1. You act like a crazy lunatic on crowded sidewalks. Not this one so much
You believe that there exists an unspoken pedestrian code of conduct. YES! Or COURSE there is!!!
You possess negative or violent thoughts toward fellow pedestrians Yes, because they aren't following #2! This isn't a disease. It's completely rational behavior I tell ya.
Friends or family comment on your aggressive sidewalk habits. Of COURSE they don't. At least, not to my face.
In a world where it depends on what the meaning of is is, all the government needs to do is interpret. Regulating interstate commerce includes forcing people to buy things they don’t want to buy, and smoking includes not smoking. You can make anything you want be true, if you only believe. And “you” means “the government,” and “believe” means “dictate.”
Thus spake the Constitutional Law professor. And who would know better?
as my grandmother used to say. I've stayed away from posting the ever-changing situation in Egypt .... but I'll present this as a representation on the muddled handling from the Obama administration:
from VICTOR DAVIS HANSON: The Obama Doctrine At Play In Egypt. “All the above said, the actual implementation reflects somebody with the experience of two years in the Senate, who had never navigated outside of academia and Chicago tit-for-tat politics. So Mubarak is/is not a dictator, must leave now/yesterday/sometime soon as he serves as sort of a figurative leader/a critical transition player/a suspicious counter-revolutionary inasmuch as the U.S. must lay down conditions/advise only/respect Egyptian prerogatives, as private conversations with Egyptians are spilled to the press, Obama suggests the Cairo desire for freedom somehow channels his own support, and Biden, Clinton, and Obama contradict one another hourly. This is very sad.”
also Sigh: “There are two possibilities, and they’re both appalling. One is that Clapper knew everything he was saying was a gross distortion of reality but said it anyway, thereby deliberately misleading the American people and giving aid and comfort to a group whose interests are completely antithetical to those of the United States. The other is that Clapper is genuinely ignorant of the agenda of the Muslim Brotherhood, a thought that is just about as unnerving as can be imagined. If it needs to be to pointed out to the Director of National Intelligence that Google is his friend, we are in a boatload of trouble, folks. I wish I was kidding.”
What is it called when you throw toilet paper on a house? Tee Pee-ing
•What is the bug that when you touch it, it curls into a ball? No clue!
•What is the bubbly carbonated drink called? I'm a midwesterner through and through - pop
•What do you call gym shoes? Um …. gym shoes?
•What do you say to address a group of people? I don't even understand the question.
•What do you call the kind of spider that has an oval-shaped body and extremely long legs? Assuming you're going for “daddy long legs here? The arachnid, not the Fred Astaire movie.
•What do you call your grandparents? Deceased
•What do you call the wheeled contraption in which you carry groceries at the supermarket? A cart.
•What do you call it when rain falls while the sun is shining? Damn weird weather. Or we say that the devil's beating his wife.
•What is the thing you change the TV channel with? I have my step son wired with a harness and when I press a button it administers a small electrical charge.
Recently, during an interview with Mexico's Televisa, Secretary of State Hillary Clinton declared that the United States can't legalize drugs "because there is just too much money in it."
Apparently, Clinton doesn't understand that there's so much money to be made selling illegal drugs precisely because drugs are illegal.
Another new definition Topic: Politics
"Judicial Activism". The right defines it as judges legislating from the bench. Things like creating rights that don't exist, etc. The left defines it as making decisions they don't like, Constitutional or not.
More on finding the right starting point Now Playing: Luther Topic: Politics
Had an interesting discussion with the mum-in-law last night. The jumping off point was her question “Why doesn't Utah recognize the separation of church and state?” I can argue both sides of this (of course) but was curious about what this layman meant. So I asked her. “Before I can answer your question I need to know what you mean by 'the separation of church and state'.” She couldn't tell me. Long story: when she was in Utah all she saw was Mormon churches and wanted to know why the state didn't allow others. Her liberal husband immediately jumped in and corrected her misconception, thus avoiding the legal argument that was about to ensue. Another “fight” staved off by a “first principles” question. Had I assumed her actual question I would've gone off on a tangent which had nothing to do with her actual inquiry.
And so it was that I spotted an interesting post over on Ricochet.com (I know I've linked there quite a bit lately. If you aren't reading it regularly you should be. Seriously.) Here's the money 'graph:
“There is a fundamental difference that stands behind everything we debate that is rarely addressed. This is the left-wing worldview that defaults to togetherness and collectivism as the basic approach to solutions. Conservatives see individuality and separation as the solution. But not even that. Conservatives don't really believe in solutions. This sounds ludicrous to the love and togetherness crowd, but it's true. For us, it's already been solved to the best of our mortal abilities. Our Constitution addressed all these age-old problems and set up a mechanism for self-governance. “
A few months back I posted my epiphany that the reason I didn't “get” economics was because it was Keynesian and made no sense to me. With more and more evidence being amassed that it makes no sense in the real world period it was gratifying to find the following observation by Peter Robinson over at Ricochet.com:
Steve Forbes, arguing in the current issue of Forbes that Keynesianism is now coming under a final, and mortal, intellectual assault:
[G]overnment efforts to "temper" the "ups and downs" of business cycles will be regarded as preposterous and hubristic. We'll no longer have the spectacle of a Larry Summers, President Obama's outgoing Director of the White House National Economic Council and Assistant to the President for Economic Policy, overtly declaring the Keynesian axiom that if consumers don't spend on a scale satisfactory to such economic commissars as himself then the government must seize their assets and spend them for them.
The government, seizing our assets to do our spending for us. Really, that's as pointed and accurate a one-sentence description of Keynes as I've ever come across. Beautiful.
Peter O'Toole and 
Petula Clark. Not sure if my fond recollection of this movies is due to my current teaching career or is misplaced but if it's got PeterO'toole it's GOTTA be good. After all 
