, this issue is working its way through various courts in the United States. This is how we resolve legal questions in the United States. Any amendment banning same-sex marriage is a knee-jerk reaction to this situation that will only undermine the Constitution. It will also set an evil precedent that I fear will spiral into a rapid-fire attempt to amend the Constitution for any hot issue of the day.

Again, I wish to express my strong opposition to any such amendment. Do not vote for this if it comes before you for a vote. You are an elected representative of the people of Virginia, not an arbiter of moral correctness. An amendment to the Constitution should have overwhelming public support. Any proper gauge of this issue will show that overwhelming support does not exist for this amendment. Again, do not vote for this amendment.

Sincerely,

Tony

I urge you to do the same.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

President Bush announced his support for a Constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage. Rather than rehash the same arguments I've made recently, I'm going to interpret today's speech. I begin with this:

Eight years ago, Congress passed and President Clinton signed the Defense of Marriage Act, which defined marriage for purposes of federal law as the legal union between one man and one woman as husband and wife.

The act passed the House of Representatives by a vote of 342-67 and the Senate by a vote of 85-14.

Those congressional votes, and the passage of similar defense-of- marriage laws in 38 states, express an overwhelming consensus in our country for protecting the institution of marriage.

That doesn't "express an overwhelming consensus" on this issue. It states the approximately 8000 legislators voted in federal and state legislatures. An issue like this hasn't stood before the nation for a realistic tally. What we're getting is legislators pandering to lobbyists for re-election dollars.

In recent months, however, some activist judges and local officials have made an aggressive attempt to redefine marriage.

Again President Bush engages in name-calling to desensitize people into Us vs. Them. It's bad enough that he does this in international diplomacy. Is this the example we want of how Americans treat people?

In Massachusetts, four judges on the highest court have indicated they will order the issuance of marriage licenses to applicants of the same gender in May of this year.

Seems the President skipped Civics in school. Last time I checked, that's how laws are interpreted in the United States. It's ok for Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia to hunt with Vice President Dick Cheney, even though the Supreme Court is considering a case involving V.P. Cheney and Halliburton, but four judges in Massachusetts doing their job is activism? I'm disappointed that "obstructionist"isn't in this speech, since that is quickly catching up to "activist" in the Republican name-calling.

And unless action is taken, we can expect more arbitrary court decisions, more litigation, more defiance of the law by local officials, all of which adds to uncertainty.

I'm a broken record, but all of those contributors to "uncertainty" are part of the American judicial system. It's not acceptable to throw out the rules when they go against your beliefs.

After more than two centuries of American jurisprudence and millennia of human experience, a few judges and local authorities are presuming to change the most fundamental institution of civilization. Their actions have created confusion on an issue that requires clarity.

I think the courts are adding clarity. I also think the President is scared. Why are you scared, Mr. President?

Decisive and democratic action is needed because attempts to redefine marriage in a single state or city could have serious consequences throughout the country.

Democratic action is already happening.

The Constitution says that "full faith and credit shall be given in each state to the public acts and records and judicial proceedings of every other state."

Those who want to change the meaning of marriage will claim that this provision requires all states and cities to recognize same-sex marriages performed anywhere in America.

Congress attempted to address this problem in the Defense of Marriage Act by declaring that no state must accept another state's definition of marriage. My administration will vigorously defend this act of Congress.

Let me make sure I understand... The Congress figured it could pass a law (the Defense of Marriage Act) that overrode the "full faith and credit" clause of the Constitution. And that's a good thing? And when that didn't work, you'd rather just modify the Constitution? Good choice.

Yet there is no assurance that the Defense of Marriage Act will not itself be struck down by activist courts. In that event, every state would be forced to recognize any relationship that judges in Boston or officials in San Francisco choose to call a marriage.

You didn't slip that "activist" by me, Mr. President. If I were playing the Republican hate speech drinking game, I'd be bombed. However, that part of the Defense of Marriage Act would be struck down because it's unconstitutional. Maybe we should amend the Constitution to prohibit activist judges.

An amendment to the Constitution is never to be undertaken lightly. The amendment process has addressed many serious matters of national concern, and the preservation of marriage rises to this level of national importance.

Yep, cause outlawing same-sex marriage is on the same level as abolishing slavery and allowing for equal suffrage.

Marriage cannot be severed from its cultural, religious and natural roots without weakening the good influence of society.

Prove it.

Government, by recognizing and protecting marriage, serves the interests of all.

Unless you're gay.

Today, I call upon the Congress to promptly pass and to send to the states for ratification an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of a man and woman as husband and wife.

I agree. Ram this baby through the Congress and the states and hope no one notices. Knee-jerk constitutional amendments are a great idea. Point of Reference: 18th Amendment. Also, I've read reports that the amendment process would be drawn out because that's the way the amendment process works. Oh, really? The 26th amendment, proposed by Congress on March 23, 1971, was ratified by July 1, 1971. The difference is that the 26th amendment granted rights instead of restricting them.

The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.

President Bush is drawing a line in the sand to protect civil unions and spousal benefits for same-sex couples. That's very big of you Mr. President. I know it's not what you want, but you want this to pass quickly, so you made a concession.

America's a free society which limits the role of government in the lives of our citizens. This commitment of freedom, however, does not require the redefinition of one of our most basic social institutions.

Our government should respect every person and protect the institution of marriage. There is no contradiction between these responsibilities.

Yes, it does require that. A free society doesn't encode a class system into the legal system. A free society respects every person as an equal. And the institution of marriage? Beware of defending "institutions. Slavery was an institution deemed acceptable in a free society.

We should also conduct this difficult debate in a matter worthy of our country, without bitterness or anger.

In all that lies ahead, let us match strong convictions with kindness and good will and decency.

Accept for "activist". We know you reserve the right to continue using that.

In related news, Gov. Schwarzenegger is worried about potential violence because of same-sex marriages?

On Sunday, Schwarzenegger said he was worried about the potential for violence because of the controversial marriages.

"All of a sudden we see riots and we see protests and we see people clashing. The next thing we know is there's injured or there's dead people," he said on NBC's Meet the Press.

Who do the President and the Governor think will be violent? And violence isn't always physical.

Ultimately, I'm exhausted by this amendment. It's irrational to amend the Constitution because of this issue. It denies rights to individuals. It is incongruent with the rest of the Constitution, in the same way that the 18th amendment is incongruent. The President, who has no legal involvement in the amendment process, is winding up his minions for an election year push. We're setting ourselves up for disaster. Unbelievable.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Scanning the news, I encountered an article about Governor Schwarzenegger's Sunday talk show debut. It seems he had a few interesting ideas to discuss.

He made a push for foreign-born citizens to become eligible to run for the Presidency. Consider this:

"There are so many people in this country that are now from overseas, that are immigrants, that are doing such a terrific job with their work, bringing businesses here, that there's no reason why not," said Schwarzenegger, who became a U.S. citizen in 1983.

"Look at the kind of contribution that people like Henry Kissinger have made, Madeleine Albright," he said, referring to two former secretaries of state who were born in Europe.

Schwarzenegger said on NBC's "Meet the Press" that he has been too busy with California's problems to contemplate a future run for the White House. "I have no idea, I haven't thought about that at all," he said.

For Arnold Schwarzenegger and other foreign-born citizens to become eligible, we'll need to amend the Constitution. Fortunately, just in time to allow Gov. Schwarzenegger to consider a future run for the White House, Sen. Orrin Hatch has proposed such an amendment.

I haven't thought about this issue in enough depth to determine how I feel about it. My initial reaction is to oppose any such amendment. America's strength comes from its diversity, but there was a rationalization for including that stipulation in the Constitution that hasn't changed. While it may be outdated and closed-minded, it must be considered. Please read this article for a detailed analysis.

Here is the text of Senator Hatch's proposed amendment, Senate Joint Resolution 15:

SECTION 1. A person who is a citizen of the United States, who has been for 20 years a citizen of the United States, and who is otherwise eligible to the Office of President , is not ineligible to that Office by reason of not being a native born citizen of the United States.

SECTION 2. This article shall not take effect unless it has been ratified as an amendment to the Constitution by the legislatures of three-fourths of the several States not later than 7 years from the date of its submission to the States by the Congress.

My primary issue is how convenient that 20 year citizenship requirement is for Governor Schwarzenegger. Perhaps pursuing the House version introduced by Rep. Vic Snyder and co-sponsored by Rep. Barney Frank would be wiser. In the House version, a foreign-born individual would need to be a citizen for 35 years before becoming eligible for the presidency. Not only does that put aside the appearance of special consideration for Gov. Schwarzenegger, it adds a buffer to some of the potential fears about allowing foreign-born citizens to occupy the White House.

Also, although it's implicit in the Constitution, the Snyder/Frank amendment would put an equal restriction on foreign-born individuals that I face as an individual born in the United States. I have to be a citizen for 35 years before I'm eligible to be president, so a foreign-born individual should face the same. Even though the Constitution would still require someone to be 35 or older, foreign-born or not, everyone would have to meet the same basic requirement of 35 years of citizenship. If someone like Arnold Schwarzenegger didn't become a citizen until he was 35 years-old, that's bad luck. Fair isn't always pretty.

Moving on, Al Gore won California in 2000, so the assumption is that California is dominated by Democrats. Yet, Gov. Schwarzenegger believes that President Bush can still win California in November's presidential election. However, to gain the support of Kahlifornians, the Governor believes that President Bush's vote total is directly proportional to the amount of federal funds directed into California.

"I think it is totally directly related to how much he will do for our state, there's no two ways about it," Schwarzenegger said. "Because Californian people are like a mirror, you know that what you do for them they will do back for you," Schwarzenegger said.

"If the federal government does great things for California this year I think there's no two ways about it, that President Bush can have California, he can be elected, I'm absolutely convinced of that."

I'm not a citizen of California, so I'm angry about this assumption. It's unacceptable for the President to use the tax dollars of all Americans to bribe Californians for their vote. I'm not naive enough to believe that this doesn't happen in Congress, but I've never seen such a blatant, open admission that a state can/should be bribed. Gov. Schwarzenegger's statement is a disgrace to honest government.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (5)

Yesterday afternoon, I put my shoes on just before I left to buy ski pants. This shouldn't be a hard decision but you already know I've become a shoe whore for Chucks. With so many to choose from, I try to rotate which colors I wear so that no pair feels lonely for too long.

Realizing that I hadn't worn the blue Chucks in a few weeks, I went with those. Everything is fine up until this point. I gathered some cds to take with me, my book in case I got lunch while I was out, and my fleece since it was a balmy 50 degrees yesterday. I put on the fleece and walked to my car. I got in my car, put the key in the ignition, and started the car. Then all mental hell broke loose.

Looking around the floor, I had a direct line from fleece to shoes. I had no idea how I'd let this happen, but I was wearing blue Chucks and an orange fleece. Unacceptable.

Orange and blue do not go together. It's completely preposterous. No sane person would wear those colors together.

I had a brief but contested mental battle with myself. Yes, it was an abomination, but I would survive. The car was started and I was ready to leave. I decided to let it go. Just because I wore those colors once, no one was coming to revoke my Hokie status. Unless, maybe they were.

I turned the car off and went back into my house. Looking in the closet, I exchanged the orange fleece for the blue fleece. I went back to my car and drove off in peace.

In summary:

+ is Pure evil

While:

+ is Acceptable

And:

+ is Perfection

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

How is President Bush's use of a recess appointment to seat Alabama attorney general Bill Pryor on the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals any different from San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom issuing same-sex marriage licenses?

Bush has now used the recess appointment twice during his presidency. While he is within the Constitution on this matter, that's only the letter of the Constitution. He's using a broad interpretation of the Constitution, which seems opposed to his view of interpreting the Constitution regarding same-sex marriage. (I understand that other presidents have used the recess appointment. It's become acceptable and can be a valid tool to grease the wheels of government. The recess appointment isn't my issue with this argument.)

After the White House notified key Senators of President Bush's action, Senate Majority Leader Bill Frist, R-Tennessee, responded with his statement.

"General Pryor is a man of integrity committed to the rule of law, not making law from the bench. I am confident he will impartially interpret the law and uphold justice."

Frist said Bush had been "forced to make this recess appointment because of the unprecedented filibuster that Senate Democrats have used. ... This obstructionism must stop."

Senator Frist stopped short of saying "activist judges", but he should be honest about it next time since that's what he was trying to say. Judges do not make law, contrary to his statement. Judges repair bad law or return it to the legislature for reconsideration, which is in their job description. That's the definition of interpreting the rule of law. It's called checks and balances.

As for obstructionism, it's a legitimate form of intra-government dissent. While it may not reflect the majority vote within the Senate, it's how the Senate is structured. Perhaps Senator Frist should remember that the next time he wishes to use the Constitution to his advantage.

The heart of the appointment issue is Bill Pryor's views and potential rulings worry Democrats. This next section briefly touches upon an issue that illustrates this concern.

As Alabama's attorney general, Pryor was a key figure in the removal of Chief Justice Roy Moore for defying a federal judge's order to take out a Ten Commandments monument from the judicial building in Montgomery, saying it violated the principle of separation of religion and state. Moore was removed from office in November.
...
Pryor, a Republican and self-professed conservative Christian, supported the monument's installation, but said Moore was bound to obey the judge's order.

That implies to me that he would rule differently than the order he was "bound to obey". However, openly confronting the issues when he's sworn to obey the law doesn't seem to be a problem. Consider this from an article in The Washington Post.

Pryor, 41, has described Roe v. Wade, the Supreme Court's landmark abortion rights decision, as "the worst abomination in the history of constitutional law." In 1997, his first year as Alabama attorney general, he invoked God's will while speaking at a Christian Coalition rally to defend a state judge who posted the Ten Commandments in his courtroom.

Ignoring the issues presented, I think behavior and the people's trust in impartiality is the key with this nomination and opposition. The current Attorney General for a state should not be speaking at a Christian Coalition rally and invoking God's name.

President Bush used this recess appointment because Senate Democrats filibustered Pryor's nomination. I stated that, while not necessarily the original spirit of the Constitution, it's within the literal interpretation. He's not breaking the law.

Allow me a moment to determine if I have this correct. Realizing that the original framers of the Constitution hadn't thought of every situation the United States may face, the Constitution's interpretation can be expanded to include what is deemed correct and necessary? Also, President Bush, frustrated by a branch of the government's refusal to make progress that he saw as correct, stepped in and took action himself to fix the mistake?

I've assessed the situation correctly. There is no difference between the actions of President Bush and Mayor Newsom. President Bush is a hypocrite.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

This just in: "The long-simmering rivalry between Virginia and Virginia Tech is being licensed."

Officials at both state schools have agreed to allow the sale of products that, within the bounds of good taste, disparage each other. Coming soon to a store near you: clothes, pennants, posters and key chains that give either a black eye to the Blacksburg school or a jolt to the jaw of Mr. Jefferson's University.

Money makes the world go around.

As one shirt soon to go on sale in Charlottesville puts it: "Friends don't let friends go to Virginia Tech."

As one soon to be on the shelves in Blacksburg replies: "Friends don't let friends go to U.Va."

Those shirts were available when I arrived in Blacksburg in August 1991. However, this is different because college students care about the licensing. And they don't download music, and they don't tear that label off the mattress.

Now that there are options, there's this:

...Tech has allowed only one product to feature the schools' rivalry at all: a small figurine of a Hokie football player "smushing" his Wahoo counterpart into the ground.

Please tell me we didn't say "smushing". It can't be true. Either we said "crushing his little pea-sized brain" or we said nothing at all. I know it's true.

Even the lure of money couldn't coax Virginia Tech into the deal until we joined the Atlantic Coast Conference, as this next quote explains:

"I think the university took the stance that we didn't want to play up the rivalry," [Tech licensing director Locke] White said. "It was kind of conservative."

For some reason, we've been looking to the past for our rival. Note to Tech: Virginia has been our main rival for years. Yes, we like to beat West Virginia, but steeeeeeeeeeeeeel. Any local observer in Blacksburg knows that Virginia inspires hatred like no other rivalry.

They refer to their school as The University and Mr. Jefferson's University. They think we're rednecks because we have cows. They think they're brilliant and we're the 13th grade.

This next quote proves their smugness:

Since both schools have to approve any design, slogan or insult that exploits the rivalry, it's safe to say the exchanges won't get too rough.

"I think the fans want this kind of thing," [Steve Heon, U.Va.'s licensing director] said. "But Virginia's got to have an opportunity to say, 'Wait, that's a little over the top.'"

Crybaby.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

I don't care who you are, this site is funny.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I'm amending yesterday's post to clarify my theory on good writing. The word "Brevity" isn't the best explanation for good writing. Here's the secret to good writing: "Omit needless words." In the example given yesterday, "well" is needless.

This advice is courtesy of On Writing by Stephen King and The Elements of Style by William Strunk and E.B. White. I would've remembered this yesterday, but the Spring Training euphoria clouded my brain.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

As I've already said, Spring Training started today. That may or may not set you off, but I'm fired up today. I can't get enough news, I can't hear enough glorious predictions, and I can't wait until I go to Clearwater next month.

In my perusing, I encountered an article from The Philadelphia Inquirer titled "Something's building in Florida" that discusses the 2004 season. I read every word, needing as much information about the Phillies as I can get.

Initially, I was frustrated by it. The key to good writing is brevity, so I despise writers using "well" when it's unnecessary. Consider this:

[The Phillies] faded last season, but have added a good deal of pitching and have a reasonable expectation that third baseman David Bell will be better because he is not injured and leftfielder Pat Burrell will be better because... well, because it would be hard for him to be worse.

The writer of the article, Bob Ford, built a great argument, incorporating several of the key issues facing the Phillies this season. But that ending kills all momentum. I dare you to tell me that "...and leftfielder Pat Burrell will be better because it would be hard for him to be worse." isn't an improvement to that sentence. If you try to tell me it isn't, I won't listen because you'd be wrong.

Even with my statement, many writers today would write "I won't listen because... well, because you'd be wrong." I'm not many writers.

At that point, I was concerned, but I'll take bad writing if it gives me baseball information. I continued reading and came to this:

The Phils will have to get along at shortstop with Jimmy Rollins, who is a wonderful fielder but has operated under the mistaken notion that he is also a power hitter.

You'd have to know something about baseball and the Phillies, but I can only say "Amen". Jimmy, you weigh a buck-nothing. You have speed. Stop being obtuse and understand your role. It's valuable to the team. Duh.

Next came this comment about replacing Jack Russell Stadium with Bright House Networks Field in Clearwater (the Phillies also open Citizens Bank Park in Philly this season):

The new stadium has a huge modern locker room and a video scoreboard, and there is no outfield wall advertisement for "Lou's Tattoos," which is an indication of something or other.

No "Lou's Tattoos"? Damn, damn, damn. I want tacky local advertisements. How will I enjoy Spring Training if I don't have the possibility that someone might hit a ball through the eyes of the Hooters owl? Seriously, how? The pain I feel right now is indescribable, so I'll show you what I'll be missing.

For his conclusion, Bob Ford wrote the following:

"Welcome back to baseball. Pitchers, catchers and optimism report today."

I wish I'd written that line.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Now that I have a new scanner, I'm pulling old photographs from their decade-long slumber. The first picture I had to scan was a photo taken by my brother. We were in Philadelphia on August 5, 1990 for Dale Murphy's second game as a Phillie.

While snapping pictures before the game, we noticed Murphy posing on the field for a photo. My brother took a picture of that scene. A few months later, I opened a pack of 1991 Donruss baseball cards and was stunned into silence. This is why:

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Phillies Spring Training is under way! That is all.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

President Bush is getting his workout today, again flinging around the term "activist judges". It's easy to label someone he doesn't like. Call them names, put them down, and maybe they'll go away. If not, at least he'll have "the people" behind him. The majority wins, no matter what.

Consider this:

"People need to be involved in this decision," Bush said. "Marriage ought to be defined by the people not by the courts. And I'm watching it carefully."

The courts are led by people. Those people are trained to interpret the law. When the law conflicts with the Constitution, as it may or may not in this case, it's the predefined role of the Judiciary to resolve it.

There is a term in software development used when something doesn't work as hoped but works according to requirements. The term is "works as designed". Some people wish to amend the Constitution, which is changing the requirements. Until we amend the Constitution to include the belief that all citizens are not equal, the legal system is working as designed. I'm being repetitive in this point, but I fail to understand the error in the process.

Concerning marriage licenses being issued in San Francisco, President Bush had this to say:

"I have watched carefully what's happening in San Francisco, where licenses were being issued, even though the law states otherwise," Bush said. "I have consistently stated that I'll support law to protect marriage between a man and a woman. Obviously these events are influencing my decision."

Marriage between a man and a woman is not under attack. Equal protection and privilege under the law is the issue.

The trouble that President Bush is having seems to be the morality of same-sex marriage. The Constitution, while influenced by the Bible, is still the supreme document of the United States. The Constitution and the Bill of Rights protect every citizen, and are slowly being interpreted to apply to every citizen. Until everyone enjoys the benefits, situations like this will continue.

The civil institution of marriage must be dictated by the Constitution's equal protection. However, any church that chooses not to perform same-sex marriage ceremonies is entitled to exercise that right. The law can't and shouldn't force religion to change. But the separation of church and state exists for a reason. Trying to encode theology into law isn't appropriate when the theology involves suggested, non-physical harm and negative consequences.

I know I keep writing about this, but it's what I care about right now, so this is what I have to give.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Regarding the same-sex marriage challenge underway in California, I want to comment on this argument from the Alliance Defense Fund's legal brief:

If a public official that is part of an administrative agency believes a statute is unconstitutional, he or she may not challenge it by open defiance. If any government official may ignore laws at will, laws have no force, and there is no liberty.

I've already expressed my views on this, so I'm not going to rehash them. I'm amused that their lawyers wrote such a poorly thought out brief. Allow me to pick a few nits with those two sentences.

First, "if a public official that..." is incorrect. Public officials are people, not things. "That" should be "who".

Second, any government official ignoring the law doesn't imply that laws have no force. Anyone can do anything at any time. I can speed while driving on the highway. You can steal Danielle's TV and dryer while she's traveling. The distinction they ignored is that there may be consequences.

Civil disobedience has brought about change when rational arguments couldn't. This act by San Francisco Mayor Gavin Newsom may work. It may fail. The point is that he believes he is upholding California's constitution. Now that some of the citizenry disagrees, the courts will decide.

Third, when laws have no force, there is liberty, contrary to the Alliance Defense Fund's argument. Without laws, we're all free to do everything without repercussions. However, when laws have no force, we're likely to have anarchy. That would've been the logical conclusion to the argument, not the absence of liberty.

Now consider this:

Randy Thomasson, founder of Campaign for California Families, called the marriages "a political stunt by an out-of-control mayor who obviously wants to make law by bending the constitution."

...

"This is as much about protecting our system of government and respect for the law as it is about the protection of marriage," Thomasson said.

Again ignoring my beliefs on this issue, I think our system of government is working as designed. San Francisco saw an act of civil disobedience that many believe to be wrong. What response did they give? Did they march on San Francisco's City Hall and burn it down? Did they tar and feather Mayor Newsom?

None of this happened. No coup, no chaos, no anarchy. The courts will decide, which is how disagreements are resolved in America when both sides can't agree.

I can't figure out how this is destroying America.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

Getting in line, I relaxed slightly, but couldn't feel joyous about my accomplishment. I'd skied down, but with many false starts and spills. I had to do it again, but I knew my second trip would be like my first. Cold, wet, and painful.

The line for the South chair lift wasn't crowded, so we headed up the mountain without a wait. Still learning how to walk in skis, I scooted to the starting line, just ahead of our chair. Trying to let the chair catch me from underneath, I anticipated its arrival. I misjudged and got smacked in the leg. It knocked me backward, slamming my butt into the seat.

Generally, they did an excellent job of sweeping snow from the chair, but that doesn't make it warmer. The temperature was mild, but the metal bars of the chair held the cold. Because I'd skied slowly down the slope, I hadn't built up a good workout sweat. I shivered, from the cold and the anticipation of having to ski down the slope again.

Danielle encouraged me and worked to focus me on my success and improvement, but I dreaded the experience, so I answered with "yeah, but". For every incident of me doing something well, however monumental (tiny monumental, but still monumental), I'd point out a little kid skiing with ease down the slope beneath us.

As we continued the journey up, it reminded me of how long the slope was. It'd taken us a few minutes to ride up the first slope, and much longer to ski down as a result of my stalling.

As we reached the top of the mountain, I tried to anticipate how the next journey would turn out. Fortunately, the incline down from the chair to the top of the slope was smaller than the first ride, so I managed this exit without a dismount. Danielle skied ahead to the map while I adjusted my gloves and hat. Hoping to map the quickest route to the parking lot, I joined her for the planning session.

As I looked at the map, I felt bad for her that she was only going to get 2 trips down the slopes and she's an excellent skier. I suggested that, once we reached the bottom, I'd hang out in the lodge while she skied a few more times. She agreed that we could do that, if I wanted. She reminded me that I was doing well for my first time. Uh, huh.

Looking at the map now, notice that the top of the South Chair lift is the highest peak depicted on the mountain. Forget Everest. I'd reached the top of the world and I had to descend at once if I intended to live another day.

Based on this new plan to make this my last run, we decided to bypass Snow Ball and ski Twinkle, diverting at the Lower Shuttle to end up at the lodge. Scary, but I (incorrectly) figured that half of the journey was sideways across the mountain, so I could manage it. I took a deep breath and we departed.

The path from the map to Twinkle had a slight incline, but it wasn't steep. Gravity took hold and I accelerated at a manageable pace. Intending to slow down, I scanned around me and noticed traffic. Any drastic panic now would ripple through behind me. I focused on the path instead.

Being in the middle of the lane, I wanted to avoid blocking everyone when I fell, so I edged to the right side of the trail. Once I'd reached the edge, I realized what I'd done. I'd adjusted my skis to turn right, while moving. Amazed, I edged my way to the left. I only moved a few feet to the left, but I moved where I'd intended to move. What was happening?

Instead of sliding quickly down the mountain, I was skiing. I was moving faster, but under control and in my direction of choice. Before I let my mind interfere again, I focused forward and picked up a little more speed. I didn't want anything dangerous, but I knew I'd unlocked the fear so that it could fade away with continued focus and effort.

Danielle reached the clearing at the top of Twinkle ahead of me, so she'd stopped to check on my progress. She saw me skiing toward her, under control and on pace with everyone around me. Surprised, she smiled, then faced the slope and skied towards the Lower Shuttle. I followed.

I didn't have enough confidence to ski straight through the turn onto the Lower Shuttle that I knew was coming, so I stopped after I passed Twinkle's first hill. There was a hill to surmount before the Lower Shuttle, but I wasn't afraid of it. I wanted to gather my thoughts, focus on the task, and plot my entry into the narrow path that constituted the first half of the Lower Shuttle.

Danielle waited. She was too far away for us to talk, but I could see how excited she was that I'd let go and skied. I gave the thumbs up, followed by a wave to indicate that I needed a second.

I needed to plot my path from the right side of the slope to the left, where I'd connect with the Lower Shuttle. Since left turns were my only strength in the beginning, this didn't concern me. I looked over my left shoulder to determine the number of people behind.

On the slopes, the person in front of you has the right of way. I knew I'd need that, but sudden moves causing fellow skiers to careen out of control didn't seem wise. I only needed a short opening because I'd pick up speed this time, but there were a couple of people near me. While I waited, I decided to ski at an angle to the left to cover some distance, ski down the hill to gain speed, then ski left into the Lower Shuttle. I'd use this speed to get as far as I could before I'd have to walk the shuttle. I signaled to Danielle as the traffic behind me cleared. We departed for the hill.

I followed my plan exactly. I'd maneuvered left to the middle of the slope when I reached the hill. I went down, picking up speed as intended. As I neared the bottom of the hill, I turned left and zipped into the Lower Shuttle.

Before I could get overjoyed at the accomplishment, I had to navigate the narrow path. It was ominously lined with orange latticed tape. I'd seen enough competitive skiing on television to know that patches of orange latticed tape, while a warning, also has magnetic powers to attract skis. I used my motorcycle training to "look where I wanted to go". It worked. Into the turn at a reasonable rate of speed, I turned toward the middle of the shuttle. Unfortunately, I didn't know that the shuttle has a slight incline, so I didn't have sufficient speed to reach the top.

Danielle didn't know that either, so I noticed her in front of me trudging her way up the incline. I caught up with her.

"I can't believe it. I did it!"

She smiled back at me. "I knew you could. How do you like it now?"

"I don't know how I did it. I was following you, then I realized that I was skiing, so I kept going."

"You're doing a great job."

We reached the top of the incline. Thunder Run opened onto the Lower Shuttle, so I asked "Which way are we going?" That's a stupid question, but I was so scared at the top of the slope that I didn't focus on other slopes. Danielle pointed to the right, where I saw the shuttle open onto the end of Mistletoe, where we'd begun our introductory lesson only a few hours earlier.

We skied towards the end, Danielle next to me until we reached the opening. As we neared I told Danielle to go ahead. The end of Mistletoe would be the steepest incline I'd encountered, so I wanted to make sure no one was near me as I skied down. I stopped and looked around. I let the fear creep back, but quickly squashed that. I took a deep breath, decided to go, and took off.

I swooped back and forth, making exaggerated turns to slow myself down. Once I neared the end, I straightened up and skied to the end. I made an intentional hard stop, turning left and spraying snow to my right s I turned. I raised my hands in triumph. I looked around for Danielle.

Waiting at the chair lift, she smiled. I ventured in her direction, remembering the steep journey to the chair lift. As I neared her, she asked "do you want to leave now?"

"We have to do that again. Right now."

I couldn't believe it. I'd made it down the slope faster than it took us to go up the chair lift and it wasn't me tumbling wildly out of control. I loved skiing more than anything in the world at that moment. By accident, I let the joy open for me. I couldn't wait to do it again.

I chatted like a little kid while Danielle smiled and reaffirmed how well I'd done. The lift came and carried us up the slope again. As we rode up the slope, snow began to fall. A snow mobile rode up the slope below us. That Guy rode past us down the chair lift.

Looking around while we chatted, the mountain no longer looked intimidating. I watched little kids jetting around other skiers and snowboarders racing down the hill. I understood why they did it instead of being perplexed by it.

I noticed the snowboarder in front of us didn't have his safety bar pulled down. "That guy is balls-to-the-wall," I said.

"Did you just say balls-to-the-wall?"

"I did because that guy is crazy and doesn't have the safety bar down." I pointed. She laughed and agreed.

We reached the top of the lift. I prepared for the exit, pointing my skis perpendicular to the ground. My skis settled onto the ramp. I stood up. Learning from my last experience, I leaned forward. I zoomed down the ramp and away from the lift. Cleared from the lift, I was still standing. Outstanding.

We skied to the South Shuttle. Again, learning from my last experience, I picked skied down the first hill, picking up speed instead of slowing myself down. After running out of momentum again, we walked scooted to the opening for Twinkle. Without pause, we headed down.

Skiing down the slope, turning left and right to slow myself when necessary, I approached the Lower Shuttle within seconds. This trip, I had enough speed to maintain my momentum. Once again, I noticed the orange latticed tape, then shifted my sight to where I wanted to go.

Racing through the shuttle, I looked at Danielle and said "Is this green?"

Laughing, she said no. I'm glad I didn't know that before because I would've been nervous. With my ignorance, I'd skied the harder part of a Blue Square shuttle on my second and third trips down a slope.

We continued through the shuttle, me following behind Danielle. I didn't pause at Mistletoe, choosing to ski it while I had momentum. When we reached the bottom, there was no question we'd be skiing again. We headed to the chair lift.

We got in line and caught the chair lift almost immediately. For a beautiful January day, the crowd was perfect. I don't have any comparison, but the weather was wonderful, so I'd assume it would pull more skiers. No complaints.

On the lift, we continued chatting. Danielle almost dropped her poles. I almost dropped my gloves. Snow accumulated on our clothes. The snow mobile passed under us again.

At the top, we followed the same path to Twinkle. When we reached the entrance to Thunder Run, Danielle decided that she wanted to ski a Blue Square. I told her I'd be fine and I'd meet her on the Lower Shuttle. She headed down as I worked my way to Twinkle.

Once at Twinkle, I took off immediately, despite some apprehension that if I wiped out, I'd have no familiar face to rescue me. I didn't need to worry.

I entered the South Shuttle at my fastest speed yet, focusing on making a tighter turn to the inside once I'd reached it. This worked perfectly, except for one thing.

When I reached Danielle, who was waiting for me, I said "I can't see a shittin', fuckin' thing." She started laughing.

"Seriously, the falling snow is in my face. I'm skiing with my eyes nearly closed. But I don't trust the goggles."

"Are you going to be ok," she asked.

"I'll be fine. I just need to get real goggles for next time."

We continued through the Lower Shuttle and headed towards the bottom of Mistletoe.

I let Danielle go ahead while I adjusted my hat and scarf against the snow. I didn't want to get snow in my face as I tackled the steep bottom of Mistletoe. After checking the traffic, I journeyed down the slope. Danielle was waiting in at the chair lift with her camera. Here's the video she took:

We got on the chair lift again. While journeying up the mountain, we chatted about my readiness for a Blue Square. I knew I wouldn't ski one that day, but it was an interesting turn from being frustrated by the sport earlier in the day. As we rode up, the snow mobile passed us again on its way up the mountain.

At the top, we noticed the beauty of the trees as the lights came on and snow continued to fall. Since we were taking a moment to enjoy the experience, I knew it was the right time to bring up an important topic.

"We should decide now how many more trips down the mountain we're going to take. We're too excited at the bottom to say no and it's getting colder. I also need to munch."

"That's a good idea. How many more trips do you think?"

"We should just make this the last one."

"I agree, two more trips is perfect."

"Two?"

"Yes, three more and then we're done."

"Ok, we'll take two more, then see how we feel. Agreed?"

"Agreed."

We skied over to Twinkle.

Part five (the ending) still to come...

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Danielle received a comment on her entry "ICH BIN EIN GOOGLE RESULTAT", plugging RollingDoughnut.com because I get better Google searches. Specifically, Gump left the following comment for Danielle: "I am jealous that Tony is just out there without a host. How many readers does he get?"

In just a statement and a question, Gump summed up my webmaster duties for my blog. I chose to set up this site on my own, to code it and to maintain it for one simple reason: I love the challenge of figuring out new tasks. If the new task is related to technology, it's even better. I love that I'm only constrained by my imagination. If I want to add a database to my blog, I can do that. If I want to add a guestbook, I can code that. It takes me longer than just snapping together assembled parts like Legos, but it's more fun for me. Since no one is paying me to do this, I'm going to have fun.

There's nothing wrong with sites like Diaryland and LiveJournal. They can even make life easier for writers. With the built-in community, they enable writers to get readers quicker. But they don't suit my mentality.

I've chosen to bypass that and build everything myself. Initially, I was doing it because I like the "empire building" involved in starting from scratch. Rather than torture, becoming a hermit, learning to code a website is my idea of a glorious adventure.

Yet, as much fun as I have in my empire building, I've learned that the true value is in giving my writing time to evolve and improve. Looking back over some of my earliest posts, I'm stunned by the progression. As I near my 100th post, I now have an archive that allows new readers to jump in. I can begin marketing with a foundation to support my "sales pitch".

The result of my labor is that I now get between 7 and 10 unique hits every day. Even though that doesn't seem huge, I've seen my hits creep upward over the last few months.

I write for the joy of writing, not the readership. Whether the number is 7, 70, or 700 people who read my site, I write for myself and everyone else is a bonus. But I enjoy that people are reading my words. I know everyone won't agree with me, but people are thinking about my ideas. What more could I ask for, besides $100,000?

In conclusion, I like independence. It's good.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Students around the nation are promoting today as the Day of Purity to promote abstinence outside of marriage among teens. I don't have a problem with encouraging sexual abstinence for teens because most are not mature enough to handle the ramifications. However, "purity" is an awful choice to describe this.

Mimicking my thoughts is this quote:

"The word 'purity' in this context is morally self-righteous," said Alice Leeds, a spokeswoman for Parents, Families and Friends of Lesbians and Gays. "It's redefining it in their context to conform to their frankly bigoted agenda."

It's too easy to throw words around instead of ideas, so I wouldn't use "bigoted" to describe it. "Morally self-righteous" was correct. Misguided, too. Purity in this context implies that not engaging in sex is pure and engaging in sex is dirty. Generalizations won't make the situation better.

Encouraging teens to have sex is not good policy. Pretending that teens don't engage in sex is worse. As it's taught here, it's thought control with no more support than "Because we say so". I didn't like that argument as a kid and I know teens haven't changed since then.

Consider this:

"A lot of girls feel that in order to keep their relationship, they have to have sex," said Kelly Cruse, 16, who plans to pass out sexual abstinence literature at her high school in Illinois. "I think this need for acceptance is very destructive to a girl."

Sex isn't the issue in this example. Any girl who feels pressured to have sex, regardless of age, shouldn't be engaging in sex. We need to teach children to have confidence and strength of character. We must treat children as people instead of owned things. When a child has that foundation, he/she will make quality choices. We're too busy teaching them what to think that we overlook teaching them how to think.

Now that I've offered my thoughts, I present this picture. It's so fundamentally stupid that I'm not going to comment.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

Spending $200 for shoes is absurd, but $200 for a phone is a bargain.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I spent 15 minutes discussing shoes with a woman in my office. She now has 90 pair of shoes, after throwing 20 away when she moved. I'm amazed that anyone could own that many shoes. As you'll remember, I did admit to becoming a shoe whore for Chucks, but I know I haven't owned 90 pair of shoes in my lifetime.

However, since I've learned from the master, I knew to ask the correct question. "Have you ever bought shoes that weren't the right size because you needed that specific model?" My co-worker started laughing hysterically, then nodded that she had. Chalk one up for straight men.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

President Bush is supporting the proposed Federal Marriage Amendment introduced by Rep. Marilyn Musgrave (R-Colo.). This is wrong. The wording of the proposed amendment is:

Marriage in the United States shall consist only of the union of a man and a woman. Neither this Constitution or the constitution of any State, nor state or federal law, shall be construed to require that marital status or the legal incidents thereof be conferred upon unmarried couples or groups.

When the word "only" appears in an amendment, it's a sign that someone gets a right and someone else doesn't. This is unacceptable. Perhaps the Judiciary branch has become too activist, perhaps not. That isn't an excuse to encourage activist, reactionary Legislative and Executive branches. Bad law will result from this mentality.

Here are a few links to sites for and against this amendment. Against the amendment. For the amendment. Against the amendment. For the amendment.

I care which side people vote for, but the main factor here is that this isn't going away. Inaction is worse than action. We're all going to deal with the divisive ramifications.

As for my opinion, it's ideas like this that scare me:

What’s wrong with letting same-sex couples legally "marry?"

There are two key reasons why the legal rights, benefits, and responsibilities of civil marriage should not be extended to same-sex couples.

The first is that homosexual relationships are not marriage. That is, they simply do not fit the minimum necessary condition for a marriage to exist - namely, the union of a man and a woman.

The second is that homosexual relationships are harmful. Not only do they not provide the same benefits to society as heterosexual marriages, but their consequences are far more negative than positive.

Either argument, standing alone, is sufficient to reject the claim that same-sex unions should be granted the legal status of marriage.

Stupidity. Not one of those arguments is backed by thought. I imagine these people respond with "Because!". Brilliant.

Worst of all, this is the reason given for the sudden push:

Republican officials said Bush's decision to proceed now was driven partly by his desire to start the general election campaign on a fresh issue, at a time when his credibility has been battered by questions about prewar warnings of unconventional weapons in Iraq, as well as doubts raised by Democrats about his National Guard service.

The Republican party admits that the president is trying to divert our attention from an issue that he doesn't want to talk about. How is this acceptable? I fear that this is going to work. We are a nation of lemmings.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I wanted a snack this afternoon, so I went to the vending machine. My normal purchase is the trail mix, the kind with sunflower seeds, almonds, raisins, and peanuts. A perfect snack. When I went to the machine, the vendor had restocked with one yogurt trail mix in front of the regular variety. Thanks for nothing.

Not wanting to spend 80 cents just to spend another 80 cents, I opted not to buy both. Instead, I spent the 80 cents on a Hostess Lemon Fruit Pie. I knew I wouldn't eat it because of the eggs or milk or whatever it would inevitably have in it. It was a curiousity purchase to learn the ingredients, an investment in knowledge. Now I know that Hostess bakes beef fat into their Lemon Fruit Pie.

My name isn't Joey Tribiani, so you won't hear me say "What’s not to like? Custard? Good. Jam? Good. Meat? Gooooood."

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (4)

A few minutes ago, CNN ran a segment about today's Democratic Primaries. The anchor posed the question of whether or not Southerners would be able to accept "the Democratic front-runner, Northerner John Kerry".

I resent the implication that I would not vote for him because he's a Northerner and I'm a Southerner.

Surveys of voters in Tennessee and Virginia have shown Kerry leading those races, despite being a Massachusetts Yankee running against two men with Southern roots.

I care about issues and ideas, not birthplace. Contrary to popular perception, I don't still reminisce about the "War of Northern Aggression".

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

I voted for General Wes Clark in today's Virginia Democratic Primary. I admit that I have not voted in every election since I turned 18, but I always vote in Presidential and Congressional elections. Voting is good, mmmmmmmkay.

In elections, I've always voted for Democrats. In my first elections, it was because I considered myself a democrat. However, I've always had an independent view. Socially, I believe in hands off involvement. The government's job in social issues is to protect civil rights, not to suppress them. Economically, capitalism has worked for more than two centuries, in spite of politicians. I want a responsible tax policy (flat tax) and a balanced budget. I have simple political ideals and goals.

The 2000 Presidential election was the first time I stretched my mind around my ritual "Vote Democrat" mindset. Despite Joe Lieberman's censorship rhetoric, I voted for Gore in the election because he was the least objectionable to me. That year, I also voted in the Republican primary.

The only "requirement" for voting in that primary was that I acknowledge, on my honor, that I would not vote in another party's primary. Since the Democrats weren't holding a primary because Gore was the incumbent nominee, I had no problem signing that. (Yes, I had to sign a piece of paper. I didn't have to sign anything today.)

In that primary, I voted for John McCain as a vote against George W. Bush. Walking into the polling station, I felt weird voting Republican. Walking out, I felt liberated from the rigid party mentality. Because of social issues, I'll still be surprised if I ever vote Republican, but if the Republicans nominate a social "live and let live" candidate, I'd consider it.

At times, I've thought my reliance on social issues might be too narrow, but I'm comfortable with it. No individual social issue will rule my vote, but a collection of them will. I believe that the free market will ultimately determine the economy and bad economic politicians will be voted out. That doesn't happen with social issues. Bad policy becomes law and then takes years to repeal or overturn. Civil liberties and freedom are the basis for America. Without them, we're no different than a common dictatorship.

Today, we're moving in the wrong direction. Censorship is encouraged to preserve family values. Our president wants to amend the U.S. Constitution to define marriage as one man and one woman. A few years ago, the Congress proposed a Constitutional amendment to ban flag burning. Rights are under attack and the right to vote is every citizen's first defense.

The Constitution has been amended once to take away citizen's rights. Prohibition was a disaster which was later repealed. Any new amendment reducing liberty is a crime against the spirit of the Constitution, yet this great nation has considered it twice in the last 5 years. It's time for responsibility.

My purpose is not to make anyone agree with me. Obviously I believe I'm correct, but the point is that because someone doesn't agree with my views, that doesn't permit them to take my rights away. Your reward for living in America is that you get to live your life as you wish. Your penalty is that I get to live as I wish.

I don't think it'll make good business sense to start showing breasts on prime time television, but the law shouldn't remove the right if public sentiment changes. I don't want to marry a man, but someone else wants to show that commitment to the man he loves. I don't want to burn the flag, but someone else believes that is how she should express herself. If any of those actions happen, who has been harmed? No one will suffer physical injury, so our government's role is satisfied. As for non-physical injury and mental anguish, that is up to the individual. If you disagree, turn off the TV, don't associate with homosexuals, fly 3 flags in your front yard. You have that right. Do you mind if I take it away?

Vote in 2004.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Until a few days ago, The Washington Post tracked its online readers through browser cookies, storing gender, birth year, and zip code. They finally got wise that this was insufficient at best. My tracking info told them that I am a 39 year-old female living in Maryland, so it may have been incorrect, as well.

After several years of this, they learned, so the site now requires registration. When I first logged on, I was annoyed. The marketing people may have figured out that I was lying to them, but they haven't gotten smarter. The new "slogan" is ridiculous. "REGISTER NOW. IT'S FREE AND IT'S REQUIRED." Wow, that gives me the warm-fuzzies.

Unfortunately, I still need my fix of Redskins news. I started to register.

When I got to Year of Birth, I entered the real value, then saw the note that says "under 13? Go here."This is the web page that pops up:

It's obvious that they're following the law. However, why should kids under 13 be excluded from reading the "regular" news? Is it just for adults? Will there be boobs? What, pray tell, is the explanation?

Since I've read the garbage that is the print edition of the KidsPost, I assumed the explanation is that The Washington Post believes kids are stupid. To find out, I clicked the link in the popup window. You can click the picture to see where the link ends up.

Let me make sure I understand this. The kids are the stupid ones who shouldn't be reading the news? How are they supposed to read the sanitized, dumbed-down news intended for them if the adults programming the site can't get the links coordinated?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

When I get ready for work in the morning, I watch music videos on MTV Hits, VH1 Classic, VH1 Mega Hits, and VH1 Country. I know it's a bizarre concept, but I actually like videos more than Carmen Electra describing the shoes she wore to the Grammy's. I'm old school like that.

Danielle woke me up to Joss Stone a few weeks ago, and I can't stop listening to The Soul Sessions. Today, the video for "Fell In Love With A Boy" came on VH1 Mega Hits. I've seen bits of the video, but never from the beginning so I stopped putting my socks on and watched the video.

Correctly, the brilliant minds at VH1 Mega Hits decided that I'd like the video better if I could watch a giant white box cover the top right quarter of the screen. The regular networks haven't gone far enough in their screen usage. I, the viewer, do not want a transparent network symbol in the corner of the screen. There is too much crap on television, so I'd rather watch something on top of the program. Instead of giving me the logo, VH1 Mega Hits offered me an "Inside Track" into Joss Stone that filled the quarter-screen white box.

In this beautiful box, I got a great bit of useful information. Specifically, I learned that Joss Stone has a big voice. VH1 has taught me that my eyes are a better judge of her voice than my ears. The mystery is revealed.

As a final ummph, VH1 offered this statement about Joss Stone in the wonderful white box: "Dusty Springfield, watch your back."

That's stupid. If I have to tell you why, please do a Google search for Dusty Springfield.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

Dear NFL,

I missed the Pro Bowl last night. I wrote about it several times last week, but forgot that it was on. I still don't know who won. What does that tell you?

Thank you,
Tony

P.S. How was the halftime show?

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

JC Chasez was so upset about being removed from the Pro Bowl halftime show that he told the NFL to kiss his ass. Yesterday, I made this suggestion to him.

A quick tangent... JC, my friend. It's clear you've been listening to me since you told the NFL to kiss your ass. Why won't you answer my other question? You know the one I'm talking about. I promise, if you answer, I'll stop asking. Thanks.

Returning from the tangent... No one should quietly walk away from getting beaten down for something other people did. Thanks to more moral grandstanding from the NFL, he finally reached his boiling point.

"I have had a great relationship with the NFL in the past and feel that I have been mistreated," Chasez said in a statement, adding that he's won't sing The Star-Spangled Banner before Sunday's annual all-star game in Honolulu.

...

"While I agree the mishap at the Super Bowl was a huge mistake, the NFL's shallow effort to portray my music as sexually indecent brings to mind another era when innocent artists were smeared with a broad brush by insecure but powerful people," Chasez said in his statement. "That's not the America I love. Nor is this the NFL I love. I'll sing the national anthem anytime, anywhere, but not for this NFL."

You go on with your bad self, JC. And thanks for these quotes from your inner diva:

"I decided to be obliging. I wanted to go with the flow and I wanted to be a team player, I wanted to come to the NFL's rescue," Chasez told the AP. "If that's what it will take to put out a fire, then fine, I'll do the Drumline song."

...

Chasez also complained that he passed on a chance to be at Sunday's Grammy Awards because of his planned Pro Bowl appearance. "Now I have to jockey for my position back in there," he told the AP.

The NFL responded with a non-response:

McCarthy's [NFL Spokesman] response: "We're not going to debate him. We made our decision and we're going to move on."

Why not? Unlike the Pro Bowl, I would watch a debate between JC Chasez and the NFL.

Finally, I have to respond to this statement from the NFL:

McCarthy said it was unclear who would sing the national anthem before Sunday's Pro Bowl, which is airing on ESPN.

The answer is obvious: William Hung.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (3)

The NFL has lost its mind. They axed JC Chasez from performing at the Pro Bowl halftime show because he might, maybe, could, sorta, possibly do something they don't like. This is a great pre-emptive strike to protect the hearts and minds of the nation's fragile citizens.

I understand that JC Chasez's current single is Some Girls (Dance With Women). I didn't know that before reading the article, but stick with me, I'm making a point. I've even seen him perform in person, so I know what kind of entertainment he can offer. See for yourself.

All of that should raise sufficient suspicion about his planned Pro Bowl halftime show. However, I suspect he's smart enough to know that a repeat of the Super Bowl halftime show would be unwise. That makes this next statement nothing but action for the sake of action.

"The commissioner said Monday morning that we will change our policies and procedures as it relates to entertainment during our games," league spokesman Brian McCarthy said. "This is immediate action that reflects that approach."

Chasez responded through his record company with this statement:

"No one could be more disappointed than I that the NFL has canceled my halftime performance at the Pro Bowl this coming Sunday," Chasez said. "I've told the NFL I understand the pressure that they are under since the Super Bowl."

He should've told them to kiss his ass.

Even though he was cordial, he's still going to have the last laugh. Anyone (me) who thinks the Super Bowl halftime show is a crapfest, wait until we see the sanitized Pro Bowl halftime show. My heart is fluttering at the thought of "200 hula dancers, 1,000 other dancers, drummers and a new song called Welcome to my Paradise". That is the result of moral, indignant grandstanding.

If the NFL allows JC Chasez to attend the Super Bowl, at least he'll be on hand to dry Paul Tagliabue's tears when the Pro Bowl ratings come out. Maybe JC will offer his Burberry scarf for the task.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I received this response to yesterday's e-mail. To his credit, he gave some thought to what I said and addressed the issues rather than offering "political speak" as to why he's right and I should be thankful that he's fighting to protect me from the world's evil-doers. Here's the e-mail:

I apologize for the mistake in responding to your previous e-mail.

I agree with your assessment that attempting to ban specific words could run into significant First Amendment issues. As you know, it has always been difficult to define obscenity and indecency, a fact illustrated by the FCC Enforcement Board's October decision on Bono's use of the F-word. Another historical example is U.S. Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart's famous claim that while he could not describe obscenity, he would know it when he saw it.

I think the move to significantly increase fines for the broadcast of indecent material, as well as the public backlash against the Superbowl halftime show, and to a lesser extent Bono's acceptance speech, will make networks reconsider whether pushing the envelope on decency standards is really in their best interests. That is why I chose to highlight some of the legislative developments with regard to these efforts in my previous email.

Regarding your specific oposition to H.R. 3687, I am not a cosponsor and do not foresee it coming before the House. I do, however, think there will be further reviews of the FCC's oversight of decency standards in the appropriate committees of jurisdiction.

Again, I apologize for not closely reading your E-mail. Your anger is justifiable, however, I hope my past and future representation of you would give you pause to reconsider your opposition to my future service.

Sincerely,

Tom Davis
Member of Congress

As ridiculous as this situation got, it's a reminder that this is a great country. I can deal directly with my elected government officials and not fear retribution. I highly recommend such an experience to everyone.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

A few weeks ago, I posted my views on H.R. 3687. In that post, I mentioned that I e-mailed my Congressman and the Chairman and Commissioners of the FCC. I expected a letter in the mail, but received an e-mail response instead. Here is what the e-mail said:

Thank you for writing to let me know of your support for H.R. 3687. I appreciate hearing from you on this issue.

As you know, there have been several instances of foul language being used during award shows over the past year. In October, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) Enforcement Board ruled that the use of the F-word, as used by the performer Bono during the Golden Globe awards, did not meet the definition of indecent behavior and therefore did not merit punishment. Many expressed concern that this ruling was in error and that to allow such language on broadcast television, regardless of the context, should be considered indecent. Concerns were also raised that the ruling would create a sprint to the bottom as celebrities and networks tried to one-up each other with increasingly outrageous behavior and language. Unfortunately, the halftime show at the Superbowl proved this was a valid concern.

In response to these events, FCC Chairman Powell announced that he would have the five FCC commissioners review the ruling of the Enforcement Board's ruling on the Bono incident and that he supported overturning the decision. In addition, Chairman Powell also announced he would seek to raise the maximum fine for decency violations by a factor of ten, from the current $27,500 per incident to $275,000 per incident.

The House Energy and Commerce Committee, which has jurisdiction over broadcast matters, recently held a hearing to examine the FCC's enforcement policies on decency matters. At this hearing, Representative Fred Upton (R-MI) announced he would be introducing a bill to do as Powell suggested, that is, increasing fines by a factor of ten. I expect this legislation will come before the House in the near future. When it does, I plan to support it.

Again, thank you for taking the time to share your concerns. I hope you will continue to share your views with me in the future.

Sincerely,
Tom Davis
Member of Congress

I responded immediately. Here's what I wrote:

Congressman Davis,

If you'd actually read my e-mail to Congressman Davis, you would know that I do NOT support H.R. 3687. Allow me to paste the content of my previous e-mail here. It was as follows:

>>>>

After reading that the FCC would rule that no use of the "f-word" is acceptable on the airwaves, I discovered that HR 3687 is under consideration. As a constituent of yours, I do not support this bill because it ignores the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution.

While I am not offended by such language, I understand that others may be offended. However, the purpose of the constitution is to provide majority rule while protecting the rights of the minority. Free speech is a right, not a priviledge. Do not support this bill.

>>>>

I think the content of the bill is an outrage and illegal under the Constitution. If you support this bill, at least know that you are NOT representing my beliefs or the ideals of the United States.

As for the Super Bowl, the "controversy" was blown out of proportion. I do not feel the halftime display was appropriate, but I also believe that there is too much self-righteous indignation surrounding the event. Please learn to trust Americans to think for themselves.

Based on this issue, I am mortified that you represent my district. Because I support the Constitution, we don't share the same views. At a minimum, I expect my Congressman to be able to determine that my last e-mail was not a support for H.R. 3687. Please know that I will be working to support any candidate that runs against you in the next election.

Thank you,
Tony

My tax dollars at work. If you're not registered to vote, this is the reason you need to register immediately and vote every November. Stunning.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (2)

I need to rant one more time about the Super Bowl halftime show. This post will be disjointed because I'm going to quote this article and comment on each quote. So it begins...

Executives at PepsiCo, historically one of the largest and most successful Super Bowl advertisers, are threatening to pull out of next year's Super Bowl if they're not given clear assurances that such an incident won't happen again. "We're very serious about this," PepsiCo spokesman Mark Dollins said.

PepsiCo executives also were disappointed that viewers were talking more about the Jackson incident than the commercials. "It speaks to our extreme disappointment that all that quality work has been overshadowed," Dollins said. The various PepsiCo brands, including Frito-Lay, Sierra Mist and Pepsi, aired six commercials on Sunday's broadcast.

I know why people are talking about this more than the commercials: the commercials sucked. And what Janet Jackson revealed was no worse than some of the commercials Pepsi has aired. And Pepsi has no right to be indignant. Until they stop selling sugar water that rots bodies, they aren't allowed to be indignant about a semi-bare breast rotting minds.

The incident shocked a society that seems to be ever more unshockable, but this time it might have gone too far for many Americans. On one side of the debate: outraged citizens who immediately lit up the CBS switchboard with complaints.

Their sentiments were no doubt much like those of M.B. Ellis, 78, owner of a small publishing house in Mobile, Ala., who wrote in a letter to USA TODAY's Sports section: "What a depressing display of filth, obscenity, cruelty, and just plain stupidity! What ever happened to dignity and good taste in this country?"

"What's in line for next year's halftime show?" asked Ed Zak, 43, a father of three from New Smyrna Beach, Fla. "How about two 'artists' having sex at the 50-yard line - all in the name of NFL entertainment. When you do, please give us a head's up so I can prepare myself how to explain to my kids what they watched."

I'm not unshockable, but I'm not shocked by this. This is stupid. And if you're so upset, why write to USA Today? What can they do about it?

The Super Bowl's halftime show itself has become something to watch as it has become edgier. It has gone from marching bands and Up With People to attention-getting pop stars in elaborately produced spectacles. And it's gobbled up by the viewers.

Because lemmings love a good crapfest.

Sex literally sells: A piece of jewelry similar to the one Jackson was wearing on her breast was available on eBay before the day was out. A sun shield design for pierced nipples had an opening bid of $19.99 and was touted "as seen on TV!"

Did it literally sell? Are people buying them or are they just for sale? There is a difference.

For its part, AOL, which spent an estimated $10 million to sponsor the halftime show and broadcast several ads and promos during and before the game, said it's not very happy with the outcome. The company dropped plans to offer Internet access to rebroadcasts of the show "in deference to our membership and the fans," said Ruth Sarfaty, an AOL spokeswoman.

"In deference" to their membership and the fans? Dear AOL: I already have a mommy, thanks. Since you think I need a new one, I don't ask her approval when I want to watch something on TV or the internet. I'm never going to ask for your approval.

Parents Television Council president Brent Bozell rejected the denials. "The performance, including the offensive material, was obviously scripted," he said in a statement issued by his parents advocacy group. "We find Justin Timberlake's apology and explanation to be dishonest and disingenuous."

I'll group this with the next quote.

The Family Research Council and the Southern Baptist Convention also denounced the show. Council president Tony Perkins urged the FCC on Monday to hold CBS accountable. "CBS should know better than to turn the halftime entertainment over to MTV, which relishes its ability to shock. CBS would do well to adhere to the adage 'If you sleep with dogs, you'll get fleas.' I am sure there is a lot of scratching going on at CBS today."

Thanks for judging people. Justin Timberlake is a liar and "CBS should know better". Family values protecting our nation. Kick ass.

Some ad experts didn't buy official explanations, either. Jerry Della Femina, ad guru and CEO of Della Femina, Rothschild, Jeary & Partners, a Manhattan-based ad agency, said Monday that even if the networks weren't aware that Jackson was going to bare her breast, CBS should have known what to expect.

"When CBS put these people on the halftime show, they had to know what they would get. They are screaming, 'This is terrible.' It's like Claude Rains discovering there's gambling at Rick's in Casablanca: 'I'm shocked, shocked.' For CBS it's a little too late."

This is a brilliant PR stunt. Get your ad agency talked about while moralizing. Maybe they can produce ads for The Family Research Council.

But not everyone was unhappy. TiVo Inc., which makes digital video recorders enabling instantaneous replay, said viewership of the revealing moment nearly doubled that of the rest of the broadcast, the biggest jump the company has ever measured.

And how does TiVo know this? Because they monitor their customers. Think about that for a moment and tell me that the halftime show is our nation's biggest concern.

"We have no say over halftime entertainment," said Jeff Kuhlman, spokesman for the Cadillac division of General Motors, which aired three spots during the game and was the official vehicle of the Super Bowl. "We think the NFL will do what's right for their brand. Quite frankly, we're very comfortable having our brand aligned with their brand."

I don't own a Cadillac, but I applaud them for being reasonable about this.

FYI, I also know why Cadillac is being reasonable about this. They've thought about their commercials from the Super Bowl. They realize that the "our car is faster than the speed of sound commercial was illogical. If the car was faster than the speed of sound, it would've taken a moment for the sound to catch up. That concept is cool. But the driver's voice wouldn't have been delayed because the car was sitting still when he said "wow". His voice should've been heard, followed by the car's road noise catching up to the car.

This entire scandal is tiresome. I imagine that the rest of the world is laughing at us. To that, I say this: Grow up, America.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)

I missed the Super Bowl XXXVIII halftime show. Even with the controversy, I don't regret missing it. At the time, I was ticked off by the commercials and uninspired by the "superstars" scheduled to perform. I wanted nothing to do with the crapfest that is the Super Bowl halftime show. (For what it's worth, I watched the special features on my rented copy of the spectacular The Real World You Never Saw: Paris). With that warning, I present to you my view on the fallout from the chaos.

Every news outlet has the same article covering the outrage over this, but I read it in The Washington Post. I don't care about the hype that goes with this and the blame being placed at the doors of CBS. By all accounts, they handled the situation well by turning the cameras away immediately and not belaboring the point in the broadcast booth. Assuming those accounts are true, that's the way to be professional about the unexpected. What I disagree with is the initial response from the FCC Chairman. In particular, this:

"I am outraged at what I saw during the halftime show of the Super Bowl," Powell said. "Like millions of Americans, my family and I gathered around the television for a celebration. Instead, that celebration was tainted by a classless, crass and deplorable stunt. Our nation's children, parents and citizens deserve better."

He told the commission to open an investigation, promising it would be "thorough and swift." Such an investigation could result in a fine of up to $27,500 or -- if the FCC applied the sanction to each CBS station -- in the millions.

Even though I believe America is too puritanical about nudity on television, I agree that the Super Bowl halftime show isn't the place to show naked people. I have a problem with the deplorable intention behind Mr. Powell's "thorough and swift" investigation. There's no question that it aired, so that fact isn't in dispute. However, mollifying the outraged public with a swift boot up someone's ass isn't the way to deal with this.

Fairness is still the overriding principle needed in the eventual resolution. The public doesn't care how this is handled. If the resolution isn't decided before tomorrow morning's broadcast of the Today Show, no one will care. The FCC needs to take it's time to determine the facts, then allow CBS the opportunity to resolve the matter.

If CBS was unaware that this would occur, they shouldn't be fined for an accident. They could've put the halftime show on a delay, but I'm assuming that was never deemed necessary before now. I have no doubt that future telecasts of the halftime show will be on a delay, which is a smart business reaction to this unforeseen negative event.

Which leads to this:

The FCC has come under fire from lawmakers and outside groups who say the agency hasn't done enough to shield the public from indecent programming on radio and TV.

An excessive response from the FCC isn't the way to do this. The primary responsibility of regulatory/legislative bodies in America is to enforce standards, whatever the issue. (I contend that American standards on this issue are wrong, but I'm making a general point.) The FCC needs to allow the broadcast networks to self-police themselves for future Super Bowls before clamping down with action.

Finally, I know we all waited with anticipation to know this:

At the White House, President Bush said he missed the show.

"Saw the first half, did not see the halftime -- I was preparing for the day and fell asleep," he told reporters Monday after a Cabinet meeting.

I love that our president couldn't stay awake long enough to finish watching the game.

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (5)

Spring training starts this month. Baseball is almost back...

Up-to-the-second countdown scoreboard

Posted by Tony | Permalink | Comments (1)