home | archives

Opinari.net

Opinari - Latin term for Opinion. Opinari.net is just what it seems: a cornucopia of rants, raves and poignant soliloquy.

Saturday, December 31, 2005

This will be my final blog post of 2005. I am somewhat disappointed that I could not blog as prolifically this year as I did in previous years. Since I started blogging in 2002, I have found that it is an enjoyable hobby. It allows me to vent, to opine, and to share certain things about my life that I just think are worth sharing. Perhaps 2006 will be more accommodating to my desire to blog than 2005 was. If I were to speculate though, I would guess that my wife will probably blog more than I will.

So what to think of 2005... I would say that it was fatiguing if you are a political junkie. Really, the biting and snipping ad nauseum just gets old. I find myself avoiding blogs that engage in the rancorous namecalling and such. To wit:

"Bush is a bastard."
"FSCK BUSHCO!"
"Cheney is the Devil!"

These things are not worthy of being read, nor are their many derivatives. I think political blogs will begin to evolve in the marketplace of ideas. They will survive only if they can provide some real insight. That is my hope anyway.

But 2005, in the "real world", was simply amazing. On January 1st, I was watching TV, rooting for the Vols in the Cotton Bowl alongside my beautiful wife and our infant son. We were firmly rooted in Connecticut, with no plans to go elsewhere. Basically, we were doing the best we could with what we had. I had very few complaints.

Turn the clock to December 31st. We've moved to Texas. I have made a major career move. We have a brand new house, car, and a baby boy due any minute now (literally). Just when I thought life couldn't get any better, it did.

I usually reserve Thanksgiving for... er, giving thanks, but I think as this year comes to a close, I'm going to thank the Lord for several things:

  • My wife, without whom I would be lost.
  • My son, without whom I would take life far too seriously.
  • My new son, who isn't yet here, but whose arrival is highly anticipated.
  • The health of all of my loved ones and friends.
  • My church families in Texas, Connecticut, and Tennessee.
  • The position God has placed me in to be able to provide for my family without requiring my wife to work outside of the home. That stability for my children means more to me than I can ever express.
  • Perspective. Kids and family give you plenty of that.
  • Freedom, and the efforts of our armed forces to guarantee it to millions around the world who know very little about it.
  • God, and His infinite love.


    • It all may sound trite, or corny, but I don't care tonight. I'm damned lucky to be where I am. The least I can do is blog about it.

    Happy New Year to everyone!

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:15 PM


    Friday, December 23, 2005

    Tipping Your Delivery Driver:

    A pet peeve of mine is when people, especially friends of mine, don't tip the delivery driver who delivers food to their home. Another pet peeve of mine is when respected newspapers devalue the job that delivery drivers do.

    To wit, here is an article from the Wall Street Journal dated December 22:

    Q: How much should I tip when my food is delivered?

    A: The rule of thumb is generally around 10%, says Peter Post of the Emily Post Institute. While the delivery person is performing a service for you by bringing you your food, it isn't as much service as you get from a waiter in a restaurant so a 15% tip isn't warranted. If the delivery person is late and your food is cold, call the restaurant to complain instead of holding your tip. The restaurant could be at fault, Mr. Post says. If it is a horrible snowstorm or you live at the top of a five-floor walk-up, you might want to tip a little bit more if you know the delivery person went out of his or her way to get to you. Also, if you are a regular and see the same delivery person every week, Mr. Post recommends a holiday tip equal to the amount of your usual order.

    To which I responded:

    Editor,

    I am compelled to respond to the answer in the December 22nd "Ask Personal Journal" section of the Wall Street Journal entitled "Tipping for Food Delivery". The article attributes the following quote to Peter Post of the Emily Post Institute: "The rule of thumb is generally around 10%, says Peter Post of the Emily Post Institute. While the delivery person is performing a service for you by bringing you your food, it isn't as much service as you get from a waiter in a restaurant so a 15% tip isn't warranted." That assertion is utter hogwash.

    Although I do not work in the food delivery business any longer, I did so for many years while putting myself through undergraduate and graduate schools. I consider myself pretty knowledgeable about the business, and I can assure you that a delivery to your door is as much, if not more of a service than a waiter or waitress provides. Each time a delivery driver leaves on a run, he or she risks their life, especially if the weather is uncooperative.

    Furthermore, while drivers are compensated for their gasoline expenses, they are not similarly reimbursed for oil changes and other maintenance, and most have to carry more expensive insurance on their personal vehicles due to the nature of their jobs. Try telling your insurance agent that you are a pizza delivery driver. They will likely laugh as they calculate your rate.

    I have waited tables and done deliveries, and both jobs are worthy of respect, but for Mr. Post to devalue the delivery service shows his lack of understanding of the delivery business. For one, I am glad that I never was tasked to make a delivery to his house.

    To be frank, a driver should be tipped when and only when they deserve to be tipped. It is the attitude of Mr. Post toward delivery drivers that really rubs me wrong.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 11:17 AM


    Wednesday, December 21, 2005

    An Ode to a "Stranger"

    A man who I hardly knew passed away this week. He was the head deacon in our church, a church I have attended for only a few months. Although I knew little about the man, I also found myself knowing a lot more than I realized.

    You see, this man was the face of our little church, the friendliest, most welcoming man I have ever known. His death has affected me profoundly, and I realized neither the extent of that affect nor the reasons for it until tonight.

    As I went to the funeral home for the viewing, I witnessed literally hundreds of people who had come to pay their last respects to the gentleman. I watched the smiles on the faces of people young and old to whom this man had been a grandfather figure, a cohort, and a friend. As I walked by his coffin, I couldn't bring myself to gaze at him, because I chose to remember his life.

    This man, an angel really, was the first to greet my family when we visited the church during a hot Sabbath in June. When we finally moved here, there he was, smiling, shaking our hands, as if we were a long lost member of his own family. From that day forward, and even now, I firmly believe that we were, and we are, and we always will be a member of his family. That's how he saw everyone. And that's how Christian elders, deacons, and church members are supposed to be.

    When we finally decided to start attending Sabbath afternoon potlucks, he wasn't there anymore. There was one week when a man passed away in our church, and my heart sank. I thought it was this beautiful man who had been so warm and friendly to us. To my pleasant surprise, it wasn't. Yet I found out that he himself was sick, and not doing so well.

    My wife and I saw him come to church that Sabbath, walking down the center aisle, oxygen bag in tow, still smiling, still loving his church family as only he could. He greeted dozens of well-wishers outside the vestibule, just as he always had.

    Weeks later, his wonderful wife and several other ladies in the church gave my wife a baby shower. Now, we've only been here a few months. The last thing we expected was to be lavished with gifts by our new church. I chose not to go to the event, since it was on a Sunday, and football was on, and what man wants to sit through a baby shower anyway?

    My wife told me afterward that the man about whom I speak now was the only man there, as it was, of course, his home. He sat in the living room most of the time, sipping a Diet Mountain Dew, and watching football. A man of my own heart, he was.

    It wasn't too long afterward that we got a call from the church, telling us that the man had died that day. My heart sank. My heart really hasn't returned to its normal stature.

    How is it that a man, a "stranger" really, affects someone so profoundly? I realized tonight that I cannot point to a particular instance in my life when I felt so welcomed in a house of worship, so accepted, so made to feel as if I had been there my entire life. It wouldn't have mattered if I was a prince, or a pauper, he would have been equally thrilled to have me in his presence. You see, it is our mission as Christians to welcome everyone, to treat everyone as if they are our lifelong friends, and to witness to others through our actions, to exhibit kindness, love, and respect to each individual without prejudice and without exception.

    Only a man like Lynn Ray has ever made me feel that way. And I will miss him, as I would if I had lost my own grandfather. In fact, I already do.

    So Lynn, the next time I am drinking a Diet Mountain Dew, and watching a football game on TV, I'll be thinking of you. And the next time a stranger comes to our lovely little church, I'll look up to the sky, and pray, and ask God to help me to be just half of the Christian that you were.

    You will be missed.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:43 PM


    Friday, December 09, 2005

    Tax Cuts - It's All In the Presentation:

    I hate it when I read something in the news like this.

    The measure was approved a day after the House passed three other tax bills that altogether would cost the government $94 billion over five years.

    This statement is obviously intended to garner sympathy for the government's "underfunded" Treasury, and to depict tax cuts as something negative.

    What if the same statement was expressed differently?

    The measure was approved a day after the House passed three other tax bills that altogether would cost taxpayers $94 billion less over five years.

    Or.

    The measure was approved a day after the House passed three other tax bills that altogether would reduce the burden on America's taxpayers by $94 billion over five years.

    Do those statements strike the same chord as the first one? No, even though the facts are essentially the same. The above sentence conveys a positive, not a negative. Most people view themselves as taxpayers, and would appreciate any savings to them.

    So why the difference in verbage? The answer is simple. There's an agenda in place that dictates that any news regarding tax cuts must be viewed as a negative. Admit it. The bias is there. Show me the last time an article that was not a conservative op-ed piece that depicted tax cuts as a positive step in Washington (or Austin, Nashville, or Hartford, for that matter). Go ahead. Show me. I'll bet you can't.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 11:56 AM


    Thursday, December 08, 2005


    Is the "Crack"berry going to die a quick death? That depends on how Judge James Spencer rules, according to the Wall Street Journal:

    The fate of the popular email device is in the hands of an impatient and stern decision maker who doesn't tip his hand before making key rulings. His court operates in the hurry-up tradition of Virginia's Eastern District.

    (Judge Spencer's) demonstrated irritation with RIM's attempts to thwart a patent infringement suit filed by NTP Inc., a Virginia patent holder, has some observers fearing a service-halt when he next takes up the case in the coming weeks. Of course, RIM could yet agree to a settlement with NTP. The two had a preliminary agreement fall apart earlier this year.

    A RIM executive said yesterday that the companies have held talks in recent days. "RIM and NTP had been communicating with each other through the court-appointed mediator," said Mark Guibert, RIM's vice president of corporate marketing, who declined to provide details. "RIM expects to continue communications," he said.

    This week, technology consulting firm Gartner Inc. recommended customers hold off BlackBerry investments. A promised technology "workaround" that RIM says will bypass NTP's patents is "problematical" and RIM's "history in the courts does not inspire confidence," Mr. Gartner said.

    {...}

    Judge Spencer has expressed annoyance with RIM's efforts to postpone a ruling on halting sales of the service. "I have spent enough of my time and life involved with NTP and RIM," he said last month, promising to ''move swiftly" on the case. He has also let the companies know that he won't be swayed by factors outside the law.

    {...}

    The stakes are high. RIM has more than four million BlackBerry subscribers, mostly in the U.S. Investors have bid up RIM's market capitalization to about $11.7 billion, on the expectation that many millions more subscribers will sign up in the coming years.

    NTP says case law calls for a BlackBerry ban, and it wants RIM to pay NTP likely in the hundreds of millions of dollars to settle the case to avoid a BlackBerry shutdown. RIM says a ban isn't appropriate, given the preliminary patent office decision and the public consequences of shutting down its service.

    Even with a ban, RIM says it will keep BlackBerries running with newly developed "workaround" technology that bypasses NTP's patents. "We expect our customers will be taking advantage of that" if necessary, says a spokesman for Cingular Wireless, one of the biggest BlackBerry service providers in the U.S. He declined to say if Cingular has tested RIM's workaround technology.

    RIM officials decline to discuss details of the workaround or the company's legal strategy. NTP says it will challenge in court any workaround RIM proposes to use.

    Judge Spencer also has said he's not going to hold up court proceedings for further patent-office rulings. What's more, NTP recently sought to add more than 32,000 claims to its patents, but backed off most.

    If the judge calls for a service halt, RIM could immediately appeal any ban to the appeals court, which may be more inclined to postpone the ban. But the appeals court would have to side with RIM instantly, since observers say RIM can't afford even a brief BlackBerry shutdown.

    Now, this case has quite a bit of relevance to me since I have to support several Blackberry users, and if the service is forced to shut down, I'll be hearing directly from some irate users. I don't profess to know the interworkings of this lawsuit, and since I don't, a couple of questions keep occurring to me.

  • What right does NTP have to force Blackberry to shut down if they discontinue their use of the alleged patented technology? Wasn't that their complaint to begin with?

  • I understand the judge's impatience with both this case, and with RIM, but shouldn't he consider the "external factors" like the fact that the USPTO has already thrown out one of NTP's main patent claims? Shouldn't factors such as these render NTPs claims moot? How can NTP claim a violation against a patent that doesn't exist?


    • Perhaps my questions are naive, but I haven't seen anyone address them articulately.

    Either way, I am no Blackberry apologist. I think the handhelds are poorly designed, and they lack the ubiquitous choices of third-party software that Palm handhelds have.

    Besides, I have a better solution than Blackberry anyway. Presently, I use a Treo 650. On my Treo, I have a superb mail client called Chatter that is mapped to an IMAP server. Anytime I get email on the IMAP account, the client detects the receipt of the item, and my Treo is notified within seconds. At $39 per client license, this solution makes more sense than the overhead of maintaining and implementing a dedicated Blackberry server. And besides, if NTP has anything to say about it, the Treo and Chatter will the best push email solution left standing.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 12:40 PM


    More Bizarro Connecticut:

    Oh, my former home, the "Nut" meg State...

    To the exhibits:

    First, we have Lowell Weicker (allegedly a member of the Republican Party) rumored to be considering a run against Democrat Joe Lieberman because of his support of the Iraq War.

    Then we have Ann Coulter having to end a speech midway through because of loud music. (So much for free speech on college campuses, and all that.)

    Then, to top it off, we have Stamford designating "Day Laborer No Hassle Zones" for illegal immigrants there.

    Sigh.

    Well, other than the politics, the climate, the cost of living, the exorbitant income and property taxes, the gridlocked traffic, and the lack of a Chick-Fil-A, and a good place to eat biscuits and gravy, Connecticut is a terrific place!

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 12:11 PM


    Wednesday, December 07, 2005

    I recall several weeks ago a thread on Michael Silence's blog expressing dismay about capital punishment. I want the same naysayers who apologize for the death penalty there to tell me this poor excuse for a mother doesn't deserve that fate for what she did. Disgusting.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 3:34 PM


    Tuesday, December 06, 2005

    Online banking certainly has a place in a wired world. It most definitely has a place in my life. I rarely bank at a "branch" unless it is unavoidable. Some people prefer to automate their lives and their banking by setting up automatic debits for their expenses. At the risk of forgetting an occasional payment, I never do auto-debits (for substantial expenditures anyway), nor do I plan to. Why? Read this horror story.

    My horror story in the virtual world of finance occurred when a double technology error nearly bankrupted me in a week. My desktop personal-finance software program and my online bill-payment service had a slight misunderstanding due to software bugs at each end. As a result, instead of paying one mortgage payment in advance before I headed overseas on a business trip, my online bill-payment service presented my bank with an electronic voucher for a mortgage payment – once every business day.

    If it wasn't for a human being at my local bank branch, who figured out something was very wrong and gave me a call, I would have been financially dead and buried and completely oblivious while overseas. The toughest part of the whole fiasco was getting the two software companies to understand it was their mistake, not my incompetence. No one on the Help Desk would believe that I was being dunned thousands of dollars a day.

    I think I am far more comfortable with the risk of an oversight than I am with the risk of such a catastrophic glitch. Sometimes, the Luddite in me wins out, although not completely.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 2:52 PM


    Headline from today's New York Times: "Weicker May Return To Politics Over Lieberman's Support of War"

    Only in New England could a "Republican" candidate (who was instrumental in bringing into existence the Connecticut income tax, by the way) challenge a Democrat for supporting a war. This is illustrative of the Bizarro world that is Northeast politics.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:28 AM


    Friday, December 02, 2005

    Historical Revisionism:

    Almost daily, I read something about someone, whether they be a famous performer, an athlete, a politician, a pundit, or even a layman, who refutes the premise (sometimes eloquently, sometimes not) that the US and its allies were justified in going to war with the Hussein regime in Iraq. The anti-war echo chamber loves to toss about various conspiracy theories about Bush, Cheney, Rove, et. al., almost as if it is a sport for them. Of course, free thinking people are entitled to those opinions, just as I am entitled to mine... and here's mine.

    Stop the revisionism.

    When uninformed people talk about the President's motives for making the case for war, misstatement of facts is to be expected. When more responsible individuals, such as Congressional leaders, stake positions inconsistent with the generally accepted intelligence and information that was available at the time, that is irresponsible political opportunism. When Senate Democrats maintain that they would have never endorsed a resolution for war had they known the "facts", they are conveniently forgetting that the global intelligence community had long maintained that Iraq was developing WMDs, and intended to use them. Every reputable intelligence agency held this position. Every. Single. One. Even the benevolent UN itself believed it to be so, but lacked the backbone to enforce its own resolutions.

    The American public, by and large, is sophisticated enough not to embrace such indiscriminant editing of historical facts. Saddam Hussein's wanton destruction of the Kurds with chemical weapons is well-documented. Those images can never be rescinded, no matter how loud the cacophony of revisionism gets. Given what the intelligence community knew, or thought it knew, and given Hussein's precedent of destroying his countrymen, and given the existing
    resolutions by the international community regarding Iraq, the action of war against an aggressive regime was not only justified, but necessary. That is the opinion of a plurality of Americans.

    However, there is a faction of dissenters who disagree. That is their right. I applaud them for doing so. Disagreement and debate are essential parts of any successful representative government. That being said, if those who disagree with the war effort are to be taken seriously, they need to at least get their facts right. They must, at a minimum, conform their argument to the facts, and not the reverse.

    The statements being made lately are not being made out of dissent, but out of a desire to smear and tarnish a presidency, and to gain political advantage in the runup to the 2006 Congressional elections. I believe though that most Americans will see past the rhetoric, and continue to see what the facts show - that the President never misled the public, that every responsible party in the free world believed what the President believed, and based those beliefs on the intelligence available to them, and that the revisionism happening today is nothing more than that -
    revisionism.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:28 AM


    Friday, November 25, 2005

    Instapundit links to a post that suggests repealing the charitable contribution deduction. I have to disagree stringently with that position. Professor Reynolds opines that it is surely better to eliminate the deduction than to risk the corruption associated with the myriad charities out there. However, there are worthy charities that deserve contributions, charities that would suffer without the requisite deductions. Just this year, my wife and I have given to the Cystic Fibrosis Foundation, the Salvation Army, the Hurricane Katrina Relief Fund, and several initiatives at my alma mater, not to mention a weekly tithe and offering at our church. Three things influenced the amounts of money contributed to these causes:
    1. The sheer act of charity.
    2. Matching employer funds (with the exception of tithes and offerings, of course.)
    3. The deductibility of the contributions.

    This is not to say that we would have withheld charitable giving without #3, but the level of charity would have been lower, not only because #3 provides further incentive to give, but that the amount of money from which we could have drawn the funds would have been ultimately less. Professor Reynolds prefers to throw out the baby with the bath water. I prefer to either keep the system of deducting charitable contributions as is, or go with an overhauled tax system altogether.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 6:23 PM


    Saturday, November 19, 2005

    "There's always next season."

    Vanderbilt 28, Tennessee 24.

    Ugh.

    I was 12 years old last time the Vols lost to Vandy. The 'Dores picked a good time to finally come through. This just isn't one of the worst Vol offensive units I have ever seen, I think it is THE worst. I think even the Alatorre/Olszewski offense was better than this one. in years past we would have put away teams like this one, but not in 2005. We're stopped on 4th and less than a yard inside the 5. We drop a sure TD pass on the sideline. We have two guys going for an interception, and they let the receiver outbattle them for the ball. We take bad penalties, and we make the least of every opportunity the other team gives us. To go from a preseason #3 ranking to this is just painful to watch as a fan. Fortunately, we only have one more game to watch before we can utter that mantra usually reserved for mediocre football programs: "There's always next season."

    Well, we find ourselves mired in mediocrity now, and that mantra has more appeal to it than General Neyland's axioms at this point. So, in the spirit of the fast approaching holiday season, I am going to start my Christmas wish list early.

  • I wish for a quarterback that can throw an accurate deep ball, and who can stand in the pocket without being shellshocked.
  • I wish for a group of running backs who can finish the job in the red zone without fumbling and without being stopped short of the end zone.
  • I wish for offensive lineman who can avoid costly penalties.
  • I wish for more linebackers like Kevin Simon.
  • I wish for a healthy Jason Allen for the 2006 NFL Draft. The kid is a player.
  • I wish for another group of defensive lineman like the ones we had this year.
  • I wish for a special teams group like the ones who showed up for Vandy, and not the ones who showed up for Georgia and Notre Dame.
  • I wish for our punter to never throw another pass.
  • I wish for our wide receivers to learn to catch the ball with some consistency.
  • I wish for John Chavis to remain a Vol as long as is humanly possible.
  • I wish for whatever offensive schemes the Vols have been running since 1999 to be cast aside for something more like the Auburn Tigers, who run between the tackles and throw vertically.
  • I wish for the fans to take a deep breath, and realize that as fortunate as the Vols were in 1998, this one was just the opposite. This team is just a handful of plays from being 8-2. The 1998 team was a handful of plays from having 5 losses themselves. That's what makes this game special, and that's why fans will be back in droves in 2006.
  • I wish for the coaches to realize how close they were to a successful season, and for that realization to motivate them to turn up the heat that much more.
  • I wish for the same result that came about following the Vols' last losing season - an 11-1 record, a top 5 ranking, and an SEC Championship.


    • Like I said, "there's always next season." Sigh.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 4:09 PM


    Wednesday, November 16, 2005

    Today, Michael Silence links to Smijer in a post concerning the death penalty. Most death penalty debates I have had have centered around the argument that executions do not deter murders. This is not an argument that I find particularly engaging because I couldn't care less if the death penalty is a deterrent. If a murderer is going to kill, he is going to kill.

    There should be stringent controls on the process, and every effort should be exercised to determine the guilt or innocence of the accused. Wholesale executions have the adverse affect of desensitizing society to the taking of human life.

    That beind said, I believe that executions in extreme cases have two positive results: justice and a guarantee. It is just in the sense that the executed party received an appropriate sentence for the crime. It is a guarantee that some left-leaning liberal judge isn't going to grant clemency, or that some incompetent prison guard isn't going to be looking the other way when the convict escapes.

    If John Wayne Gacy or Ted Bundy kills my child, I want to make damned sure that he never walks the streets again. Furthermore, I want to ensure that the punishment fits the crime. It is this that compels me, and thousands of others, to support the death penalty.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 2:04 PM


    Thursday, November 10, 2005

    Bad news for the BushCo/Cheney/Halliburton tinfoil hat brigade:

    Among a fringe community of paranoids, aluminum helmets serve as the protective measure of choice against invasive radio signals. We investigate the efficacy of three aluminum helmet designs on a sample group of four individuals. Using a $250,000 network analyser, we find that although on average all helmets attenuate invasive radio frequencies in either directions (either emanating from an outside source, or emanating from the cranium of the subject), certain frequencies are in fact greatly amplified. These amplified frequencies coincide with radio bands reserved for government use according to the Federal Communication Commission (FCC). Statistical evidence suggests the use of helmets may in fact enhance the government's invasive abilities. We theorize that the government may in fact have started the helmet craze for this reason.

    The tinfoil hat - a conspiracy in and of itself. Those Bushies are brilliant!

    Courtesy of Slashdot.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 3:42 PM


    Wednesday, November 09, 2005

    Yesterday's Elections:

    What I've been hearing all morning is that Election Day 2005 was some sort of repudiation of the President and his policies, and the alleged scandals of his administration. Let's think about that position for a minute:

  • New Jersey went from being governed by a Democrat to being governed by a Democrat.
  • Virginia went from being governed by a Democrat to being governed by a Democrat.
  • California voted against conservative ballot initiatives.
  • San Francisco voted for liberal ballot initiatives.
  • Texas voted for a conservative constitutional amendment.


    • So let me see if I understand this correctly. New Jersey and Virginia remain as before. California shows itself to be just as liberal in 2005 as in 2004. Texas proves just how conservative it really is. And San Francisco is still the liberal enclave of the West Coast.

    So we're left with the status quo. And this is a cause for Democratic glee? Talk about lowering the bar.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 10:39 AM


    Tuesday, November 01, 2005


    My son's second Hallow'e'en, as Tigger.:



    Sometimes, it's great just to sit back and watch your kids

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 12:47 PM


    Saturday, October 29, 2005

    Regarding my post last night that asked what crime was committed, and asserted that the Fitzgerald investigation was nothing more than a waste of time, I should note that I feel exactly the same way about Clinton-Lewinsky. It was ultimately just a big waste of America's time and money, and I would like to see these "special prosecutions" disposed of somehow. Nothing good comes of them, except to make one side of the political aisle feel better about themselves at the expense of the other side.

    Is the nation better off because of Clinton/Lewinsky? No. Will it be better off because of Libby/Plame? Not a chance.

    My point is that a crime was not committed in Plamegate because Valerie Plame was not a covert operative within the CIA. Her identity was known. There has been ample evidence of that. The alleged crimes were committed by Libby in the sense that his testimony differs from the testimony of three reporters. If he knowingly deceived the grand jury, that is indeed a crime, just as Clinton's perjury was.

    But the investigated crime (outing a covert agent) is not being alleged by the prosecution and it's unfortunate that the media seems intent on pinning a non-existent charge on Libby as well. Without those specious allegations, Plamegate would never have happened at all, and to me, that is the real crime here.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 10:33 AM


    Friday, October 28, 2005

    On Libby:

    I've tried to stay out of the Plamegate discussion, but today's indictment of now former Cheney Chief of Staff Scooter Libby has caught my interest. If I understand this correctly, Libby is being charged with a count of obstruction of justice, two counts of lying to a grand jury, and two counts of making false statements. It also appears that there is no accusation by prosecutor Fitzgerald of any outing of a covert CIA agent. The indictments are, in fact, regarding alleged inconsistencies in Libby's testimony. If this is the case, then it seems that there was no crime until there was an investigation.

    I can guarantee if a special prosecutor came after me asking me to recollect every detail of conversations I had with, for example, my boss and my staff at the office, and if those same superiors and subordinates were interviewed, there would be myriad inconsistencies. That appears to me to be what happened here.

    We have a crime that wasn't a crime, and an indictment of a man whose recollection of seemingly benign events differed from those of several other interviewees. Furthermore, the original scope of the indictment was to determine who told columnist Robert Novak that Valerie Plame was a "covert" CIA agent. Apparently, that question was never answered. If it was, Libby certainly isn't being indicted for being that person.

    So what gives? Was Valerie Plame "covert"? Not if you take into consideration Joseph Wilson's "Who's Who" bio which plainly identified her. Her identity wasn't well known, but it sure as heck wasn't "covert". There is no alleged "conspiracy", as Joseph Wilson has long claimed. There is no violation of the Covert Agent Act, or whatever it's called. So where's the crime? One man's testimony differs from anothers? And it took two years to come to this conclusion? What a waste of time and resources.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 3:20 PM


    Friday, October 21, 2005

    The Alabama - Tennessee game makes news in the U.K.

    A packed “informal” programme will see the Foreign Secretary and the US Secretary of State flipping a coin to decide who kicks off the Alabama v Tennesse football match, sharing dinner in a city centre restaurant and worshipping together on Sunday morning.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 4:58 PM


    Thursday, October 13, 2005

    Yahoo Bans Teens from Using Online Chatrooms...

    thereby creating a built-in defense for pedophiles who use the same chatrooms. To wit, consider that now, each person who signs up for Yahoo Chat must attest to their age in the EULA. Anyone with common sense knows that kids who are intent on using online chatrooms will simply lie about their age, just like they do for buying cigarettes/alcohol/porn magazines. So now, the state can no longer prosecute pedophiles based upon the assumption that they knew the age of the victim.

    Furthermore, this "solution" ignores the real issue - parental negligence. Instead of invoking the powers of the "internet police", why don't we insist that parents actually do their job and parent? Maybe limiting your child's time online, engaging them in non-virtual activities, or simply spending time with them instead of shoving them away would do much toward discouraging kids from running to chatrooms for social interaction. Heck, you could even try a techie solution such as using a proxy server to filter internet traffic, blocking chat apps at the router, or blocking ActiveX controls in the browser.

    So what does this move by Yahoo accomplish? It lets the government claim that they are doing something to combat pedophilia. It lets Yahoo off the hook for any claims of liability against them. It lets parents ignore their obligations to protect and raise their children. Finally, it enables pedophiles to have the excuse of plausible deniability. It should be obvious that this is a bad solution all around. Instead of looking to the nanny-state, parents need to step up and take responsibility for their kids and tell the government to concentrate their efforts elsewhere.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 8:49 AM


    Saturday, September 24, 2005

    Rita:

    I'm blogging from the comfort of my sofa while the rain and winds fall outside. The region yesterday was a mess trafficwise, as hundreds of wide-eyed Houstonians apparently made their way up US-69 in search of dryer pastures. Today, not a car is in sight on the roads, which is as it should be.

    The wind and rain have been falling at a considerable clip, but not nearly as much so as many anticipated. We've been seeing sustained winds of 20-25 MPH and gusts up to 50. By the time Rita makes her way up the TX-LA border, she'll be a tropical storm, if she isn't already. Really, the only inconveniences thus far have been periodic power loss (seconds, not minutes), and some of my lawn furniture has blown over.

    I'm guessing this storm is going to be here awhile, since it's moving at about 12 MPH. Texas, to be sure, was far better prepared for a storm than New Orleans was. Fortunately, the magnitude of this hurricane has dwindled somewhat. Kudos to the local and state government agencies for implementing an evacuation pan that should be the model for all coastal regions in the future.

    Unfortunately for the Crescent City, she's flooding all over again. I've heard also that Beaumont has been hit quite a bit by Rita. But by and large, this storm has been much less destructive than most thought it was going to be.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 2:20 PM


    Wednesday, September 14, 2005

    The Agony:

    It's been eight years (at least) since I picked up my softball equipment and played competitively. Well, I figured since I now live in Texas (with its perpetual warm weather compared to the frozen tundra of New England), I would sign up for a nice recreational C-league. My employer just happens to have a team or two, so that is convenient.

    Well, last night was our first game, and the other team only had four guys show up. So, after the forfeit was officially "written into the books" (an aside: I never actually saw the "books". In fact, I am suspicious that they even exist) , we decided to scrimmage amongst ourselves. The consequence of that was that I had to play the same position for 45 minutes without retiring to the dugout. That position - catcher.

    Now those of you out there that maintain an active lifestyle might well have no idea what atrophied muscles feel like when they are put into unanticipated and unusual positions. Needless to say, my legs and back were not up to the task of being contorted for such a period of time as if required to handle about 100 softball pitches.

    When it was finally my turn to bat, the spasms in my legs were so pronounced, I could barely stand in the batter's box. Fortunately, I wielded a 28 ounce bat, which allowed me to swing freely without relying on much leg strength. This morning, I can barely move... which might explain why I am sitting here blogging instead of attending to the IT needs on our shop floor.

    Anyway, some advice from one former-athlete-turned-couch-potato to another (assuming that you are one, too): never crouch in a catching position for longer than 5 minutes at a time, and for the love of all that is holy, stretch those quads and lower back muscles for at least 15 minutes before next week's game.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:44 AM


    My Next Great Geek Toy:



    Last week, MobiTV was rolled out for the Treo 650. Now I can watch CNBC, MSNBC, FOX, CSPAN, and ESPN on my Treo.

    My first impression is that this software is more akin to streaming video than broadcast video. The picture quality is somewhat pixellated, and choppy. The sound is much more clear than a typical Real or Windows Media transmission, but still not the type of quality I would expect from a 3G service. The quality does improve when I am closer to a Cingular tower, but still not to the level that I expect.

    The channel selection is limited to news and political geeks (like me!) with some nominal entertainment content thrown in, such as a cartoon and a comedy channel. Mainly, I have been using the software to watch the Roberts' confirmation hearings in my office. I doubt that I will be using it to watch the latest colloquy from Jon Stewart.

    It is a good first pass attempt at bringing broadcast TV content to handheld devices, but I'm not yet sure that it's worth the $9.99/mo. price. However, for the time being, the "wow" factor, and the hope that they will improve the bottleneck that causes intermittent interruption in transmission, will keep me as a paying customer.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:23 AM


    Quick assessment of the Roberts' confirmation hearings:

    The Democrat Senators (and RINO Arlen Specter) want to get Judge Roberts to commit to a position on Roe, which he will not do. Joe Biden and Teddy Kennedy seem to enjoy listening to themselves talk, much more than anyone else does. Herb Kohl is likely the least recognized Senator in the US, and for good reason if you listened to him speak. Feingold, Schumer, Feinstein... oh, why bother with the Senators. It's all political grandstanding anyway. As for Roberts, he's been impressive indeed. I would characterize him and sharp, articulate, and above all, unflappable. I don't think there is any question that we are looking at the next Chief Justice of the Supreme Court. Maybe that's why the Democrats didn't even bother to show up today for the hearings (or at least they weren't there for the opening).

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:13 AM


    Jonah Goldberg on Joe Biden:

    Listening to him speechify is like playing an intellectual game of whack-a-mole where every now and then the fuzzy head of a good point pops up from the tundra but before you can pin it down, he starts talking about how he went to the store and saw a squirrel on the way and it was brown which brings to mind Brown V. Board of Ed which most people don't understand because [TEETH FLASH] he taught Brown in his law school course and [TEETH FLASH] Mr. Chairman I'm going to get right to it and besides these aren't the droids you're looking for....

    That's pretty much what I thought too when watching Biden question John Roberts.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 8:19 AM


    Sunday, September 04, 2005

    In the last several days, there has been a lot of talk about the federal government's lackluster performance during the Hurricane Katrina crisis. Not many of the talking heads on the cable networks have bothered to ask about the state and local government's culpability. However, the more one reads of the facts, the more one begins to wonder:

    From the Washington Post:

    Tens of thousands of people spent a fifth day awaiting evacuation from this ruined city, as Bush administration officials blamed state and local authorities for what leaders at all levels have called a failure of the country's emergency management.

    [...]

    Behind the scenes, a power struggle emerged, as federal officials tried to wrest authority from Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Babineaux Blanco (D). Shortly before midnight Friday, the Bush administration sent her a proposed legal memorandum asking her to request a federal takeover of the evacuation of New Orleans, a source within the state's emergency operations center said Saturday.

    The administration sought unified control over all local police and state National Guard units reporting to the governor. Louisiana officials rejected the request after talks throughout the night, concerned that such a move would be comparable to a federal declaration of martial law. Some officials in the state suspected a political motive behind the request. "Quite frankly, if they'd been able to pull off taking it away from the locals, they then could have blamed everything on the locals," said the source, who does not have the authority to speak publicly.

    A senior administration official said that Bush has clear legal authority to federalize National Guard units to quell civil disturbances under the Insurrection Act and will continue to try to unify the chains of command that are split among the president, the Louisiana governor and the New Orleans mayor.

    Louisiana did not reach out to a multi-state mutual aid compact for assistance until Wednesday, three state and federal officials said. As of Saturday, Blanco still had not declared a state of emergency, the senior Bush official said.

    "The federal government stands ready to work with state and local officials to secure New Orleans and the state of Louisiana," White House spokesman Dan Bartlett said. "The president will not let any form of bureaucracy get in the way of protecting the citizens of Louisiana."

    Blanco made two moves Saturday that protected her independence from the federal government: She created a philanthropic fund for the state's victims and hired James Lee Witt, Federal Emergency Management Agency director in the Clinton administration, to advise her on the relief effort.

    Bush, who has been criticized, even by supporters, for the delayed response to the disaster, used his weekly radio address to put responsibility for the failure on lower levels of government. The magnitude of the crisis "has created tremendous problems that have strained state and local capabilities," he said. "The result is that many of our citizens simply are not getting the help they need, especially in New Orleans. And that is unacceptable."

    In a Washington briefing, Homeland Security Secretary Michael Chertoff said one reason federal assets were not used more quickly was "because our constitutional system really places the primary authority in each state with the governor."

    Chertoff planned to fly overnight to the New Orleans area to take charge of deploying the expanded federal and military assets for several days, he said. He said he has "full confidence" in FEMA Director Michael D. Brown, the DHS undersecretary and federal officer in charge of the Katrina response.

    Brown, a frequent target of New Orleans Mayor C. Ray Nagin's wrath, said Saturday that "the mayor can order an evacuation and try to evacuate the city, but if the mayor does not have the resources to get the poor, elderly, the disabled, those who cannot, out, or if he does not even have police capacity to enforce the mandatory evacuation, to make people leave, then you end up with the kind of situation we have right now in New Orleans."

    New Orleans City Council President Oliver Thomas acknowledged that the city was surprised by the number of refugees left behind, but he said FEMA should have been prepared to assist.

    "Everybody shares the blame here," said Thomas. "But when you talk about the mightiest government in the world, that's a ludicrous and lame excuse. You're FEMA, and you're the big dog. And you weren't prepared either."

    In Baton Rouge, Blanco acknowledged Saturday: "We did not have enough resources here to do it all. . . . The magnitude is overwhelming."

    No one is going to argue that the state of Louisiana had abundant resources to deal with the crisis, which makes Governor Blanco's actions that much more perplexing. In fact, President Bush seemed to have more prescience than the Louisiana state government:

    (Governor Blanco) said President Bush called and personally appealed for a mandatory evacuation for the low-lying city, which is prone to flooding.

    So why weren't the warnings heeded? Why weren't the indigent and infirm bussed out of the area using the vehicles in this picture?



    It seems that surely at least a few thousand could have been evacuated with these vehicles alone. In hindsight, if the Bush administration has forced thousands of New Orleanians to evacuate, would the ACLU have let that slide? It's doubtful. Moreover, how could the Feds have acted more quickly in the aftermath if Blanco wasn't even willing to cede authority to manage the situation? Just how exactly is this a federal problem if the federal authorities were not allowed to handle the mess in the first place?

    Blanco and company have been more than willing to blame FEMA, DHS, and the executive branch without looking first at their own actions. If the sharks in the political water weren't so determined to pin this disaster on George W. Bush personally, perhaps we could find out more quickly what could have been done more effectively at all levels of government.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 4:40 PM


    Wednesday, August 31, 2005

    Head Spinning from Katrina:

    The events of the last 48 hours have been simply unbelievable. The flooding of an entire metropolis. Looting. A childrens' hospital barricading its doors to protect itself from a mob. Officers and looters shooting at one another. The inevitable fuel supply fears. Rumors of death tolls in the thousands. Lots of questioning and blame being passed around.

    Take a deep breath.

    This tragedy is of epic proportions. There is no questioning that. But the time for being a Monday-morning quarterback is not now. Asking why and how should happen later. Understand that tens of thousands of people are displaced or homeless. Hundreds are dead, and that is a conservative estimate. Fellow Americans, entire families, are devastated and need help.

    So I'm doing my part, and I am asking everyone I know to do the same. ADRA (Adventist Development and Relief Agency) has set up a Relief Fund. I'm sending them $100 and my employer is going to match the donation. I would like to encourage anyone and everyone to identify a trustworthy charity, open up your checkbook, and do the same.

    And stop the post-game analysis. There will be plenty of time for that.

    Oh, and go hug your spouse and kids. If you're sitting here reading this, you should consider yourself damned lucky.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 3:13 PM


    Monday, August 29, 2005

    To reiterate a post from several days ago:



    Gas prices are NOT at a historical high.

    Thanks to the WSJ for the graphic.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 4:44 PM


    Tuesday, August 23, 2005

    Pat Robertson suggests that the US adopt a policy of pre-emptive assassination regarding Venezuela's Hugo Chavez. Folks from the left and the right are outraged. I tend to share some of that dismay, but I have to ask - where was the MSM's outrage when Randi Rhodes called for President Bush to be killed or the "Kill Bush" merchandise that was being peddled on Cafepress?

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 11:10 AM


    Weighing in on the Iraqi Constitution:

    NRO's Andy McCarthy asks:

    And for all of us who have said, time and again, that Islamic reform – which can only be done by Muslims themselves – is a crucial part of winning the overall war, how would establishing Islam as the Iraqi state religion achieve that? What is the incentive for reform if the United States thinks Islam, as is, is worthy of being established as the state religion in a place we have committed great effort to securing.

    For days, I have been asking myself this and similar questions. Why is it so damned important for the Iraqis to accept a constitution that plainly will devalue Iraqi women? Do we really want to endorse the acceptance of a document that installs Islam as the "national religion" of Iraq? The founding fathers of America saw the danger of this mentality, and they guaranteed no such imposition here. Why is it then that U.S. Ambassador Zalmay Khalilzad urges the Iraqis to work "in spirit of compromise" and "take the national interest into account" when considering the new national constitution of Iraq?

    It is my view that the State Department sees stability as preferable to decency. Now, I am not one to criticize deposing Saddam Hussein, or encouraging a democratic movement in Iraq. However, if the Iraqi constitutional convention is any indication, the international community and the suits at Foggy Bottom could use a little history lesson. That lesson - theocratic rule leads to despotism.

    Ultimately, a document that views women as second class citizens (as most forms of Islam do) and endorses Islam as the basis for governance is not worth the papyrus upon which it is printed. Yet, this is what we are encouraging in Iraq. Instead, we should be cultivating a spirit of debate and discussion, to ensure that what is best for everyone is what takes place. Urging the adoption of a constitutional theocracy in the midst of the most volatile region in the world is no way to accomplish that goal.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 10:43 AM


    Wednesday, August 17, 2005

    Michael Silence looks at escalating gasoline prices, and links to some Tennessee bloggers who have something to say about it. I've decided to throw in my $0.02 (which, right now, buys me about .008 gallons of petrol).

    Gasoline prices are rising very quickly right now, far outpacing inflation. I have to admit having a bit of sticker shock lately, watching the price here in East Texas climb from $1.98 when I moved here to $2.52 now. However, a few points bear mentioning:
    1. President Bush is not the cause of inflation as it relates to gas prices. Period. Could the President help mitigate costs in the short term? Yes, by releasing oil from the SPR (as his predecessor did in the 90s). But the President, unlike his critics, does not wish to play politics with a commodity that is the lifeblood of the Western economy.
    2. Much has been made in the blogosphere about the "profiteering" of "Big Oil". This argument is very similar to the one being made that pharmaceutical companies are gouging the public with their pricing schemes, and it is just as specious. Global supply of crude is not the problem; refining capability is. Oil companies see the global demand for fuel, and need to acquire additional refining capacity to keep up. Much of the profit for the oil industry is reinvested in exploration, refining capacity, and technology. This is just how the business works. Further, these companies do not exist to provide a cheap commodity. They exist to maximize the return on investment to the shareholder. Remove the incentives to profit, and then watch how quickly the global oil supply dries up.
    3. Finally, gasoline prices, and crude oil prices for that matter, are not at all time highs in terms of real dollars. The peak occurred in the late 70s/early 80s during the OPEC oil embargo. Gas prices in today's dollars were around $3 per gallon. Crude oil was around $90 per barrel.

    So please... don't blame the President, don't cry about the "greedy oil companies", and don't kid yourself into thinking gasoline prices are at an all time high. Like it or not, we are not entitled to $1, or even $2 gasoline. I don't like paying $45 for a tank any more than the next guy, but the market dictates such pricing, and I am certainly not for any sort of Keynesian intervention by the benevolent government. If you don't like the prices we have to pay, don't pay them. If enough people agree with you, prices will come down.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 8:47 AM


    Monday, August 08, 2005

    2005 - The Year TV News Changed Forever:

    First, Tom Brokaw rode off into the sunset. Then Dan Rather resigned as a result of his involvement in Memogate. More shocking to me though was the news that yesterday, Peter Jennings, long time ABC anchorman, died of lung cancer at the age of 67.

    I have some lasting memories of Peter Jennings. I recall him as the co-anchor with Frank Reynolds, who would die himself while employed at ABC News. I recall Jennings' introduction of the day's top stories: "We begin tonight with..." I recall his occasional Canadian-ness: about spoken as a-boot is always a personal favorite. But mostly, I will recall that it always seemed to be Jennings that was on the television when something awful happened. When Challenger exploded in mid-air, when Reagan was shot, and, most recently, when the Twin Towers plummeted to the ground, it was the coolness, the commanding presence of Jennings that took over. When I was last in Knoxville, I stopped by the September 11th Memorial downtown and watched with attentive recollection the way that Jennings handled himself during the crisis. How he made it through the entire broadcast on September 11th is beyond me, but he did, and he did it well.

    Many of us like to talk about how ideologically left of center broadcast news is, and Jennings was no different. I stopped watching network news a long time ago, but the things above are how I will remember Peter Jennings, not his political leanings. Truly, Peter Jennings not just as a news anchor, but as a father, as a husband, and as a man, will be missed.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 7:55 AM


    Friday, August 05, 2005

    Why I Hate Nextel:


    As I entered the men's room after lunch looking for some much needed... er, relief, I happened upon one of my colleagues, toilet seat cover in one hand, and Nextel phone in the other. As he carefully covered the latrine lid and closed the door to the stall, he decided that this would be the perfect time for an impromptu meeting with one of his subordinates. Enter the infernal chirping of the Nextel walkie-talkie.
      Chirp.

      Hey, John.

      Yeah?

      Have we shipped those units yet from the 584 line?

      No, I don't see a bill of lading.

      [poot]

      Well, can you let me know if you find it? The distribution center is awaiting their arrival.

      [plop]

      Ten-four.

    Let me be clear. The bathroom is not the place to conduct business... at least, not the kind of business that can be conducted outside the bathroom. Thanks a lot, Nextel.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 2:29 PM


    The danger in our midst, one heretofore unidentified:

    Wearing trendy flip flops could kill you, according to new research.

    The fashionable footwear - ideal for the beach in hot weather - are putting the lives of road users at risk.

    Three in every four motorists have admitted they find it hard to drive in flip flops and road safety experts have warned that wearing the sandals in the car could be a lethal decision.

    Let me be the first to call for a wholesale ban of flip-flops. On the wrong feet, these things can be downright dangerous. Surely the nanny-state can regulate this awful menace before it is too late. After all, we cannot be trusted to choose and wear our footware responsibly, now can we?

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 2:22 PM


    Maxine Waters, conservative activist? When it comes to private property rights, yes.

    Rep. Maxine Waters (D., Calif.) probably won't take her place among the great economists Friedrich Hayek and Milton Friedman as a conservative hero. Actually, she never will. But the famously fire-breathing left-wing congresswoman from Los Angeles has emerged in recent weeks as one of the nation's most outspoken defenders of property rights. "Government should be in the business of protecting private property," she told me in an interview, sounding every bit a member of the free-market group the Club for Growth. "Private property is precious in America."

    Coming soon, Ms. Waters pens editorials for the Wall Street Journal and the Washington Times as she prepares to guest host the Rush Limbaugh Show.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:53 AM


    Wednesday, August 03, 2005

    A journalist writes about Basra in the New York Times, and is murdered for it.

    R.I.P. Steven Vincent.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:33 AM


    Neal Boortz fisks a review of his new book, The FairTax Book.

    I should be receiving my copy today, and I hope to be able to post a review of my own. Of course, I have to finish The Historian first.

    Labels:

    .: posted by Dave 9:22 AM


    Some random thoughts:

  • How much is it going to cost to pay for the changes in I.T. systems that will be brought on by the change in daylight savings time? After all, there are some time-dependent systems that will require changes, not to mention the patching required for desktops and servers.
  • If blogs are supposedly being added to the blogosphere at the rate of one per second, who is going to eventually pay for the server space (since most of them are free services)?
  • Who the heck decided $135 was a reasonable price to pay for a seat belt violation? If there is anything I have disliked about my move to Texas, it is the exorbitant fine I got for not wearing a seat belt.

          • Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 9:13 AM


          Byron York points out in the National Review the stark contrast between the Bush and the Clinton White House:

          There have been lots of “it all depends on what the meaning of is is” jokes and lots of flat-out statements calling virtually everyone in the White House a liar. But a more fair-minded look at the situation suggests that it is the differences, and not the similarities, between the Bush and Clinton administrations that are striking in this case. When faced with an independent-counsel investigation, figures in and around the Clinton White House formed a joint defense agreement, asserted novel legal privileges, and spent much of their time publicly attacking the prosecutor in the case. This White House, by comparison, has done nothing of the sort. Even their enemies should give them credit for that.

          I'm not holding my breath.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 8:32 AM


          From Yahoo News:

          Many U.N. diplomats say Bolton will be judged on his performance here, not on his past, which features sharp criticism of the world body and resistance to his appointment as U.S. ambassador.

          "No one should make prejudgments on reputation," said Chile's U.N. Ambassador Heraldo Munoz. "One must do it on the merit of the facts, when we see what happens here."

          "He's a colleague like any other and will be received as such," said Denmark's U.N. Ambassador Ellen Margrethe Loj, who noted that in many countries no confirmation of ambassadors is required.

          "Honestly, I'm looking forward to working with him," said Algeria's U.N. Ambassador Abdallah Baali, whose two-year term on the Security Council ends in December. "I worked with him several years ago, and I enjoyed working with him."

          "He's a very smart guy who can be very constructive, who can be very creative. So I think it will be very interesting to spend a few months with him in the Security Council," Baali said.

          Russia's deputy U.N. ambassador Konstantin Dolgov said Bolton was well known in Moscow and "as far as I know he is a negotiator with quite some background."

          Odd that the U.N. constituents seem to have the utmost respect for John Bolton, yet a minority of U.S. Senators conspired to obstruct his nomination. Tainted candidate? Too much baggage? I hardly think so.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 8:24 AM


          Tuesday, August 02, 2005

          Well, I just picked up the morning news and read a headline: "Bush: Schools Should Teach Intelligent Design". Of course, the implication here is that the President insists on a single view, intelligent design, over the prevailing scientific view, evolution. At least, that's how I and a co-worker read it.

          However, if one digs deeper into the story, one sees that the President is actually advocating the teaching of multiple schools of thought. Bush argues that "people ought to be exposed to different ideas." The headline could have just as easily read: "Bush: Students Should Hear Both Sides of the Origin of Life Debate".

          But that wouldn't sell as many papers, now would it?

          UPDATE: (Cross-posted in Michael Silence's comments.)

          "I think that part of education is to expose people to different schools of thought, and I'm not suggesting -- you're asking me whether or not people ought to be exposed to different ideas, and the answer is yes."

          All Bush said was that he wanted to encourage divergent ideas to be taught. I still don't see why there is an uproar about this. Similarly, I didn't see why there was an uproar when evolution was being taught in school. Teach both. Let the plebes decide what they believe.

          An aside: let this be a lesson to you. Don't rely on the schools to teach your kids the things you want them to know. Take that responsibility yourself.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 8:54 AM


          Monday, August 01, 2005

          To Dick Durbin, Ted Kennedy and the rest of the left: a recess appointment is not a usurption of the Constitution. Your pal, Bill Clinton, did it 140 times. It's well within the President's right.

          Also, quit with the cries of how "tainted" John Bolton is. Bolton had the imprimatur of a majority of the Senate. He works for President Bush, not you boys on Capitol Hill. Furthermore, if you whiny babies had allowed a vote, this wouldn't even be an issue. Bolton is in until 2007. Deal with it.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 10:29 PM


          As a baseball fan I am growing sick of hearing about steroids tainting the game. Even if Orioles' slugger Rafael Palmeiro was "juiced", he still had to put the ball where there ain't no fielder over 3000 times. Do you seriously think steroids make better hitters in baseball? I doubt it. As for questioning his ethics, how about questioning the moral aptitude of two of baseball's leading poster boys for integrity: Ty Cobb (unabashed racist) and Babe Ruth (well known for his lifestyle exploits).

          If Cobb and Ruth survive the litmus test, then so should Palmeiro. Although he likely harmed his status as a first ballot HOFer, it is highly doubtful that 3000 hits and 560+ home runs won't get the guy in, steroids or not.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 10:24 PM


          Opinari AWOL -

          "So where have you been lately?", my three remaining readers ask. It seems that buying and moving into a brand new house, working 10-12 hour shifts for an IT shop supporting 1300 users, and preparing for another new arrival in the Opinari household have cannibalized all of my time. Heck, we still have most of our furniture in the basement. Add to that the unfortunate circumstance of not having high speed data available for several weeks, and the need to learn how to use the Treo's thumbboard in order to blog, and you can see why the blogging just hasn't occurred much lately. By the way, I'm up to 30 WPM on the thumbboard... Before you know it, the blogging will be as prolific as before! Now if I can only figure out an efficient way to hyperlink from Blazer into Vagablog, we'll be good to go.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 10:16 PM


          Forays in Mobile Blogging -

          I just watched a kid drive off with his textbooks still sitting on his car. He apparently forgot that he had left them there. As he entered the highway just now, seven lanes wide with oncoming traffic, there went his semester's work, all across the landscape of East Texas. The moral? Don't carry paper, and watch what you're doing... this coming from a man who blogs while driving in said traffic. Oh well. Here's hoping that you're having a better day than Mr. Textbooks-on-Highway.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 5:23 PM


          Wednesday, July 06, 2005

          Funniest Karl Rove conspiracy theory I've read all day, and on the Huffington Post, no less.

          (Hat tip to the Corner).

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 2:54 PM


          As if I needed another reason to esteem the South over New England:

          "I'm up in New England, and it would be very unusual to hear sir and ma'am," Ms. Senning said. "In areas of the South, it's a very polite and mannerly thing to do. The important thing to do is to know the culture of your region."

          The use of sir and ma'am flourished in the South more than any other region, says Guy Bailey, a linguistics expert at the University of Texas at San Antonio who grew up in Alabama.

          "It's absolutely more prevalent in the South, no question. People in the South have always valued courtesy and polite behavior," he said.

          There are bad apples in every tree, but in general, I would have to agree unequivocally with this assessment. In comparison to New Englanders, Texans have been nothing short of courteous and pleasant since we arrived.

          When I first moved to the Northeast, it took me weeks to finally meet a Connecticut Yankee who was willing to give me the time of day. I can only speculate, but I think the cold weather, short winter days (sunset at 4 pm!?), and the cost of living create a society of cynicism and abject rudeness unparalleled anywhere this side of France.

          That being said, I have a host of friends "up yonder" who I miss greatly. I guess though that there just aren't enough of them to make the place any more appealing than it is.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 2:30 PM


          Opinari is returning from an extended July 4th hiatus which actually had nothing to do with July 4th. In fact, the missus and I largely slept through fireworks here in our new East Texas home. The hiatus was brought on because I have been largely concentrating on my new IT position. In my first week, we have:

          • Mapped out dozens of data processes
          • Worked on a network policy auditing system
          • Begun transitioning a network DB app to ASP.NET/SQL Server
          • Created an ad hoc interface for our shipping department
          • Planned a VMWare network implementation


          No word on how the second week is going to progress. Oh, and let's not forget the construction of a new house:



          I guess it's coming along nicely. Either way, it's nice to be finally settled into the Lone Star State.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 2:02 PM


          Sunday, June 26, 2005

          The Opinari family has stopped today in the greater northern Louisiana area en route to our destination in Eastern Texas. I would like to do some mobile blogging, but you know how it is... being the driver, and all. Somehow, I think even the standards of driving in Louisiana are such that they discourage drivers from typing on their PDAs. But what do I know?

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 9:33 AM


          Sunday, June 19, 2005



          Since Opinari is moving to Texas sometime this week, I thought it would be appropriate to post about some of the goings-on in Texas this week:

        • School funding is at the top of the list, as Governor Perry has vetoed all $33.6 billion spending for schools, and ordered the legislature to "come back and get it right". The challenge of course is to fund the schools when property taxes are skyrocketing, and those same taxes are the primary source of school funding. Can Governor Perry and the legislature fix this problem in 30 days?

          It's doubtful. This has been an ongoing problem for years, and I doubt a quick fix is in order. Still, speaking as one who is leaving a high tax state for a low one, it is far better to have high property taxes and no income tax than to have both.

        • The Governor apparently is also a fan of toll roads, since Texas doesn't have many of them. Fortunately, Governor Perry signed a provision that says voters would have to approve changes of state highways into toll ones. It's nice to see some state governments value the referendum (are you listening, Connecticut?)

        • Kay Bailey Hutchinson has been critical of Rick Perry. Many expect her to toss her Stetson into the ring of Gubernatorial candidates in 2006. The effect of a Hutchinson run would be far-reaching, as opponents will be posturing to run for her current Senate seat if that happens. So will she or won't she? Stay tuned.

          • Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 10:50 AM


          Say, anyone know what's going on with SKB's blog? Threats? Intimidation?

          UPDATE: Well, now we know. It seems Mr. Conley, part owner of that alternative weekly called MetroPulse, initiated a rather interesting conversation with SKB. Read their email exchange here.

          A comment on the whole kerfuffle... I respect SKB and his opinions, many with which I disagree. I also understand SKB's desire for anonymity, as his business interests could be affected. After all, in a world of "good ol' boys", if the GOB network disagrees with your politics, it stands to reason that they might not do business with you. My belief is that one's politics should not determine one's viability as a business partner. I feel the same way about religion.

          Thus, I can see how Conley's veiled threats could be taken as a need to beat Conley to the punch, so to speak. It is true that SKB outed himself, but only because of Conley's actions. One has to wonder what Conley's motivations were in starting this brouhaha (in fact, some of the commenters have already begun to speculate). Regardless of the motive, Conley was way off base, and should apologize at the very least.

          In the meantime, I think I am in agreement with many bloggers that MetroPulse is not worth my time, and until appropriate action is taken, neither are their advertisers. And another thing, agree with him or not, SKB has a very informative, and entertaining blog. I will continue to read it daily, and I would encourage everyone else to do the same.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 8:43 AM


          Friday, June 17, 2005

          Spotted in an L.A Times editorial:

          If you are proud of this country and don't want its identity to vanish, you must teach U.S. history to your children. They won't learn it in school. This nation's memory will go blank unless you act.

          This editorial is the biggest tacit endorsement yet for homeschooling your children, which is why my wife and I are going to be doing just that.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 10:59 PM


          Victor Davis Hanson on the Middle East:

          The problem the administration faces is not entirely a military one: Our armed forces continue to perform heroically and selflessly under nearly impossible conditions of global scrutiny and hypercriticism. There has not been an attack on the U.S. since 9/11 — despite carnage in Madrid and over 1,000 slaughtered in Russia by various Islamic terrorists during the same period.

          Rather, the American public is tiring of the Middle East, its hypocrisy and whiny logic — and to such a degree that it sometimes unfortunately doesn't make distinctions for the Iraqi democratic government or other Arab reformers, but rather is slowly coming to believe the entire region is ungracious, hopeless, and not worth another American soldier or dollar.

          This is a dangerous trend. Despite murderous Syrian terrorists, dictatorial Saudis, crazy Pakistanis, and triangulating European allies, and after so many tragic setbacks, we are close to creating lasting democratic states in Afghanistan and Iraq — states that are influencing the entire region and ending the old calculus of Middle Eastern terror. We are winning even as we are told we are losing. But the key is that the American people need to be told — honestly and daily — how and why those successes came about and must continue before it sours on the entire sorry bunch.

          Go read the rest of the article here.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 11:00 AM


          Susan Konig on Parenting:

          Beta Moms and Gamma Dads
          Parenting the old-fashioned way.

          It's not easy being a parent in the first decade of the new millennium. It takes more than just being a mom or a dad.


          It takes a ceiling fan.

          The other day, I was trying to read the cover story of this week's New York magazine about a woman who is starting a TV network for Alpha Moms. I wanted to know who these Alpha Moms were. But my 41/2-week-old baby needed attention. So I cradled him in one arm, turned on the ceiling fan in the living room and stood there reading while he watched the blades slowly turning. He likes that.

          The article suggested that Alpha Moms can do it all, but by the second page I found out how — they have help. "It takes a village," the mom in the article actually said. And she apparently hired a village to watch her kid so she could work 100 hours a week on starting a TV network. Not just a nanny or a babysitter as many parents do, but a nanny and a babysitter and a night nurse. The more she learned about successful motherhood, the more people she hired to achieve it for her, the article said.

          Me, I'm a Beta Mom. Beta Moms fall short of Alpha Moms in terms of doing it all. But we do raise our kids. Oh, we can work at home or in an office, but we generally care for our own offspring.

          Right now, I am typing this all lower case with one hand because I am holding the baby and can't hit the shift key.

          The Alpha Mom gets a report on how many diapers her baby goes through in a day. I change our baby's diapers and report to myself. Oh, I don't change them all. My husband changes some and so does our wonderful ten-year-old daughter. Our sons, aged eight and five, sing to him, fetch bottles, wipes, and gently push the stroller back and forth on our porch. The dog licks the top of the baby's head when within reach. I think she thinks he's a puppy. The cat stares at him.

          Since I came home from the hospital four weeks ago after my fourth c-section, the whole family has been pitching in to make things work. Avoiding excessive stair climbing meant the laundry room was off limits to me. My husband did what was suddenly double the amount of wash we had with two adults and three kids just by adding a baby. Besides projectile vomiting on me several times a day necessitating various wardrobe changes for both of us, the baby seemed to continuously pee out the back of his diaper all over his bedding. (Three sons and I still have not figured out this mystery.)

          My husband is a Gamma spouse because he does a lot but not with Alpha perfection. He bought all the groceries this month, occasionally buying bread no one likes or industrial size cans of tuna that would feed an entire high-school cafeteria. Bigger is better, he says.

          He also tells people the baby is sleeping through the night. The twist is that it's my husband who is sleeping through the night so he misses the part when the baby and I are up.

          But if I need to go back to sleep in the morning, he and the tot go off to watch cable news and check e-mail while I get some rest. My Gamma guy takes the three older kids to their Little League games on three different fields, sometimes all on the same night.

          Our house is kind of messy. The living room and dining room are littered with burping cloths, toys, shoes, comic books, baseball gloves. The kitchen counter has 14 cans of formula on it. Baby bottles are drying on a towel. Dinner has been sandwiches more times than I'd like to admit these past few weeks.

          It may not be pretty but we get it done. I guess we don't have the right to call ourselves Alpha parents but, as far as we're concerned, parenting has a certain hands-on quality to it. The woman in the article said she wanted to maintain a sense of self. I can understand that. We sometimes get overwhelmed with the day-to-day stuff but we know who we are...we're parents.

          Happy Father's Day.

          Taken from the NRO Online, 17 JUN 2005.

          I posted this in its entirety because I wanted my wife to read it. It seems that the chaos that is our life with children (well, one child and one on the way) is the norm, and not the exception. I think we can relate to just about everything in this post (except the grocery shopping, which is almost exclusively the domain of the Mrs.)

          The article was written for Father's Day, but I like to think of it as Parent's Day. Ami, we're in this together. I love you.

          Your husband.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 10:35 AM


          Back when Kitty Kelly's book came out alleging drug use by George W. Bush, I viewed it as slanderous opportunism. Fortunately, that book has been relegated to the scrap heap of literature (for lack of a better word).

          Now comes the Ed Klein book alleging that the birth of Chelsea Clinton was the result of some rather aggressive sexual activity by Bill (the book calls it rape). This sort of sensationalist tripe is nonsensical. This view is not ideological, and is independent of political party. I don't think books of this sort have any place in the marketplace of ideas, although by nature, they always seem to find their way into the public consciousness. Here's hoping this tome goes the same way as Kelly's.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 9:19 AM


          People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals?

          Two Hampton Roads employees of Norfolk-based People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals have been charged in Ahoskie, N.C., with animal cruelty after dumping dead dogs and cats in a shopping center garbage bin, police said Thursday.

          Investigators staked out the bin after discovering that dead animals had been dumped there every Wednesday for the past four weeks, Ahoskie police said in a prepared statement.

          Police found 18 dead animals in the trash bin and 13 more in a van registered to PETA. The animals were from animal shelters in Northampton and Bertie counties in North Carolina, police said. The two were picking up animals to be brought back to PETA headquarters for euthanization, PETA president Ingrid Newkirk said Thursday.

          Neither police nor PETA offered any theory on why the animals might have been dumped.

          Local officials and veterinarians said they were told that PETA would find homes for the animals, not euthanize them. PETA has scheduled a news conference for Friday afternoon to discuss the charges.

          From PETA's mission statement:

          "Founded in 1980, PETA is dedicated to establishing and protecting the rights of all animals."

          Apparently, those rights include the right to be euthanized, regardless of whether or not the animal is viable as a pet.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 9:09 AM


          Wednesday, June 15, 2005

          Blame the Filibuster

          From the L.A. Times:

          As Mary Landrieu, the Louisiana Democrat who sponsored the (anti-lynching) resolution, said, the Senate was "uniquely culpable" for Washington's failure to protect U.S. citizens from a type of domestic terrorism often orchestrated by local authorities.

          What wasn't said is that the Senate was "uniquely culpable" because it cherished the filibuster — a procedural rule that enhances each member's individual power — over the Constitution. The Senate's failure to acknowledge the cause of its homicidal negligence robs its apology of much meaning or sincerity.

          Those unfamiliar with history today, or generations from now, might blame the American people for sending senators to Washington who were evil or out of touch. But there were 70 senators willing to sponsor anti-lynching legislation as far back as 1938, and lives could have been saved if the federal government had taken action then.

          History would look a little different if a minority of Southern Democrats hadn't been allowed to defend their cultural livelihood using a procedural tool.

          Tyranny of the minority, indeed.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 12:03 PM


          Some folks are upset because a group of Senators have not co-sponsored a lynching apology resolution. I don't think anyone in our government thinks lynching was a good thing, yet it is being suggested that by virtue of not co-sponsoring the resolution, these fifteen Senators are pro-lynching. I find such a suggestion absurd. I would find it equally absurd if a group of Senators resolved to condemn pedophilia, and a group of legislators decided not to be a co-sponsor. The question I keep asking when any resolution of this type comes to the forefront is "What good does this do?"

          And what of Tennessee Senator Lamar Alexander's position?

          Alexander filed a written statement explaining that he preferred another approach, a resolution he filed in February to celebrate Black History Month.

          That resolution in part noted the "disgraceful" period of lynchings, and "condemns" them as well as the period of slavery and segregation.

          "There is no resolution of apology that we can pass today (Monday) that will teach one more child to read, prevent one more case of AIDS or stop one more violent crime," Alexander's written statement said. "I prefer to look to correct current injustices rather than to look to the past."

          Maybe I'm in the minority, but I don't really have an issue with Alexander's position here, although knowing how politicized things can be in Washington, maybe the prudent thing to have done would have been to sign on as a co-sponsor if for no other reason than to end the silly insinuation that by not signing on, you are implicitly pro-lynching.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 11:06 AM


          Monday, June 13, 2005

          I'm not one to link to the Huffington Post much, but this "IM exchange" between Blair and Dubya had me laughing.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 9:21 PM


          Am I really supposed to feel sorry for this lady because she spent $5,000,000 that she received after her husband died in the World Trade Center attacks? I mean, I feel for anyone who lost a loved one on September 11, but:

          Trant began lavishing gifts on friends and family. She gave her former housekeeper $15,000 to buy a home in El Salvador, she spent $70,000 to take six friends to the Super Bowl and another $30,000 for a trip for 20 to the Bahamas.

          She said Dan would have wanted to help others, and he would have liked to improve their home as well. So Trant spent $1.5 million to nearly triple the size of her suburban New York home. She spent $350,000 on the back yard, installing a full basketball court also equipped for volleyball, tennis and Rollerblading, a heated pool and a hot tub.

          Wait, there's more...

          Trant designed a shrine of her husband's mementos, and put it on display in her new red-white-and-blue den. She added sports memorabilia to her walls, including a Boston Celtics ball autographed by players. Dan was drafted last by the Celtics in 1984, and though he never played for them, he played professionally in Ireland.

          Trant also blew millions on frivolous items for herself. Her walk-in closet houses a $500,000 shoe collection, gowns by Versace and Capelli that go for $5,000 each and Fendi and Judith Leiber handbags, also $5,000 per bag.

          I'm sorry. I have a hard time seeing this woman as a victim, except where the loss of her husband is concerned. This sounds more to me like a shopaholic who didn't know when to quit, and if I ran up huge shopping bills like that, I doubt I could claim that I had a disorder and get away with it (or, maybe I could, but I sure as heck wouldn't try.)

          She should be required to pay this money back, and give it to others who really need it, like orphaned children of September 11th victims, and such. Or hey, where's the G8? Maybe they can demand that she give her extra bucks to Africa to combat poverty.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 9:13 PM


          I missed this little tidbit (from the A.P. no less) while I was in Texas:

          U.N. satellite imagery experts have determined that material that could be used to make biological or chemical weapons and banned long-range missiles has been removed from 109 sites in Iraq, U.N. weapons inspectors said in a report obtained Thursday.

          But I thought there were no WMD to be found in Iraq? I guess the U.N. is lying about this little fact, since Bush told the very same "lies".

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 8:56 PM


          Sunday, June 05, 2005

          We've been in East Texas all week looking for a new house. Househunting isn't something I really like, since the wife and I don't always agree on what we are looking for. However, this time has been different, since we have found several that we both like. At present, this one looks like it will be our choice:

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 10:07 AM


          My son's first airplane flight:

          First leg:



          Second leg:




          Quite a difference. Heh.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 10:03 AM


          Travel Rant:

          I've been too tired to post much on the subject, but I have to detail the ordeal that was our arrival here in Texas. Fortunately, the ordeal most often associated with traveling with infants, crying and screaming, wasn't an issue. My son was terrific on the way here, and I can only hope he approaches that for the return trip.

          The ordeal we encountered was with the human element, the customer support people who run Hertz Rental Cars, and American Airlines. Upon arriving in Dallas airport, we noted that an earlier flight was available to our destination, and we wanted to get there ASAP so that our son could take a nap. We transferred flights, fully expecting that our luggage would not arrive with us until later.

          When we arrived, we noted that the next flight would arrive at 2 pm, so we figured we could drive to the hotel, and come back in 90 minutes (we arrived at 12:30) to retrieve our luggage. What we found was that not only was our rental car agency not on site, but the car we needed (complete with infnt car seat) was in Shreveport, LA, 100 miles away (this, despite the fact that they knew 2 weeks in ADVANCE that we would be arriving in Texas and would need a car seat equipped vehicle).

          At this point, I didn't see any reason to change vendors, since it was already paid and arranged, so we waited, hoping that the car would arrive around the same time as our luggage. When 2 pm came, we watched the luggage carousel complete its cycle at least a half dozen times, and our luggage was nowhere to be seen. So... we have been in town for almost 2 hours, with no luggage, and no rental car. I should also add that my son was pee-soaked, and we didn't have a change of clothes handy for him (yes, bad planning, so sue me).

          American tracks our luggage and can't. Hertz assures me they are "on their way". Yet, I'm sitting there, naked baby in lap, tired pregnant wife beside me, and hunger pains permeating my every fiber. At one point, I could have strangled anything airline related. (This moment also gave me new pleasure in knowing that I was leaving the aerospace industry for something more stable).

          Finally, forty minutes late, and one hundred and thirty minutes after our arrival, Hertz shows up, apologetic and courteous, which was good. However, I've learned to expect ineptitude from Hertz. I never should have selected them as the provider for a rental car, but they were, according to the travel agent, the only one who had a car seat available. Later that day, I found out that National, Enterprise, and Avis ALL had car seats ON SITE THAT DAY. Someone at the travel agency should be drawn and quartered.

          Finally, three hours later, our luggage arrived at the hotel, but not before we had to buy a change of clothes for our son. All in all, it could have gone much worse, but the dilemma only solidified my dissatisfaction with air travel in general.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 8:13 AM


          Thursday, June 02, 2005

          I have to admit... even after working in the aerospace industry and even though I have a degree in aeronautical engineering and even though it is "far safer statistically than driving", I still hate hate HATE riding on commuter jets that have horribly vibrational turboprops and yaw 10-20 degrees at the slightest turbulence (that means you, Saab and Embraer!).

          Oh well, at least it's only a 29 minute flight.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 12:21 PM


          This morning, we're embarking on our house hunting trip in Texas. It's my son's first flight ever, and he seems to be thoroughly at ease (thank the Lord!) We had hoped that he could watch the clouds go by, but the engine nacelle blocked the view. It would not have mattered anyway since his primary occupation has been with the vacuum pictures in the Skymall catalog. Hopefully, when the weeklong trip ends, we'll have a new home. In the meantime, the Residence Inn awaits!

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 11:25 AM


          Tuesday, May 31, 2005

          Deep Throat has been revealed to be... Linda Lovelace? No... Mark Felt, the second highest ranking individual in the bureau at the time. At least, Mark Felt is saying so. No word yet from Woodward and Bernstein, or the WaPo.

          UPDATE: WaPo confirms Felt is Deep Throat. Bob Woodward's piece will appear in the Post on Thursday.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 11:59 AM


          Monday, May 30, 2005

          If you can't teach your young'uns good eating habits, how about spying on them instead?

          As Garin Hughes picks through his school-lunch burrito and unidentifiable apple-pear dessert, he has a secret. Hidden underneath the eighth-grader's right leg is a chocolate cookie in shrink-wrapped plastic. That's for dessert. In the past, his parents had no clue when he bought a treat at school. Now, thanks to a new school-lunch monitoring system, they can check over the Internet and learn about that secret cookie.

          Health officials hope it will increase parents' involvement in what their kids eat at school. It's a concern because federal health data shows that up to 30 percent of U.S. children are either overweight or obese.

          "My parents do care about what I eat. They try, like, to keep up with it," said Hughes, a 14-year-old student at Marietta Middle School.

          Of course, as homeschooling parents, this won't be a problem in the Opinari household, as we will simply send the kids out to play in the backyard and let them scavenge off the land.

          Labels:

          .: posted by Dave 10:33 PM


          Need ASP.NET, VB, VB.NET, or Access development?

          Contact me through Guru.com.




          Opinari Archives


          Recommended Reading


          Blogroll Me!

          Proudly blogging on a Treo 650 using Vagablog 1.9.
          This page powered by Blogger, and yours should be, too!