Thursday, June 23

In with a Strom

The strawberries are in, the corn is shooting past 6 inches up to knee high by the fourth, squash is vining out, and I AM BUSY.

You're always welcome tho to give me a visit at the field or stop by my house in the eve. and take a look at the growin' things, as I think about this blog from afar (no i-net link).

Forget it W.

If this is true it would be a strange and not all that great twist of events.

There will be a Supreme Court resignation within the next week. But it will be Justice O'Connor, not Chief Justice Rehnquist...
President Bush will appoint Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to replace O'Connor. Bush certainly wants to put Gonzales on the Supreme Court. Presidents usually find a way to do what they want to do.

Gonzales would be taking O'Connor's seat, and Gonzales is likely to be as conservative as, or even more conservative than, O'Connor. Indeed, Karl Rove will continue, Gonzales is as conservative a nominee to replace O'Connor as one could find who could overcome a threatened Democratic filibuster.

I'm not that fond of Gonzales. He's not pro-life. He would be a very comparable replacement to O'Connor, but what good is that? If John Kerry were in office and a Scalia would have resigned do you think he would have nominated a "moderate" or conservative. This is the problem that the Republicans have had with the courts since the age of Reagan. The Conservatives find wish-washes to console the left while the Liberals pick from the ACLU ranks.

And thus the state of the courts today.

Bush only has one option to get his nominees thru. Pick a justice who rejects all of the revisionist Constitution stuff. Not a justice that accepts in whole or in part such hideous decisions as Roe as Gonzales does. The left is sure to reject anyone Bush puts up unless it is a wish-wash swishing left. As the Dems have already showed Gonzales is not washed down their stream enough. He will be filibustered. He will be slandered. Since the left's no support is already a forgone conclusion, Bush needs ever once of the rest of America to stand by his man. Chopping out a good size half of his base is no place to start and assures no good finish.

Monday, June 20

Ghost Fish

I never thought this could happen. But even this is true I don't think it will induce me to get a fishing license since I am one of those wishful fishermen who wish they could enjoy the sport for the fish they catch but must say they enjoy it instead for the time they spend out in nature.

This is indeed a fish story not about the one that got away, but about a rare one. A white muskellunge is swimming in the waters of Lake Tomahawk, a northern Wisconsin lake in Oneida County.

State fisheries experts captured it in nets during a population survey in April and released it back into the lake.

"I've never seen nor heard of an albino muskie, so it's an unusual fish to say the least," said John Lyons, a longtime fisheries researcher for the state Department of Natural Resources in Madison.

Police Kill Man With Grenade at Courthouse Ex-Klansman's Murder Case Goes to Jury Scores of Credit Card Middlemen May Increase Fraud Risk The nearly 33-inch long, 8-pound muskie had white skin but with a slight greenish tint, said John Kubisiak, a DNR fish biologist who was with the netting crew that handled the fish.

Muskies typically are silver, light green or light brown with dark, vertical bars along their long bodies.

Cory Painter, an officer with the Madison chapter of Muskies Inc., said Friday the discovery of the white muskie created some buzz among anglers.

"I think it would be pretty cool to catch it," said Painter, a 36-year-old angler who's caught about 100 muskies in his fishing ventures.

He'll have to wait for it to grow, though.

Anglers can keep muskies caught in inland Wisconsin lakes only if the fish measures at least 34 inches long. If the albino muskie is female, it could grow to more than 50 inches long and weigh more than 40 pounds, Painter said.

"Even if I caught it and it was 50 inches, I would still get a picture and release it back because I would rather have someone else catch it," he said.

Lyons said he believes the fish is an albino, although it had a small amount of pigment in its eyes and around its head.

"I'm not sure there's an official definition of an albino fish," Lyons said. "In nature, there can be a continuum of levels of pigmentation, and I've seen specimens of some species that are intermediate in pigmentation between normal and fully albino with pink eyes."

The muskie that was netted was close to the fully albino end of the spectrum, he said.

HT: Sis

Saturday, June 18

Instant Ice Cream!

I heard about this from A UW Prof this last week. This is one of those home expeiraments you just gotta try. It's called making ice cream with liquid Nitrogen.

f you are anything like me, then you love ice cream. There is nothing like making your own, but the problem is, it just takes too long to freeze and some things just don't like to freeze.

A while ago Scientific American [April, 1994 pgs. 66-71] had an article call Cooking with Chemistry or something along those lines. One of the recipes was one for using Liquid Nitrogen to make Ice Cream. Great!

Now as you all know, Nitrogen is about 78% of the volume of the atmosphere and has a boiling [Pic 1- Paul carring the Liquid Nitrogen container in.] temperature of one hundred and ninety five point eight degrees below zero Celsius. In plain simple English, it's cold. The price is about two cents to $2.75 per 100 cubic feet depending on purity, which isn't anything important here, so get the two cent stuff. You will also probably need a container, which you can rent/borrow from the people that you are buying the Nitrogen from. Don't use a cooler, as it will not survive the trip.

Simple rules for handling Liquid Nitrogen: I could say DO NOT LET IT TOUCH SKIN but someone will be a bone head and do it anyway. The truth of the matter is that the human body is so hot to the Liquid Nitrogen that it will boil in your hand with out any harm to you. However, the instant you contain the liquid Nitrogen, like in a fist, you increase the pressure of the gas trying to escape. The pressure builds up enough to give you a very bad freezer burn. Enough to need medical attention, so take my word for it and don't.

Thursday, June 16

For Those Who Can't see the Diff

I just about drove off the hwy the other day when I heard a question that went something like this: Since Bush lied about the war in Iraq don't you think he should be impeached just like Clinton was impeached for lying?

Where were these people over the last 10 years or so?

First lets get the facts about Clinton straight which increasinly gets harder and harder to do. He was impeached because he committed perjury. Under oath in a court room he lied. Ok peoples, this is a crime.

Even if you dump many questions about the credibility of the claims over the cliff, even if Bush lied it is not criminal behavior.

If every person who lied were kicked out of the government unfortunately the halls of would become strangely quite empty. Lying to the voters is a breaking of their trust. The voters should return the favor by lowering their confidence and level of support for that person. When you lie and break the law you destroy and proclaim yourself above the government and law that you are suppose to be protecting and establishing. You are not just breaking trust, you are breaking law, order and government. Like the Founders understood and included in the Constitution, such actions deserve a serious consideration of removal from office.

From the very start it was not politically advantageous to impeach Clinton, yet it was portrayed as being done only in political spite with no quarter given for those who felt it was their obligation to uphold the law above a person.

Only now does the label of political spite seem really appropriate...but will we hear it?

What an Example

Too cool.

A 26-year-old pregnant woman with cancer whose brain function ceased last month is being kept alive with a respirator in hopes she can have a very premature baby who has a chance to survive.

Susan Torres, a researcher at the National Institutes of Health (NIH), lost consciousness May 7 when an undiagnosed brain tumor caused a stroke while she dined at home. Her husband, Jason Torres, says doctors told him Susan's brain functions have stopped. (Related graphic: A closer look at Susan's baby)

Torres, also 26, says he decided to keep Susan on life support when doctors at Virginia Hospital Center here offered him the chance to disconnect the machines after they determined that she would not recover. He says he believes this is what his wife would have wanted.

Nothing to Play Around With

A bill (AB 343)to prohibit the distribution of the Morning After Pill was on the Assembly floor today. I was talking with my Assembly Rep. who was unsure which way he was going to vote on it. I sure hope he did.

There is really two parts to the bill. First there is the prohibition of the advertisement of the Pill that brought this whole issue to a head. The UW-System was loudly advertising before school break that you could call up a number or show up and get free hand-outs of the Pill. For even one Democrat this was a no-brainer: when did encouraging the use and providing a dangerous drug become like a free give away at a parade funded in part by the taxpayer? This is not Tootsie Roll business.

But there is a deeper aspect to this bill. Most doctors admit that this drug does more than just keep you from getting pregnant. No I'm not joking, these bill are called abortifacients and often cause an abortion at the very earliest stage of a babies development. Leaving any further moral implication of this knowledge behind for the present, there is still a significant problem if the tax funded UW-System distributes these pills. Taxpayers have decisively rejected any state funding of abortions and they continue to have a right to demand that their dollars not even come close to taking away innocent human life.

Wednesday, June 15

When Women's Privacy Goes Out the Bathroom Window

The liberals always paint themselves as the great protectors of women's privacy rights. Of course you always had to except the privacy of the pre-born women, but now it seems there is another area of exception: bathrooms. Another great liberal issue is in play on this issue, but applying it to the abortion issue it is hard to deny that when they say "women's privacy" they really mean "convenience."

From World:

Most women in Eugene, Ore.–or any city, for that matter–have no interest in sharing public restrooms with men. But if the city council approves a new ordinance backed by the local Human Rights Commission (HRC), the women of Eugene will be asked to do just that.

The city's current Human Rights Ordinance bars discrimination in housing, employment, and public accommodations on the basis of race, religion, color, sex, national origin, ethnicity, marital status, familial status, age, sexual orientation, or source of income. The new ordinance would add "gender identity" to that list of personal traits–a provision that would allow bathroom choice based on psychological self-appraisal: Do I feel like a man or a woman?

Flag Day Recap


Only American

I did my part yesterday in tearing down racial barriers and creating a nation that does not judge a person by the color of their skin but by the content of their character. When I was asked to indicate my race at human resources I refused. What reason other than racial discrimination is there to know my race? And for that matter they didn't have my race perfectly as an option anyways. I'm sure I've got some infusion of Black or American Indian in me somewhere back there...if nothing else back to Adam. So I was looking for "American" or "mixed" as an option but found it not.

Protect the Doc

The good.

The state Assembly passed a bill Tuesday intended to protect health care and biotechnology workers who object on moral or religious grounds to performing certain procedures.

And the bad.

The measure isn't likely to become law. Gov. Jim Doyle vetoed a similar bill during the last legislative session and promised Tuesday to do so again.

The assault of amendments this bill survived was quite incredible to look at as well.

Smarter Then They Thought

A crucial turning point for the fate of the constitution in France came last March, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said, when he phoned Mr. Chirac to warn him not to send the entire three-part, 448-article document to every French voter. The third and longest part consisted only of complicated treaties that have already been in force for years.

He said Mr. Chirac refused, citing legal reasons. "I said, 'Don't do it, don't do it,' " Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said. "It is not possible for anyone to understand the full text." . . .

Still, Mr. Giscard d'Estaing said that until the end he believed the French people would vote "yes," and pointedly criticized them. "I thought at the end the French people would be rational people," he said.

You could argue that Mr. Chirac did the right thing in attempting to inform the people what they were voting on, but the suggestion of Mr. Giscard not to inform the French people underscores much of the bigger problem with this Constitution: they didn't know what they were getting into, and therefore correctly voted "non." Not only did it appear that the great powers Europe were pulling this over the people, but the sheer length of the Constitution smells of problem. Part of the strength and value of the US constitution is not just its brevity but just as important the extensive debates and discourse that surrounded its passage. Why did the French elite think that the French Federalist Papers would be a bad idea?

Tuesday, June 14

The Dissenter


Cowles said if the committee could have spread cuts “more proportionately” in more areas and dropped the structural deficit from where it rests, the committee “could have delivered a higher per pupil” spending rate. It would not have reached the level sought by Gov. Jim Doyle, but it would have been higher than the final product, he said. “They (Republicans) didn’t want to confront the different constituents,” Cowles said. “They only wanted to confront just one -- the teachers' lobby.”

Moments before the final vote was to be taken, the committee took a break and Cowles left the room with Republican legislative leadership. “I was under enormous pressure,” according to Cowles, saying it was possibly the most partisan pressure he’s ever felt. He said he was being urged by majority Republican members to “just go along with it.”

But Cowles was having none of it, and joined the committee’s four Democratic members in opposition. “I wasn’t just going to suck this in,” he said.

Your own type of school

Jeff Jacoby writes about the separation of school and state.

Monday, June 13

To the Editor...

Last week, columnist Jim Kleinhans bemoaned the role of our area Republican legislators in asking for UW-Stout Chancellor Sorensen to reverse his decision that prohibited the military ROTC on campus. Kleinhans has it wrong, and after further calculation, even the Chancellor agreed with the legislators.

Kleinhans states that Republican Senators had no right to make "political hay" over a UW-Stout decision. Kleinhans does so even when the Chancellor's decision to keep the ROTC off the campus was inconsistent with both federal law and the UW Board of Regents.

Does Kleinhans not realize that the UW Board of Regents governs the UW System? Or that federal law governs us? While he might not agree with the federal law, if he is so adamant he should contact his federal lawmakers and use the correct political avenues instead of encouraging Chancellor Sorenson to opt out of the political process if it didn't go his way.

Having armed forces that are ready and trained is in everybody's best interest. The only people making "political hay" on this issue are liberals like Sorensen and Kleinhans.

Thursday, June 9

Pryor in too

It is deplorable that the Dems keep saying that Pryor can't follow the law. He is one of the most shinning examples of a person who even tho conservatives wanted him to take action against Judge Moore, he did. A perfect example of what we want as a judge, Bush knows it, and now we have it. Vote: 53-45

Please Keep Him Around!

Your invited to stay....

Democratic Party Chairman Howard Dean said Thursday that the recent controversy over his comments isn't going to stop congressional Democrats from focusing on issues like Social Security, gas prices and the war in Iraq.

"You know, I think a lot of this is exactly what the Republicans want, and that's a diversion," Dean said after meeting with Senate Democratic leader Harry Reid about the Democrats' agenda for the next few weeks of Congress. "The truth is that we need to focus on exactly the issues that Harry Reid just talked about, and we're going to."

Dean's has come under fire for recent comments, including his observation that Republicans are "pretty much a white, Christian party." While some Democrats have joined the criticism of Dean, Reid refused to join in.

Dean keeps getting in trouble. He's so much fun to have around tho since he keeps giving us the left as they really are without the Hillary style speak one thing do another style. Give me Dean style any day. (It also gives more to blog about).

Save lives by directing $$

Great move:

In a move hailed by abortion rights foes, Republican lawmakers early today approved a measure that would shift state and federal family planning funds away from Planned Parenthood and other groups that support abortion rights.

On a 11-5 vote shortly after midnight, the Joint Finance Committee voted to give preference to local health departments - and not private agencies such as Planned Parenthood - in getting family planning funds that are administered by the state.
(Notice the wording: abortion foes????)

To repeat Madison.coms bias this bill is a bill that will be ridiculed by life foes. Especially Planned Barrenhood which, according to Wisconsin right to life might force them to close some of their doors.

Boots and Sabers on it too.

Wednesday, June 8

Metro In

I rode the Metro Bus system today in Madison and was actually quite impressed. It helped that I only had to walk a block and I was delivered at the Capital...tho not a whole lot of homes in the city can do this. Just the same it works slick for me. Much better then the garage parking costs.

On Marriage

Brian at Anno Domini had a great post on marriage (see sample below). One more aspect that could be addressed. Most paint it as overblown rhetoric to say that letting homosexuals marry would destroy the institution of marriage. False. Homosexual marriage will destroy marriage as we know it for all. The main problem is that if you allow homosexuals to marry because "they love each other" there is absolutely no good reason not to allow any other crazy combination from three wives to one man or even like some have said a man and his toaster if the so happen to "fall in love."

Why does this destroy marriage? Well just think if we gave every person in the world US citizenship. Would it mean anything anymore to be an American? Or if anyone could get a PhD from an ivy league school would it mean anything anymore? So with marriage. Open it up to any arrangement do you really have any sort of an institution left? What happens if I love myself? Can I marry myself? Really, don't play games with the people of Wisconsin. The real goal of those who want to advance the homosexual agenda is that they want marriage to be no more. Play around with whoever you want.

The second common objection to the Wisconsin marriage amendment is that the moral views of the majority should not be imposed upon everyone. But this argument misapprehends the role of law in society and misses what is really at stake in the same-sex marriage debate. The law is constantly based on the moral views of the majority, and it must do so. The entire criminal law system, for example, institutionalizes the moral condemnation of society for wrongful acts. These sorts of moral decisions are embodied in nearly every other type of law, from personal injury law to corporate law and yes, even family law.

If we are going to have marriage benefits at all, we as a society must decide what marriage is. And every definition of marriage reflects some view of what marriage is or should be. The real debate, then, is not whether moral views should be legislated in this context, but which moral views should be legislated. Make no mistake about it, those who defend same-sex marriage do so because of their deeply held moral beliefs about sexuality, intimacy, and marriage. Those who defend traditional marriage also do so because of their deeply held moral beliefs about sexuality, intimacy, and marriage.

For those who disagree with most of America about what marriage is, feel free to dissent and argue your position. But please don’t pretend that defenders of traditional marriage are moral imperialists and you are not. Our state and our nation must have an honest and respectful discussion about this very important issue. The rules of game should be that whoever can convince more of her fellow citizens wins. In order to ensure that we all play by the same rules, we must pass a marriage amendment to foreclose the option of having a few robed men and women in Madison decide this issue for us.

Tuesday, June 7

Brown on a roll

So Justice Brown passes 65-32. Of course there were the seven wheeling dealers, but even more interesting are those that also joined them when they saw their obstructionist schemes were at an end Tom Carper of Delaware, Kent Conrad of North Dakota and Bill Nelson of Florida are all up for election next year. Most of them also come from Bush states. If the Republicans were smart they would work these Sen. well the next time a judicial vote comes up. They are willing to change.


Looks like spelling at this 'shcool' should have gone on at least one more day. What a laugh. I wouldn't laugh too hard since I make my own spelling mistakes around here, but that was a bad one: easy and on a 'shcool's' message board. Plus I don't spend millions each year to make those mistakes either. This is the middle 'shcool' in my home town. Thanks to a reader, Jonathan, for the tip and picture.
Click to enlarge

Saturday, June 4

When in doubt...

drop note in bottle:
Eighty-eight South American migrants rescued at sea after tying a message in a bottle to another boat's fishing line were returning to Ecuador yesterday, Costa Rican officials said.

The workers, from Ecuador and Peru, were trying to reach the United States and had been adrift for three days after being abandoned by smugglers.

After discovering the message, crew members of the ship Rey de Reyes arranged for the migrants to be rescued.

More on Justice Brown

The more I read about her the more I like her.

Her best:

...[B]enign motivation cannot sanction a requirement that conflicts with the proscription against discrimination and preferential treatment on the basis of race and sex.

...[T]hese are perilous times for people of faith, not in the sense that we are going to lose our lives, but in the sense that it will cost you something if you are a person of faith who stands up for what you believe in and say those things out loud.

And if I were her, I would wear it as a badge of honor to be criticized in this manner by Ted Kennedy:
She has criticized the New Deal, which gave us Social Security, the minimum wage, and fair labor laws. She's questioned whether age discrimination laws benefit the public interest

Picketing Speling

My congrats to the winner of the speling bee, but my real sentiments lie with the simplified spelling society who were out at the event to protest our languages terrible speling. "Enuf is Enuf" and "I'm thru with through" Right on!

HT: world mag blog

BTW, The flu and I have been battling back and forth the last few days. I've heard tho that Wild Wisconsin allows several days of sick leave so I should be safe.

Wednesday, June 1

New Debate Framing

The New Judge Deal ink was not even dry before the rhetoric was being blown around for the new round of debates. The most critical question now is who will be pointed out as breaking the deal. Dems will (I'm only guessing) try and pressure Bush not to nominate any conservatives. Any departure will be framed by them as the first step up in a partisan battle. That is ludicrous. Bush always has said he will nominate justices who rule on the Constitution instead of inventing it, and the left has done a very poor job of demonstrating his nominees to be anything other than mainstream. A nomination of a conservative should never be said to be a break of the deal. The Dems will have to be the ones to make the first step. They will have to invoke another filibuster. And when they do, their goes the New Deal. If only the first New Deal was as easy to get rid of.