« September 2005 | Main | November 2005 »

October 31, 2005

It's official... NaNo 2005

It's official. Tanya and I sealed our NaNo2005 suicide pact this dark and stormy Halloween, and I decided to start from scratch rather than continue on my other novel-in-progress.

Wish me luck. Expect charts!

Life in General by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 30, 2005

Refuge

I've done a lot of simple pinups recently, and mostly that was just because, well, ok, a lot was because I'm a guy, but also because it made learning various technical aspects of the tools easier without a lot of other things getting in the way. But anyway, here's one that's a bit more complicated.

refuge_thumb.jpg
(click for full image)

We all need a place of refuge, where we can retreat for a moment of peace, hidden away from the rest of the world. We don't go there nearly often enough.

Render by Dan | Permalink | Comments (4)

Generic Update

It’s been a while since I’ve done a generic update, so here it is:

LHS83L29SS02048XLSO299892-XLS93L1::883S.2

And for those who need a bit of help interpreting the summary…

And that’s about it. I should probably go for a walk.

Life in General by Dan | Permalink | Comments (4)

Travelling the time zones tonight...

A little lame and a little weird, but...

I'm staying up late working tonight, and I'm looking at two computers I have here in my office. My personal machine is on Central time, while my work machine is on Pacific time. Normally they're always two hours apart, but at the moment, my personal machine has already switched to standard time while the work machine is still on daylight savings time.

So, when you're approaching 2AM for the second time in one night, it's best not to stick around for the third and fourth times.

Off to bed.

Life in General by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 28, 2005

Ouch! CNN caught in liberal bias?

I caught this over at Redstate and thought it was just too damn funny not to pass on. Gallup did a poll about the recent Miers nomination withdrawal, and they asked folks about what kind of philosophy the next nominee should have. The results are as follows:

Very Conservative: 14%
Somewhat Conservative: 23%
Moderate: 34%
Somewhat Liberal: 16%
Very Liberal: 8%
No opinion: 4%

How should we interpret those numbers? Well, according to CNN, this is a big nod of support for the left.

On the question of the philosophy of Bush's next nominee, respondents came down solidly on the side of someone who has moderate or liberal views -- with 34 percent choosing "moderate" and 24 percent picking "liberal."

Only 14 percent thought the nominee should be "very conservative" and 23 percent chose "somewhat conservative."

Notice how they grouped "somewhat liberal" and "very liberal" together to make the liberal side seem bigger than the conservative side? But given the numbers, wouldn't it have been more accurate to say instead:

On the question of the philosophy of Bush's next nominee, respondents came down solidly on the side of someone who has conservative or moderate views -- with 37 percent choosing "conservative" and 34 percent picking "moderate."

Only 8 percent thought the nominee should be "very liberal" and 16 percent chose "somewhat liberal."

IMO, this is a clear sign of bias of the author/editor. Of course, this is popping up all over the conservative (both "very" and "somewhat") side of the blogosphere, so it might not take long for CNN to "correct" the article.

Of course, when I rule the world and have all those soft-headed bleeding hearts executed... er, I mean, if I had written the article, it might have read:

On the question of the philosophy of Bush's next nominee, respondents seemed evenly spread but with a slight lean towards the conserviate side -- with 37 percent choosing "conservative", 34 percent choosing "moderate", and 24 percent choosing "liberal".

But I've long since given up hope of seeing good, unbiased reporting coming out of the major media outlets.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (2)

October 27, 2005

Watching the Plame Game...

I haven't said much about the investigation of Valerie Plame's outing yet, because frankly I'm just waiting for someone to actually know something. However, I will say this:

It has been very enjoyable these last couple of weeks watching dozens (if not hundreds) of Clinton apologists suddenly start preaching on the seriousness of the crime of perjury. The irony is so thick and sweet I'm spreading it on my morning toast.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (3)

Miers Withdraws

Harriet Miers has withdrawn from the Supreme Court nomination process. As I've said before, I thought she was a poor choice due to her lack of judge-experience. Hopefully, we will not repeat the folly that caused this experiment in the first place, i.e. the Senate suggestions that we needed a fresh perspective on the Court.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 26, 2005

To NaNoWriMo or Not To NaNoWriMo?

It's almost Halloween, and that means my mind is turning to the National Novel Writing Month (aka NaNoWriMo). That's right, it's the time of year when thousands of would-be writers, manic-depressives, and masochists say, "Yeah, I'd like to try to write an entire novel in one month." Hey, at least they don't try it in February. The question I'm struggling with is, do I do it again this year?

I did it last year, and while I did succeed, the whole experience was a mixed bag of good and bad experiences. So, I'm enumerating some of them in hopes of reaching a conclusion. Also, both Marvin and Tanya did it last year, and I'm curious as to where they are on some of these issues as well as the larger question of NaNo2005.

Good: It was an insane goal, but I did actually crank out the required 50,000 words in 30 days. It had a nice sense of accomplishment.

Bad: While I met the NaNoWriMo challenge (50K in 30 days), the novel itself was not finished. It's now a 65,000 tale that stops right in the middle of Act 2.

Good: Hey, I was actually writing for a while there, and that's a good thing. I like to think I have a lot of creative ideas, but they're also like little demons, constantly chipping away at my ability to concentrate. Getting them out into concrete form is a form of exorcism.

Bad: Did you see the Exorcist? Yeah, well something like that. When I'm writing, I tend to have much more vivid dreams, at least I remember more vivid dreams... but also nightmares. It can be a little stressful working through that stuff.

Good: While I haven't actually shown my NaNo2004 output to anyone, I think it's actually pretty good. That is, I think I was actually putting out something pretty good, so if I ever finish it and edit it, I think I've got a real novel on my hands.

Bad: Yeah, and if I do the same thing this year, I'll now have two really good, really unfinished novels in the closet.

Neutral: I could, of course, try to finish NaNo2004 as my NaNo2005 effort, but that's sort or cheating. I sort of did that last year since I was already a little bit into the novel before November, but it had stalled out several months earlier. I still did the 50K, so it wasn't really cheating, just sort of. But I don't think I'm up to diving in with the necessary fresh energy to pick up on something that stalled out last December.

Bad: It took a lot of time last year, time I could have spent with my family, or on my job, etc. The same will be true this year. Plus, time is even scarcer this year since I've planned one weekend trip and Thanksgiving is going to involve travelling this year, making it that much harder. I can probably just whack five days out of the calendar.

Good: Last year I was trying to do it while I was also sick, and with the exception of some ongoing stomach issues, I'm feeling pretty good.

Bad: I was also thinking about a 12-part rendering project to do in November, and that would be tough to do as well as NaNo.

Good: I've got a plot idea that should do fairly well. It won't require a lot of advance research, and if it goes really badly, I don't have a lot emotionally invested in it so far.

Bad: I snacked incessantly while writing last year, a habit that lasted through the winter, making me about 15 to 20 pounds heavier than I was last year. I can't have a repeat of that.

Good: The cameraderie of it was fun, being in it with others that I knew as well as anonymous strangers on the NaNo forums.

Neutral: Work is being really demanding right now. I say this is neutral because while it's really eating into my personal time, it's also consuming me, and I could use a distraction that's at least moderately healthy.

Well, I'm not going to tally it up, and I haven't really reached a decision. It's tempting, but I don't know if I have it in me this year. In the end, I think a lot of it will depend on whether friends do it and on what MAW thinks.

Life in General by Dan | Permalink | Comments (4)

October 25, 2005

Prop 2, from a Christian, Republican perspective

Early voting has started in Texas today, and I went and voted this morning. The main thing that drew me to the polls was Proposition 2, a proposed amendment to the Texas Constitution to ban gay marriage. I am something of a Republican (though you should see 37-dimension vectors spaces), and I’m a married white man with three children, raised by Republican parents in a Christian environment. And from that background, I had no doubt on how to vote on this issue.

I voted no.

That’s right, I voted against the state constitutional ban on gay marriage because of my background. Now, I could also quote you a number of other reasons that come from a more liberal or secular background. I could even quote you a few that make Republicans such as myself the second coming of Hitler. But those are angry voices, unwilling to look deep. Unfortunately, some of my Republican cohorts speak with the same tone, but from a different side. It is to them that I make this argument.

Thus I present some reasons for a Christian Republican to vote against Proposition 2 on the Texas constitutional ballot:

The amendment is mostly redundant. There is already a state law that forbids the state or a political subdivision from recognizing gay marriage, so in Texas it is already disallowed. As a Republican, I feel in general principal that the fewer the laws, the better. There are exceptions, of course, but all things being equal, fewer laws are better than more laws. The Texas Constitution is a huge document, riddled with amendments, and keeping one more off the pile is a worthy cause in itself.

The amendment does not really provide much more protection against an “activist” judge than the current state law. This protection against judges has been one of the main selling points of this amendment, but the truth is that it does not help much. The only protection it could reasonably provide is that it would keep a state judge from ruling the current marriage law in violation of the current Texas Constitution. Further, the Texas Constitution is so complex, that a determined judge could probably find a conflict between the new amendment and some previously existing clause, allowing him to craft a ruling between the two conflicts. But that’s not likely to happen since the current law is unlikely to be overturned by a state court because the appeals court and state supreme court judges are elected, and as of late, that means they have become stocked with conservatives who are very unlikely to go off the deep end in such stormy political waters. Finally, the amendment does nothing about the more likely legal challenge that a gay marriage ban violates the Federal Constitution. You could claim that marriage is a state matter, not subject to federal regulation, but that logic would allow Texas to keep Hispanics or women out of state office, since those are purely matters of the state of Texas.

The language of the amendment is poorly drafted and overly vague on the matter of civil unions or on a status similar to marriage. Many legal analysts have commented that this will likely forbid “common law” marriages, i.e. a man and a woman living together in a state of marriage, perhaps even church sanctioned, without actually have a marriage license. This may not seem like such a big deal to those of us who did the five minutes of paperwork at the county office years ago, but common law marriage was the norm until the mid-1800’s. To forbid it would mean that no marriage would exist except those sanctioned by the state. My Republican upbringing tells me that this is dangerous, taking something that you could do yesterday on your own but would require state permission tomorrow. Again, having fewer laws is better than having more laws.

In fact, the language on the civil unions is so poorly drafted, that some suggest it could nullify a number of legal agreements unrelated to the specific status of marriage, such as powers of attorney, living wills, even estate trusts. I point out that last item in particular because estate trusts are one of the few remaining instruments for limiting the scope of the estate tax, a.k.a. the “death tax”. If that tax continues, and it is set to do so presently, then this could make life difficult for any of you trying to pass on wealth to the next generation.

Even if you could accept the argument that this amendment will further the goal of banning gay marriage, I cannot accept the argument that banning gay marriage helps promote and stabilize traditional heterosexual marriage. As I have written before, the real threats to marriage are longevity, easy divorce, women’s rights, and the acceptance of single parents. These are things we fought hard for because they give us more options, but ultimately their exercise has cost marriage dearly. If you really are trying to save the state of marital bliss that existed in 1950’s television, that battle was lost a generation ago. This won’t bring it back.

Now, marriage is a wonderful thing. I’ve been married for over fourteen years, and it has been a wonderful source of stability and well-being in my life. It has provided a loving environment in which to raise my children. From the point of view social engineering, of maintaining the great social contract, my marriage has been a very positive step. But if marriage is such a good thing, why is it only for us, the heterosexuals, and not for them? Perhaps you feel that two men or two women would be incapable of having a stable relationship or of providing good role models for their children. It’s OK for you to feel that, but are you sure? Do you actually have any evidence or experience, or is it simple prejudice? As a practical matter, it is not the unknowns that get us into trouble, but the things we are sure of that turn out to be false.

But then you may also feel that their homosexuality, their lifestyle, is not a lifestyle at all. It is sin, you can say, and you know so because it is clearly identified in the Bible. Well, let me just say that while much of the Biblical ban on homosexuality can be read in clear text, it is also some selective reading. It is a verse from here, a verse from there, most of it either the Old Testament or from the wisdom of Paul. Now, while I cannot tell you to freely discard all the teachings of the Old Testament or of Paul, I do think that Christians should follow the words of Christ first and foremost. If I may be permitted a bit of selective quoting myself I will remind you that Christ gave us only one commandment, and that was to love our neighbors as ourselves. He did say many other things, but he made it clear that that was the big guide on how to live our lives. To toss in the Star Trek terms, it is Christ’s Prime Directive. And so, I must ask, if this amendment does nothing to further ban gay marriage and offers no real support for traditional marriage, then what is our motivation for passing it? Is it to express love for our fellow man? I think not. Rather, I think it is meant to spite our neighbors and say, “You are different, and thus you are not my neighbor, so I have no love for you.” It is a chance to cast a stone and feel better about ourselves. I don’t think we really want to do that.

And finally, this is a generational issue far more than it is a Republican or Democrat issue. I’ve seen this in a bits and pieces of polling data. For starters, the gay marriage bans voted on last November enjoyed moderate to strong support among Democrats, with at least 20-65% of Kerry voters coming down against gay marriage in the various states that voted on this issue. My belief, though, is that younger voters are more accepting of gay marriage. While much of my evidence is anecdotal, it is showing up in a few polls. A recent UCLA poll found that 57% of college freshman were in favor of gay marriage compared to only 36% in the general voting population.

This is not the first generational issue, nor will it be the last. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, women’s rights, civil rights… these have all been struggles fought between those clinging to the old traditional ways and those seeing a new and different world. While we firmly see the error of tradition now, these were not evil men and women who resisted the change. They were standing up for a way of life that had lasted for hundreds of years and had achieved great things in the absence of these new ideas. Perhaps the charitable thing to say is that they were right for their times.

And perhaps those who oppose gay marriage so vehemently today are also right for their time, but like all who came before, they too shall grow old and pass into history. The best they can do for posterity is to not make it harder for their children to govern a just society after they’re gone. So, for now, just leave it as it is. The various laws will last a while longer, perhaps even another full generation. That’s all you have to do. After that, it’s up to your children. You did better than your parents. Maybe they’ll do better than you.


Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (5)

October 20, 2005

Orgasmic Technology

It's been a while since I've made a technology post, but this new Bluetooth add-on is just too good to pass up on.

And by the way, I've been thinking lately that it's time to upgrade MAW's and my phone plan to include SMS text messaging, and maybe Bluetooth phones as well. This is, uh... a complete coincidence.

Thanks to nukewolf for the tip.

Technology by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

Today is MAW's birthday

Today is MAW's birthday. As you can see from the picture below, she's just turned twenty-nine.

Again.

Be sure to wish her a happy birthday.

(click for larger version)

Family /Photography by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 17, 2005

DeLay... where's the arrest warrant?

Setting aside for just a bare moment whether or not Ronnie Earle's indictments against Tom DeLay are real criminal charges or just the next step in political vendettas, I'm wondering why DeLay hasn't been arrested yet. After all, he's been formally charged with a felony. Even in polite, white-collar crimes, an indictment is followed by an arrest warrant, and then the accused arranges a time with his lawyer and the D.A. to come in, surrender, and post bail. Does anyone know why this hasn't happened yet for DeLay? Is there some procedural hold-up? Or did I just miss the perp-walk on TV?

Now, getting back to the validity of the charges. If there's a judge who should have issued the arrest warrant but didn't, does that mean anything?

Personally, I don't have much of an opinion on the validity of the charges. Some of DeLay's actions look like they're skirting the line between the letter of the law and the spirit of the law. At the same time, Earle's actions with the multiple grand juries, the last minute rush to beat the statute of limitations after a two year investigation, and the personal film crew... well, let's just say it doesn't match my expectations of proper D.A. behavior.

Time will tell.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (2)

Progress of the Iraqi vote

Mostly I'm just passing on this commentary by an Iraqi citizen over at Iraq the Model. The day before the constitutional vote, he was thinking both back and forwards:

I am so excited but a flashback from Saddam’s referendum three years ago still hurts; he wanted a 100% as the 99.96% of the previous one shocked the dictator. I was depressed that way and I decided not to go to the voting office and so did the rest of the family but my father was afraid that not going could be dangerous. He said that maybe one member of the family could go alone and cast votes for the rest of us. We looked at each other thinking who’s going to volunteer to do this ugly job to protect the family. At that moment my father said “it was my generation that caused the misery we’re living in so I’m the one who should do this”. I couldn’t stop him and I couldn’t utter a word but I felt sad for him; his sacrifice was big and I had teary eyes when I watched him taking our papers and heading out.

It is different this time father, no more 100% and a ‘no’ would make me happy just like a ’yes’ would do and no one ever will force us to do something against our will anymore. Tomorrow will be another day for Iraqi bravery. May God protect you my people…you have suffered so much and you will still be suffering for some time but I am sure the future will be bright. God bless you my people and all the freedom lovers who keep sacrificing to make this world a better place.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 16, 2005

Lord of the Rings... with Ninjas!

I recently had a lovely time over at fugaciouslover's house watching the last half of the Lord of the Rings extended editions. Here's a bit from the first film which I unfortunately missed. At least I think this is in the extended edition. ;)

Lord of the Rings... with Ninjas!
(click for full animation)

Note: I didn't create this. I don't know who did. I just stretched it to a larger size to make the text more readable.

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 14, 2005

Boobs for Bourbon St.

Now here's an idea I think we can all get behind. Boobs4BourbonSt.com is asking for two kinds of donations. First, they want you ladies to send in anonymous pictures of your flashed flesh, that's right, your boobs -- beads are optional. Second the want us guys... ok, they want us all, to send donations to some of the accredited charities (Red Cross, Bush-Clinton, etc.) in order to see the boobs.

How much more New Orleans can you get? (Ok, we could toss in corruption and police brutality, but let's hold it at the boobs.)

Blog by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

Friday 5: A Friday of questions

Today's odd little query comes from Marvin:

Should it be a "sack of Hobbits" or a "bag of Hobbits" or a "hole of Hobbits?" Name -- or better yet, invent -- five of your favorite collective nouns.

Oh my, this should be fun:

  1. A “brush” of hobbits: Anything that hairy deserves the name.

  2. A “colony” of defects: Software bugs are just like the real-world kind. If you see one, you know there are a lot more hiding in the walls.

  3. A “quiver” of voice mails/emails/instant messages: Ever go out to lunch and come back to find that something happened, thus generating a lot of fast emails, voice mails, and so on? It’s like coming back to see an entire quiver-full of arrows piercing your chair in a nice cluster pattern.

  4. A “keg” of mistakes: Do I need to spell it out?

  5. A “Shakespeare” of monkeys: That’s a LOT of monkeys.

The rest of the Friday Fivers can be counted here.

Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 13, 2005

Thumbs down on Miers

I'm afraid I'm going to have to give Miers the thumbs-down on her nomination to the Supreme Court. It's not that she's too conservative or that she's not conservative enough, because frankly, no one's really sure where she is politically or even on her judicial philosophy, except presumably President Bush. It's possible that her judicial philosophy matches mine 100%, but even if I knew that to be true, I'd still have to say "no thanks" to her nomination.

It really comes down to the fact that she's never been a judge before. Nominating a non-judge first came up in June when high-ranking Senators (both Republican and Democrat) suggested the idea to President Bush, in hopes of bringing "more diverse perspectives" to the Supreme Court. Diversity is all well and good, but in my opinion, experience trumps diversity. Lack of experience is not a desired perspective, diverse or not. I was pleased that he ignored that advice when nominating Roberts, but it seems like he gave in the second time around.

Now, Harriet Miers has a long and distinguished career in law and has even argued cases in constitutional law, but I believe there is a distinct difference between arguing for a position and being the one to decide which position is more in keeping with the law. I'm sure she's adjudicated a few mock trials, but that’s no substitute for being the man (or woman) behind the bench when real lives or livelihoods are on the line.

If I may be permitted a sports analogy, we’ll take a detour into football. It’s the Super Bowl, and you’re coaching your team against a tough opponent. It’s the fourth quarter, and you’re down by four points, deep in your own territory. A player comes to you and begs to be put in as the new running back. He’s been practicing with the rest of the team for years, and he knows the playbook backwards and forwards. He even helps with some of the play calling. But... he’s never actually played in a game. He’s done great on the practice squad, and you know he’s in top physical condition, but he’s never had to carry the ball through a defensive line that’s just as committed to winning as he is. Meanwhile, you have four veteran running backs ready to go. Do you send in the new guy? Of course not! (Note: Ernie Zampese might, but we won’t go into that here.)

I don’t mean this as a personal insult to Ms. Miers in any way. She could turn out to the greatest judge since Thurgood Marshall, but the Supreme Court is not the place to get that first impression. If she is as good as many suggest, then she should have been nominated for one of the many open slots in the various appeals courts. A few years later, fate might smile upon her with a shot at the Supreme Court. At least then she could point to a body of rulings to say, “Yes, I know how to judge.”

But now... we just don’t know if she has what it takes to play in the biggest legal league around. I know the new guy can run the 40 in 3.8 seconds, but sorry Coach, you made the wrong call.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (5)

October 12, 2005

Why is it always a Czar?

Apparently, experts call for creating US bird flu czar. Why is it always a "czar"? I mean, it's not like they were particularly efficient or reasonable. Are they really something we want to emulate?

Or maybe it's just code for, "Lets blow a lot of resources on something poorly managed and wasteful but that looks good on paper until it is finally torn down by outside forces and internal revolt." That pretty much sums up our Drug Czar.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (3)

Taco Soup

The smell of cooking is wafting up the stairs to my office. MAW is making the first Taco Soup of the season. This is a dish we eat a lot of in the cooler seasons, but she's been avoiding it for a few years to keep the onions out of her various "mommy" systems.

Family Reunion Taco Soup

I Ib. ground beef
1 onion chopped
I green bell pepper chopped
1 28 oz can of chopped tomatoes undrained
1-2 packages Taco Seasonings mix (Old El Paso) (1.25 oz)
1 package of ranch dressing mix (1 oz.)
1/2 cup picante sauce
1 6 oz can of tomato paste
2 15-17 oz cans of whole kernel corn undrained
1 15-16 oz cans of pinto beans
2 cups of water
Salt and freshly ground black pepper to taste
Tortilla chips and grated cheese

Brown the beef, onion and bell pepper in a large pot and drain. Add chopped tomatoes to the pot with their juice. Add the taco seasonings, the dressing mix and the picante sauce, tomato paste, corn, beans, water, salt and pepper. Simmer I hour. Serve in bowls and sprinkle each serving with tortilla chips and cheese. Alternate: serve over rice.

Makes a large pot, about 12 servings.

If she's true to form, she'll be making a double batch and freezing the rest for quick meals on football days.

Family by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 11, 2005

As kids see the world...

I ran across this yesterday:

I was out driving with my three young children yesterday, and we pulled to a stop light behind a vintage, red convertible. An attractive, young woman stood up in the passenger seat and turned to wave to us. She was stark naked. While I sat in a mild state of amused shock, my five year old daughter cried out, "Mom! She's not wearing a seat belt!"

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 07, 2005

Friday 5: Ooo, that place sounds interesting...

Today's question comes from Gord:

Tell us about five local places (in your neighborhood, town, or city, or region) that you have never visited, but would like to go to sometime... if you ever get around to it?

Given the number of us Fivers in the Austin area, we just might have to do some group outings based on this question.

  1. Sixth Street: I mean, I've been to Sixth Street. I used to drive down it at least once or twice a week, but it was always just to get somewhere. I've been to perhaps one or two clubs on it, but not at night when things were happening. Austin is supposed to be the "Live Music Capital of the World", and I've never been down to the club scene. So, someday, I'd like to do a multi-night club-crawl through the music district.

  2. Club Luna: There's an old building near where I live that more than anything looks like an abandoned warehouse. I drive past it all the time, and an old weathered sign reads "Club Luna" or something like that. The parking lot is always empty, and the whole place has the look of somethings that's just waiting for the wrecking crew to come in. But... and here's the weird thing, on two or three occasions I've driven past it late at night and seen the parking lot just packed, and it seems that it was always a full or near-full moon that night. So, while I'm really curious about a night spot that's both run-down and very active sporadically, some crazed voice in the back of my mind is shouting out, "Don't go in there -- it's a werewolf club!! Didn't you pay attention in From Dusk til Dawn??"

  3. The Oasis: There's this near restaraut/bar out by one of the lakes here with an open, stepped terrace so that you all get that nice view overlooking the lake. It practically burned down recently, but it's supposed to be repaired and open again.

  4. Austin's Strip Clubs: There are perhaps a dozen strip clubs in the Austin area, and I've only been to three. Alas, it's actually kind of boring to go alone.

  5. Texas Stadium: I was raised as a Dallas Cowboy's fan, but I have never been to one of their games live, not even been in the stadium, that famous stadium with the hole in the roof. Well, they're building a new stadium, so Texas Stadium's days are numbered. I'd just like to go to a game before the end.

Other Friday Fivers can be found poring over maps here.

Meme by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 06, 2005

Best Kelo abuse so far

I've written previously about the Kelo decision and some of its fallout, but this one is the best story of Kelo-enabled abuse of eminent domain so far.

Basically, a property owner in New Jersey wants to sell his land to a developer to build townhouses on it. The developer is nationally known and has other New Jersey projects, so it's not like he's bringing in a California company. The owner stands to pocket $13 million. But the mayor and his cronies want to give the development job to their local buddies, so they're siezing the land under the guise of eminent domain to -- get this -- build townhouses on the land.

Alas, recent Court changes are moot here since (as I recall) both Rhenquist and O'Conner voted against the Kelo decision.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

October 05, 2005

Another little custom image maker

Well, this one's a bit more... hmmm... interesting. Don't you just love the Japanese mind? (NWS behind the cut)

This little manga thing can let you go across the full spectrum:

anime_classy_not.jpg

My only complaint is that the arms are always back, even without the bondage.

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (1)

Looney Legos

I don't think I've seen this at the Lego store...

darth_Santa.jpg

Make your own lego man.

Tinfoil Beanie by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 02, 2005

Silly Political Quiz

Not too suprising, but just FYI...


You are a

Social Liberal
(70% permissive)

and an...

Economic Conservative
(80% permissive)

You are best described as a:

Libertarian




Link: The Politics Test on Ok Cupid
Also: The OkCupid Dating Persona Test

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

Xena: Warrior Planet

In an earlier post, I mentioned the discovery of a tenth planet in our solar system. It now seems that it has a moon. But the real newsworthy item is that the pair (planet and moon) are being unofficially referred to as Xena and Gabrielle by the science team.

Can the Luke and Leia binary system be far behind?

Blog by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)

October 01, 2005

Marriage and Government

Last year I wrote a piece on gay marriage during the whole San Francisco gay marriage binge, and I made clear that I supported gay marriage but that what SF was doing was wrong. But in net terms, that was a long time ago in a blog far, far away, so I'm quoting part of it here, just to reestablish my "gay marriage credentials".

I am of mixed feelings on the recent gay marriages in San Francisco, but it’s not the usual battle of individual rights vs. tradition. No, what’s bothering me is something that most of you may consider nit-picking, but I consider it to be very, very important to our society.

First off, let me say that I am completely in favor of legalizing gay marriage. In fact, I would like to redefine the government’s formulation of marriage so far that I will be branded a radical on this. In my perfect world (as opposed to Pat Buchanan’s perfect world), the government would define “marriage” as a general partnership with special property issues and child-rearing rights. General partnerships already exist, and their key distinction from the more common limited partnership is that all members of a general partnership are general partners, not limited partners, and as such, they are equally and separably liable. This form of marriage partnership would have to be extended to specify that all of members’ property would become partnership property – exceptions could be made, thus preserving the notion of prenuptial agreements. The government would also have to invest the partnership with the child-rearing rights and responsibilities that parents currently enjoy. Divorce law would morph into laws governing the dissolution of these partnerships, and tax law would recognize these partnerships as taxable entities, thus carrying over the “filing jointly” status that most married taxpayers currently use. Finally, the only requirement on the members of the partnership would be that they have reached their age of majority and are considered adults.

Redefining the government’s concept of marriage as such a partnership removes all kinds of hang-ups. It allows marriage between a man and a woman, a man and man, and a woman and a woman. It allows marriage between catholic and Buddhist, black and white, even American and French. Interestingly, it also allows marriage between two men and a woman, or two men and four women, and so forth. Should some future bring us in contact with other sapient species (Earth-derived or otherwise), it would even allow marriage to include something non-human, provided that the being is considered to meet the criteria for other “adult” functions such as voting, driving, etc.

It allows all of this while preserving the two main government interests in marriage: the smooth flow of property and taxes in and out of a marriage, and the care of children within that marriage. Everything else is left to a matter of letting consenting adults do what they want to do. Finding a church to bless your particular collection of partners… well, you’re on your own for that one. That is not and should not be a matter for the government.

So I think I have made it clear that I am not opposed to the concept of gay marriages. I would love for them to become the law of the land because I think we’re reaching the point in our society where the government’s definition of marriage needs a serious shakeup. [Disclaimer: No, I am not personally in the market for an extra wife, husband, or dolphin-mate to spice up my marriage, but if any of you want come change diapers for a few days, I’d welcome you with glowing praise.]

Now, having said all that, I feel that what is happening in San Francisco right now is wrong – very, very wrong. We live in a society governed by the Rule of Law. That’s the reason I know I can move through the land exercising my rights, because there are laws to punish those who might choose to curtail my rights. I can buy things through the mail with confidence because I know the law would punish the vendor for defrauding me. I don’t have to worry about my company’s CEO demanding sex from me because I know the law would allow me to sue her for harassment. I can vote in Williamson County looking like a hippy – I have long hair, a beard, and a preference for tie-dyes – knowing that the law would punish any attempt to dissuade me. I can do all of those things because the citizens and public officials of this nation have a respect for the law. Much of that respect comes from the expectation that everyone else is going to respect the law and that the rare minority which flaunts it will be punished.

There is a law in California that specifically defines marriage (for the purposes of a marriage certificate) as the union between one man and one woman. Likewise, there is a federal law (The Defense of Marriage Act, 1996) that makes the same statement – though it was mostly done to excuse other states from the “full faith and credit” constitutional requirement to acknowledge hypothetical gay marriages blessed by another state. However, the California law is very clear and specific on this matter. The mayor of San Francisco did not find a problem in the language. He simply chose to ignore it and ordered the city clerks to begin issuing marriage certificates to gay couples.

You can argue that the California law is wrong, and I would agree. However, it is the law of the land, duly passed by voter referendum. You can argue that there is a place in our society for civil disobedience, for citizens to willfully disobey laws they believe to be unjust, and I would agree. However, that’s not what has happened in San Francisco. The mayor did not take an action as a citizen to disobey a law himself. He took an action as an elected official, sworn to uphold the law and execute its policy in the governing of his city. That is not civil disobedience. That is breaking the contract between the people and those who rule over them.

So mostly, I want to make sure we transition over to "legalized" gay marriage without disrupting the Rule of Law that protects our rights in this country. When the California Supreme Court weighed in a disallowed those marriages, they did so with similar reasons and with much more eloquence:

We assumed jurisdiction in these original writ proceedings to address an important but relatively narrow legal issue — whether a local executive official who is charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing a state statute exceeds his or her authority when, without any court having determined that the statute is unconstitutional, the official deliberately declines to enforce the statute because he or she determines or is of the opinion that the statute is unconstitutional.
...
The same legal issue and the same applicable legal principles could come into play, however, in a multitude of situations. For example, we would face the same legal issue if the statute in question were among those that restrict the possession or require the registration of assault weapons, and a local official, charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing those statutes, refused to apply their provisions because of the official’s view that they violate the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution.
...
Indeed, another example might illustrate the point even more clearly: the same legal issue would arise if the statute at the center of the controversy were the recently enacted provision (operative January 1, 2005) that imposes a ministerial duty upon local officials to accord the same rights and benefits to registered domestic partners as are granted to spouses (see Fam. Code, § 297.5, added by Stats. 2003, ch. 421, § 4)), and a local official — perhaps an officeholder in a locale where domestic partnership rights are unpopular — adopted a policy of refusing to recognize or accord to registered domestic partners the equal treatment mandated by statute, based solely upon the official’s view (unsupported by any judicial determination) that the statutory provisions granting such rights to registered domestic partners are unconstitutional because they improperly amend or repeal the provisions of the voter-enacted initiative measure commonly known as Proposition 22, the California Defense of Marriage Act (Fam. Code, § 308.5) without a confirming vote of the electorate, in violation of article II, section 10, subdivision (c) of the California Constitution.
...
As these various examples demonstrate, although the present proceeding may be viewed by some as presenting primarily a question of the substantive legal rights of same-sex couples, in actuality the legal issue before us implicates the interest of all individuals in ensuring that public officials execute their official duties in a manner that respects the limits of the authority granted to them as officeholders. In short, the legal question at issue — the scope of the authority entrusted to our public officials — involves the determination of a fundamental question that lies at the heart of our political system: the role of the rule of law in a society that justly prides itself on being “a government of laws, and not of men” (or women).

As indicated above, that issue ― phrased in the narrow terms presented by this case ― is whether a local executive official, charged with the ministerial duty of enforcing a statute, has the authority to disregard the terms of the statute in the absence of a judicial determination that it is unconstitutional, based solely upon the official’s opinion that the governing statute is unconstitutional. As we shall see, it is well established, both in California and elsewhere, that subject to a few narrow exceptions that clearly are inapplicable here a local executive official does not possess such authority.

Note, a challenge to the original voter referrendum is working its way up through California courts. The last I heard was that a lower court had found it unconstitutional (yay!) but that it was still headed for the higher state courts.

Politics by Dan | Permalink | Comments (0)