Sometimes...

...the hits just keep on coming. Ever have one of those times where nothing seems to go right in life, or some aspect of it? That's happening in law school now. The semester literally could not have ended worse. And there doesn't seem to be any end in sight. I feel like my ability is being called into serious question.

I think the biggest thing I'm going to get out of my last semester isn't any particular theory or principle or practice. It's going to be how I respond to adversity and whether I can use rejection as an effective motivator.

We'll see how I am come May, I suppose.

Journalism is Dead to Me

After this whole Tiger Woods thing, journalism is dead to me. The field I got my degree in is not the same field responsible for the trash going out masquerading as "news." So to all you bloggers, tabloid "journalists" and every other voyeuristic piece of garbage with a pen and paper, screw off. You really think it's hard news when a porn star "doesn't DENY" having an affair with someone? So now it's "journalism" to assume something is going on because there's no proof to say that it's not? You're really going to just continue to speculate and ruin someone's life out in the open like this? This isn't so much journalism as it is a new-age lynch mob. Leave it alone. You're an embarrassment to a proud profession.

No, we don't have a right to know if Tiger Woods is having an affair, or even twenty, for that matter. He doesn't need to "come clean" about anything. You all just want him to admit to something so you can drag down yet another celebrity and moan about the moral depravity in our society to feel better about your own menial lives. Meanwhile your blogs get more hits and you make more money because you post pictures of the alleged "mistresses," you get a few more minutes of national face time, and you ruin people's perception of men like me who work hard to keep their significant others happy and who would never dream of cheating.

And worst of all, you've completely ruined a man's life on nothing more than conjecture. You realize you're putting your credibility on the line because of, among other people, a porn star, a club owner, a socialite, a reality TV star, and other assorted riff-raff? This is hardly what I'd call a credible source. Have the professional and common decency to validate your sources, people! Especially when someone's reputation is at stake like this! We truly live in an absurd world when TMZ and the Daily Sun are considered "reputable" news sources by the likes of the AP and ESPN.

Meanwhile Obama just sent 30k more troops to Afghanistan, there's a flu pandemic sweeping the world, Israel and Iran are creeping closer to war, atrocities continue in Darfur, and you're worried about how many women Tiger may or may not have hooked up with? REALLY?? How can you people even look at yourself in the mirror? You're shameless, all of you.

And you've killed journalism for me.

Keith Olbermann is an Awful Human Being

Look, Glenn Beck is crazy. Like, clearly a maniac. I accept this. I usually put Keith Olbermann on the same level, although I find him somewhat more self-righteous and annoying. Maybe it's because he should have stuck with sports commentary and left politics to the better-informed. In any event, I'm more than content to let these two raging maniacs get fodder for their own shows from the other and continuously rant and rave at each other like a couple of children fighting on the playground

But now Olbermann's gone after one of my guys. According to Olbermann, Mr. Dallin H. Oaks, one of the global leaders of my church and someone whom I respect very much, both for religious and non-religious reasons, is one of the "Worst People in the World." I guess it's a kind of segment he does on his show where he puts a bunch of people on blast for saying or doing ridiculous stuff. Entertaining, right?

Well, according to Mr. Olbermann, Oaks is one of the worst people in the world because he equated the religious persecution in the wake of the Prop 8 vote to voter discrimination practices directed at blacks back in the day. So what could Oaks have possibly said to deserve such vitriol?

Oaks gave a speech at BYU-Idaho on October 13. In it, he documented what he believed was a continued assault on the open expression and practice of religion in America. As an aside, this is something I've been talking about since my first Con Law class, but that's an issue for another day. In my experience, media commentary is often wildly overblown, to the point that even Stephen Glass would have to blush. I read the whole thing to find out what exactly Oaks said. Here's the only excerpt I could find that relates to black voter discrimination:

It is important to note that while this aggressive intimidation in connection with the Proposition 8 election was primarily directed at religious persons and symbols, it was not anti-religious as such. These incidents were expressions of outrage against those who disagreed with the gay-rights position and had prevailed in a public contest. As such, these incidents of “violence and intimidation” are not so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. In their effect they are like the well-known and widely condemned voter-intimidation of blacks in the South that produced corrective federal civil-rights legislation.

Okay, let's break this down. Oaks makes the argument that the Prop 8 backlash wasn't so much anti-religious as anti-democratic. Essentially, the people that lost Prop 8 weren't so much angry about religion as they were about losing. It's probably a little of both, to be honest, but I've always believed they were just mad about losing and decided to take it out on those who won.

Let's look back at voter intimidation incidents in civil-rights America. We all know that, despite being given the constitutional right to vote, blacks were often intimidated into not voting, and it took an act of Congress to get it to stop. Here we have another example of a winning party (minorities) being antagonized by a losing party (whites) after losing a democratic contest (voting amendments).

So how, exactly, is Oaks the "worst person in the world" for making this comparison? Seems like a legitimate analogy to me. Sure, African Americans experienced some of the worst discrimination in modern history. But does that mean it's not okay to draw an appropriate comparison? Sure, Mormons aren't getting lynched in the wake of Prop 8, but that's not the message Oaks was trying to send. The analogy is a philosophical one at best, not a practical one. It's a general comment that in many instances, losers in the democratic process often demonize the winners and use violence to intimidate them.

If Oaks had wanted to say that Mormons are persecuted today just as much as blacks were back in the day, I think he would have said so in clearer terms. Since when is it improper to talk about violence and intimidation in the democratic process and use one of the best-known examples in American history as a yardstick? And if this is so improper, why doesn't Olbermann make the same accusation at the gay rights groups who routinely compare themselves to blacks in the civil rights era?

Screw you, Keith Olbermann. Leave us alone.

When I Rule the World...

...I'm definitely going to make some changes around here, believe you me. Friday, I had an experience that made me add another mental policy note to my burgeoning agenda, which also includes the elimination of the E! and Bravo networks, free enchiladas for everyone on the first Friday of every month, and the beatification of Bear Grylls.

So I'm driving home from court Friday, getting stuck in a traffic jam on Brighton Ave. near Harvard Ave. For you non-Bostonians, that area of town at 5 p.m. on a Friday is positively nightmarish, a snarl of peeved motorists, careless pedestrians heading home for Miller Time, and enough CO2 emissions to make Al Gore curl up in the fetal position. I'm trying to turn left at a light that has no left-turn arrow, and traffic constantly coming the other way. While sitting about three cars back in this hopeless situation, I see a beautiful silver Acura RSX at the front of the line, evidently trying to turn left. Unfortunately, he doesn't get the chance to turn due to the massive oncoming traffic, so he does the Utah thing where he juts his nose into the intersection and waits for the light to turn red. That's fine, except he decides to actually pull a U-turn rather than turn left. He almost pulled it off, except he stopped 3 feet behind a car that was parked on the side of the road. Fearing to harm his beautiful RSX, he backed up with traffic criss-crossing behind him, while pedestrians tried to get around him on the crosswalk. The guy could have easily cleared the U-turn, but no, he had to back up like a moron. To make matters worse, I guess he needed to parallel park, so he proceeds in front of the car he almost didn't hit, and executes the most piss-poor parallel parking job I've ever seen. And by now he's got traffic coming at him on a 2-lane road, so essentially he clogs up an already-crowded Brighton Ave. such that traffic gets stuck in the intersection and I can't turn left. Idiot.

I began wondering what sort of cosmic justice would ever allow such an incompetent driver to drive such a nice car. I mean, he drives this and meanwhile, I drive this. Not too toot my own horn too much, but I think I'm a pretty freaking good driver. Where's the justice? Nowhere, that's where. Which made me think: when I'm king of the world, I'm going to impose a cap on what kind of car you can drive, depending on how well you pass a driving test. For example, if you can't make a simple U-turn, parallel park in 5 moves, or insist on driving 10 mph below the speed limit at all times, then congratulations, you get this beauty. Enjoy the accents on the side panels. If you're a reasonably competent driver who knows how to safely pass others, always pays attention, and isn't otherwise a blight on America's roadways, here you go. Nice, right? And for all you awesome drivers out there, how about something along these lines?

I think this would work out nicely, don't you? What kind of car do you think you deserve to drive?

He's Got a Point...

I shouldn't be up this early. After all, Monday morning is my one day to sleep in, between 8:30 classes and 9:00 a.m. morning call at the court house the rest of the week. This clearly did not prevent the gentleman towing a jackhammer behind his truck from blasting away around 7:00 this morning. So now I'm up about the house doing house-husband things. In between taking the wife to work and cleaning the dishes from last night, however, I wanted to take a moment and give some credit where it's due (also, I don't feel like doing dishes). Our good president Barry O. took to the small screen yesterday, making the rounds on five different shows pimping the need for health care reform. He turned in a few nice tidbits, however, about his beef with mass media. Instead of a link, I'm just going to paste the quotes he made on different shows. The original article I read was too grammatically hilarious to warrant posting, and I don't want to link to a FOX News article, which is where I found these quotes after a quick Google.

On CNN's "State of the Union": "I think it's important for the media -- you know, not to do any media-bashing here -- to recognize that right now, in this 24-hour news cycle, the easiest way to get on CNN or FOX or any of the other stations, MSNBC, is to say something rude and outrageous...And, you know, part of what I'd like to see is, is all of us reward decency and civility in our political discourse."

On ABC, to George Stephanopoulos: "I think, that, frankly, the media encourages some of the outliers in behavior, because, let's face it, the easiest way to get on television right now is to be really rude. If you're just being sensible and giving people the benefit of the doubt and you're making your arguments, you don't . . . get time on the nightly news."

I have to give props to el Presidente for his comments, because he's absolutely on point here. The political discourse in this country is becoming increasingly coarse, and I think a lot of it is fueled and perpetuated by a bloodthirsty quest for ratings. People like Glenn Beck, Sean Hannity, Keith Olbermann, and whoever else you can think of wouldn't be nearly as popular if the major news outlets were more concerned with disseminating fact rather than opinion. Look, media does some wonderful things, and I think Barack Obama, if anybody, partly has the media to thank for putting him in the position that he's in. That said, it seems kind of sad to me that the news source I prefer most (BBC) doesn't even reside in the U.S. There's just too much spin, too much vitriol, and too much worthless junk that barely rises to the level of "news" and is probably better categorized as "blather." Yes, I'm talking to you too, Nancy Grace, Anne Coulter, Rush Limbaugh, Michael Moore, Al Sharpton, and Al Gore.

You'd think (at least, I would), with comments like this, that Obama would be a little more successful with his bipartisan efforts than he has been to this point. He's been reduced to playing party politics as usual in Washington to get his agenda through, and I think that disappoints him quite a bit. It seems his efforts to extend the olive branch have gone virtually uncovered by the media, and the only comments of his that show up on the news are the ones that are more politically divisive. Now he looks just like any other president toeing the party line.

Unfortunate.

Please tell me...

why I should trust any promise the President makes about health care. Last I checked, he hasn't brought Congress together like he said he would, hasn't shown much concern for bipartisanship (the bailout was basically a party-line vote and he takes every chance to vilify the GOP), and unemployment sits around 10% when he promised it wouldn't go above 8% if we passed the bailout. Toss in the fact that he's the President, not a member of Congress. How can he possibly say with any surety that the health reform bill will or won't do what he says it will? He has no voting power, no leverage, absolutely no way to make sure this bill does what he says it will! And on top of that, he's got a vested interest in getting this thing passed, which makes it all the more likely that he would write checks that this bill can't pass. So basically, if he hasn't lived up to his rhetoric up to now, and he has a significant interest in the passage of this bill, why should I believe the promises he's making?

Rights Talk

I'm noticing more people talking about their "rights" these days, asking whether we hold our rights dear in the face of Obama's health care plan, or how people are denied their "rights" if they don't get to do this or that. I just want to get out in the open that I'm tired of people thinking they have a "right" to have or do whatever they want. I'm tired of people using rights talk to back up outlandish agendas. That goes for both sides. And I'm really tired of single-minded zealots who yak about their rights all day long and probably couldn't name the rights granted in the Bill of Rights if I asked them. Shut up, all of you, please.

Things That Need to Go

In honor of the many lists that have preceeded this one, the following is my current list of Things That Need to Go:

1. Media coverage of Brett Favre.

2. Jon and Kate. Not just the show, but specifically those two. They need to go away.

3. Hannah Montana/Miley Cyrus. Whatever her real name is. Her.

4. The Jonas Bros.

5. Henry Louis Gates, Jr.

6. Toddlers & Tiaras. Come to think of it, anybody who tries to live vicariously through their kids.

7. VH1 and everything on it. Too much to talk about here.

8. Nancy Pelosi.

9. Kia.

10. Nancy Grace.

A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

And by "Forum" of course, I mean, "my apartment" as I rode home on the 15 bus, or as I like to call it, the "Ghetto Express."

First, a word about the 15 to set the stage, because you really have to know about it to appreciate the awkwardness of what follows. The 15 is notorious for ferrying every skeezball/coke head/homeless guy to and fro through Denver, not to mention those people who, for lack of a better phrase, are a couple of trees short of a forest. And more unique smells waft through its corridors than the most exotic smoke shop, only they all smell awful. I generally try to avoid interaction of any kind on the bus since, in my experience, it usually devolves into a nonsensical rant, a casual request for "spare change," or an offer to hook me up with some hash. So I either listen to my music or read the paper.

I happened to be reading the paper today. There was a nice old man sitting across from me who, during a lull in the noise on the bus said "Jesus loves you all more than you'll ever know!" The guy was probably senile, but I had to agree with the sentiment. He looked at a girl next to him and said "God bless you, sweetheart." Heartwarming, right? Then from the back of the bus someone shouted "God bless Obama!"

Danger! Danger Will Robinson!

There was a girl sitting across from me, greedily shoving a greasy pizza slice into her face while reclining awkwardly on her thugged-out boyfriend, who just so happened to be black. I only mention that because it adds to the awkwardness that followed.

This girl (who I can only describe as a wannabe white ghetto queen) looks at me and says lazily "Do you like Obama?"

EJECT! EJECT! GET OUTTA THERE!

I feel like it's important to note here that I try not to be elitist and I readily admit that I'm not the sharpest crayon in the box, but it was pretty apparent that the education level on that bus was somewhere south of "Rhodes Scholar." You know, the kind of people who are more driven by popular opinion than rational reflection and logical discourse? Yeah, them. And if there's one thing I've learned in life after dozens of discussions with drunks on the street about George Bush and/or the Bible, it's the following:

Low Education + Loaded Topics = Bad Times

Back to my story. I had my head buried in the paper so I pretended not to notice that she was talking to me, but she asked the question again, so I felt like I had to respond. I replied, as mildly as I could, "Yeah, he's all right."

This did not deter her as I had hoped. "Did you vote for him?"

Please note that now her boyfriend, who is both black and much bigger than I, is staring at me intently. "No," I replied. I was quick to add, in my defense, that I did not vote for McCain either.

"So, you didn't vote?"

"Yeah, I voted."

This was followed by the nice old white man sitting near her breaking into a contorted expression like someone had just blown wind in his face. He proceeded to demonize McCain and all things Republican. Pretty amusing coming from the guy who serenely cooed "God bless you!" to everyone who passed off the bus. But I digress. The story only gets worse.

"Why didn't you vote for him? Was it because he was black?"

By now the entire bus is staring at me. I said no, not because he was black, and made some joke about how he was a law professor and all mine are crazy. Nobody laughed. I think it was over their heads, judging from the blank stares. Joke Fail.

"Why don't you like him?"

At this point I wondered whether it was possible to rationally outline my problems with his health care proposal, or how the stimulus hasn't delivered the lower unemployment numbers as promised, or how introducing socialist agendas into a free market economy is a difficult and often ill-advised plan. After looking at the blank stares all around me, and seeing the girl wipe pizza grease on her baby doll t-shirt, I decided that no, rational discourse would probably not be the way to go here.

Instead, I deflected and said "I'm just going to reserve judgment for now, it's too early to tell. We'll see." Then her boyfriend launched into a monologue about how Obama was going to rescue America from the worst point in it's entire history (because, you know, we've never gone through an actual depression) and how he was the savior, etc., etc. I was finally in the clear. And none too soon, because I snapped back to reality in time to notice that my stop was coming up.

Just a weird, weird experience. Wow.

Random Thought for the Day

So long as latent biases exist in America, there will never be racial or gender equality. However, so long as special interest groups created to combat those biases exist in America, there will never be racial or gender equality either, and prejudice will continue to exist. In short, I recognize the need to end prejudice in our nation, but I think special interest groups created to promote a particular ethnicity/gender are a big reason that the prejudices they claim to battle continue to exist.

The sooner we can all just agree to refer to ourselves as "American," the better off we'll be.

Nationalized Health Care...

...not sure where I stand on it. Is it a good idea to make it a right, like the Democrats seem to be pushing? I mean, if we do, what about housing, education, food, even? I mean, what's the difference, really? I'm assuming that the idea behind the whole thing is that citizens need their health in order to fully enjoy their liberty and such, and therefore it should be available to all, regardless of income. Definitely sound reasoning, and it sounds like a good idea. On a philosophical plane, the intrinsic worth of one human being, to me, isn't any greater or less than another, regardless of income. But on the subject of rights, what's the difference between health care, and, say, housing? Transportation? Education? Aren't these all things we need to enjoy our liberty? Does that mean they should all be rights too? And if they are, then the government would seem bound to provide us all with those things too. And that's socialist, right? Not that socialism is a bad thing in and of itself (it's actually probably the ideal form of government), but I think history has shown that socialism and the human condition do not mix with very good results.

Even as I write this, I'm not sure health care should even be a "right" on par with, say, a right to a trial by jury or something Constitutional along those lines. Not to get too originalist here, but our nation was founded on the principle that everyone fares in this life according to the effort they put forth. Basically, you reap what you sow (or what you make others sow, as the case often was). The incentive to work hard and be successful came from a realization that you had to earn it yourself, and the government wouldn't help you. Don't get me wrong, I'm not opposed to a modicum of government charity. Things like welfare are good if properly administrated and used, as with all things, in moderation. But if the government starts giving things like health care away as a right, doesn't that, in some way, reduce the incentive we have as individuals to work our hardest and be as successful as we can? I mean, if the government is giving me what my family and I need to live, what's my only other motivation to work hard and be successful besides greed or pride?

Isn't that doubly true if we tax the rich to fund programs like these? Again, I can see the rationale--the rich have more, they can probably survive a bigger tax hit. So I understand things like a graduated tax bracket. But isn't a surtax to fund this health care bill a little too much? The typical joke is that the only ways to get rich in America are through crime and inheritance, but isn't the reality that most rich people are rich because they worked hard to get there? Or am I being too optimistic about the American work ethic? This idea to tax the rich to fund health care doesn't sit right with me. It seems like the government is blatantly taking hard-earned money over and above typical taxation to fund a program that most of these people don't want or need. Look, I'm just as middle-class as the next guy, and I doubt I'll ever be rich enough to fall into the bracket of people the Democrats want to tax for this program. But the principle of the matter is just as applicable to all--you should be able to keep the money you earn without too much government leeching off of you.

So how else do we fund it? I don't know. Nothing makes any more sense. But that doesn't mean this is a good idea either. First the stimulus, now this...I'm starting to worry that our government is getting a bit mad with power. So...I guess I answered my own question. I guess I'm against nationalized health care.

Enough, Already

Look, I know I lean more to the right than to the left on most things, but please, I'd like to ask one thing. Could right-wing America PLEASE stop referring to our President as "Barack Hussein Obama?" It's not like there's another prominent Barack Obama out there and we need to distinguish this one. The only purpose it serves is to subtly and passive-aggressively intimate that he is somehow linked with the Middle East or to some Arabic descent, and that this somehow makes him unfit to lead our nation.

HUSSEIN! That's his middle name! Hussein! He shares a name with a former Iraqi dictator to whom he can't possibly be related! That's all the proof we need! He's secretly Muslim and hates America! And if he's Muslim, he's a terrorist! He's harboring terrorists! He IS a terrorist! For heaven's sake, look at the middle name, it's all RIGHT THERE!!!! REMEMBER 9/11!!!

Never mind the fact that Hussein is basically the Arabic equivalent of "Smith." It's not like this is an uncommon name for someone, especially when a full sixth (or more) of the world is either Muslim or of some Arabic/African descent...

It makes me truly sick to see such insidious, cowardly, and willfully ignorant behavior from a member of a nation that espouses religious freedom. I can get over Bill O'Reilly or somebody like that taking such a route for sensationalism's sake. It's something I just blame on media culture and move on. But from someone who has nothing to gain from it, that disturbs me to no end. Look, I'm not the guy's biggest fan, but really...it's a middle name, people. Come on.

Steroids

I came home tonight hoping to be productive. Had a light dinner, talked to the wife for a while, went over tax stuff with my father-in-law, and I was just about to put clothes in the laundry a little while ago. Would have been nice if someone had told me the washer and dryer were gone. Now I'm stuck with no clean underwear and I'll probably have to do laundry in the bathtub. Lovely...but I digress...

I've been waiting a while for something to adequately piss me off enough to actually take the time to rant on the Internet some more about it, and I found it. Today (well, yesterday technically), reports surfaced that Sammy Sosa was roiding back in 2003. If these reports are true, it would seem that not only was Mark McGwire shrinking his testicles to hit a ball a little farther, it seems like his foil in the home run chase was juiced at some point as well. Given his proficiency with a bat, Sosa is primed to take his place with McGwire and Barry Bonds as the poster children for what is becoming known as the "Steroid Era" in Major League Baseball, and predictably, pundits far and wide wax poetic about how the game has been tarnished, the magic is gone, innocence lost, yada yada yada...

If you know me, you know I can't let this pass without taking my jabs.

I think there's a dirty little secret behind all the rhetoric. See, we Americans idolize pro athletes, for better or for worse. Game-winning touchdowns, treys at the buzzer, shootouts...these are the things that captivate us, year in and year out. And no other sport is as ingrained in our history as baseball. It's as quintessentially American as apple pie. Because of this history, we revere baseball players in a way unlike any other sport. Die hard sports fans dandle their children on their knee with stories about watching Jackie Robinson, DiMaggio, Williams, even Ripken. The idolization of baseball players is magnified more so than any other sport (although this may change as baseball continues to globalize). They stand as symbols of achievement and hard work (at least, that's how we like our heroes). Our children see this and idolize them as well, and pro athletes, baseball players included, become...wait for it...role models.

So society has arrived at a point where pro athletes are role models. Yet, Americans have an insatiable appetite for winning. We are a nation with a "winners" mentality, and the losers are left to wither in obscurity. America loves winners, that is, until they lose. And then they're out with the trash while the throngs move on to the next winner. For a pro athlete, then, your livelihood is not simply to play sports, it is to win. And at the pro level, winning means being bigger, stronger, faster, and smarter than the next guy. In an era where competition at the highest level is so fierce, if an athlete wants to win, he has to take every competitive advantage he can. It's simply a bad career move not to.

Thus, we idolize pro athletes and put them in a (somewhat undeserved) position of being role models, yet at the same time society places enormous pressure on them to win, that you might say we tell them to win at all costs. Enter steroids. From a business perspective, steroids make perfect sense. A shot of HGH, a few doses of Andro, and boom, you're jacked up and going deep like never before. It's a clear competitive advantage over someone who doesn't take steroids. And until recently, they weren't illegal. They were perfectly fine to take. But the media has three big objections to this, that I can think of off the bat:

1. Taking steroids is somehow an unfair advantage. If you're not developing and training naturally, then you've got an unfair advantage over the guy who does. Ethics aside, however, is it really unfair to the other guy? Or is the other guy stupid for not taking steroids. If the point of pro sports is not just to play but to win, then I lean toward the latter. Steroids are only unfair if only a few people have access to them. Last I checked, they're about as easy to find as a fat guy at a McDonalds. Steroids do not, in other words, give players an unfair advantage.

2. Taking steroids is unethical, and these guys should be role models! This is the argument usually made by people who have kids. Unfortunately, they're often also the same people who haven't been to a Royals game in the past decade because the players suck. Ladies and gentlemen, you can't have your cake and eat it too. Again, pro sports, from a business perspective, is about winning. You have to win to make money. You can't ask athletes to be paragons of virtue and at the same time put such tremendous social and economic pressure on them to win. It's hypocritical. And if you're so desperate for a role model for your kids, take a look in the mirror and see if something needs changing before you go pointing the finger.

3. Finally, steroids are unnatural, and tarnish the game's pure legacy. I can almost buy this, except, when I look back at baseball's history, purity doesn't exactly stand out as a defining characteristic. Sports, baseball especially, has been marred by heinous acts of cheating and deception as far back as the Black Sox scandal in 1919, or somewhere around there. And the players? These folk heroes we adore? Ty Cobb was a foul-mouthed bigot, and Babe Ruth drank like a fish and defined the word "gluttony" in his time. Face it: the old-time heroes we revere were, in all likelihood, some of the most backward, immoral, unethical people around. I can almost guarantee that DiMaggio or Honus Wagner or Willie Mays would have used steroids if they had been readily available like they are today. I defy anyone to prove to me otherwise.

There's nothing wrong with a pro athlete using steroids; at least, there shouldn't be. It's his decision, and we should not be so naive to hold them up to an ethical standard that half of us probably wouldn't abide in a similar situation. So to all of you who think that baseball is tarnished, or forever besmirched, that's a bald-faced lie. This is just the natural progression of a game that doubles as a business where winning is the golden ticket, a ticket that is the public's to give away. If anybody's to blame in this, I suggest you take that finger you're pointing and turn it around.

Were Iran's Elections Rigged?

Methinks so. Given the voting patterns, either the pollsters were woefully misguided on their projections, or something fishy was going on behind closed doors.

Will anything come of it? Doubt it.

Yeah, it's a short post today. I'm tired. Sleep > blogging.

Is Judge Sotomayor's Deck Full of Race Cards?

Just saw an interesting post on SCOTUSblog analyzing all the race-based cases that have come across Judge Sonia Sotomayor's desk. A lot is being made about her claim that a female Latina is a better judge than a white guy. It sounds really inflammatory, probably because it is, quite frankly (imagine if the roles were reversed and she was white male saying that about a female Latina). So Tom Goldstien over at SCOTUSblog took all the cases and analyzed every single one, including unpublished opinions. That's roughly 100 cases, give or take a few. A few things that stand out to me:

1. In the 96 race-based cases documented, Judge Sotomayor's panel rejected a claim of discrimination roughly 78 times. That's an 81% rejection rate. In 10 more cases, Judge Sotomayor joined with the majority in finding some form of discrimination. Of those 10, 9 were unanimous, and several allegedly were procedural victories rather than substantive.

2. In the 75 times in which the majority rejected discrimination cases, Sotomayor only dissented twice. In one case, she even took the side of a white bigot who was distributing racist material.

3. So basically, across a span of about 100 cases, Judge Sotomayor only disagreed with her colleagues a total of 4 times. Only one of those disagreements actually involved whether discrimination had occured.

I know statistics can be easily manipulated to say whatever you want, but this study seems fairly thorough on its face. And besides that, I know people misspeak all the time, and the media is notorious for taking comments out of context or twisting them to make them as sensational as possible. I'm not saying that happened here, I'm just saying perhaps she didn't say what she intended to very clearly. And given her track record, maybe she's not as bad as some people think she is.

Musings on the Prop 8 Ruling: Media Commentary, Defining the Problem, and Where do We Go From Here?

The California Supreme Court upheld a ban on gay marriage today by a 6-1 vote. Or so that's what all (and by "all" I mean every last one) of the media outlets are saying. I understand the need to simplify complex issues like court opinions for the layman, but I can't help but think that telling everyone that California upheld a ban on gay marriage borders more on the misinformation-for-sensationalism's-sake side rather than any attempt to give readers the long and short of things. California did not, in fact, ban homosexual marriage. Gays have been able to get married in California for almost a decade now and nothing that happened today is going to change anything.

I should clarify. Gays can get substantively married in California, they just couldn't refer to their "civil union" as marriage, except for a brief time before Proposition 8. It would be helpful to understand just what the court was faced with in this case. The court faced three issues today. Question 1: Did Proposition 8 constitute a constitutional amendment, or a constitutional revision? Question 2: Is the right to refer to your union by the term "marriage" a right bound up in the fundamental right to marry? Question 3: If Proposition 8 stands, are the gay marriages solemnized in California still legitimate?

You'll notice that the question "is gay marriage in California legitimate?" is not in there anywhere. And so it was today. See, California has been granting civil unions to gays with all the "substantive rights" of a straight couple's marriage. They can adopt, file jointly, inherit, pay child support, get divorced, all that stuff. So, in all reality, yes, a homosexual can get married in California, and nothing that happened today changed that. The only problem that gay rights groups have with this setup is that the California government won't refer to their union as a "marriage," but rather, a "civil union." There was a brief time before Prop 8's passage when California actually could solemnize civil unions as "marriages." That was the whole issue about Proposition 8: the meaning and use of a word. Thanks to Prop 8, the joining of two homosexuals in a marriage-like relationship cannot be termed a "marriage" by the state; rather, it is a "civil union."

The court ultimately ruled that Prop 8 was indeed an amendment rather than a constitutional revision (a question of form rather than content, having nothing to do with the merits of gay marriage itself), then said that, therefore, homosexual unions can't be termed "marriages," but said all those gay couples that married in good faith during that short period of time could term their unions as "marriage."

Basically the court said to the gay community, "Look, you get all the rights of a married couple, but the right to call your union by a certain term isn't the kind of all-important right included in the right to marry that we have to protect. So we'll give you the fundamental rights (which you already have in the civil union setup), and leave the rest to be decided by the ballot."

Leaving the merits of the case or its decision aside, what I like about this is that the Court has finally showed some consciousness of a question that I think lurks at the base of the gay marriage debate, yet nobody talks about. No longer is the pertinent question "Does a fundamental right to marry exist?" but rather, the appropriate inquiry, according to the court, is "Do you have a fundamental right to refer to your union by a particular label?"

I'm glad to see such a subtle shift because I think it gets closer to the core of the problem: what we've lost in all this huffing and puffing about "human rights" and "equality for all" and such is that at the center of it all, we're arguing not about rights, but about the definition and use of a word--who gets to use it and who doesn't. This is one reason why the gay movement is different from the civil rights movement or the suffrage movement. We're not quibbling over substantive rights like the right to vote or drink from the same fountain--we're arguing over the definition and use of a word. Last I checked, nobody had a fundamental right to refer to some aspect of their life in a particular manner. It's not a human right akin to, say, the right to personal autonomy, and it doesn't really have much to do with equality in my mind, either. That's why all this rights talk frustrates me--I think it's an egregious overstatement of a problem, such talk is ignorance and partisanship personified, and the problem doesn't belong in the courts, to boot.

Maybe a metaphor will help clarify my idea of the central issue here. Consider the following:

Let's say I drop out of law school after two years. I have a pretty good knowledge of law, so I decide to start dispensing legal advice to others. Say I'm able to buy a flashy car and a nice suit. So here I am, driving around in my nice suit in my cool car, giving legal advice to people. Maybe I even develop a coke problem. Nice car, nice suit, designer drugs...sounds like I'm a lawyer, right? Except I'm not. And why not? Because I haven't gone through the proper channels to get duly accredited: I haven't graduated, I haven't taken the bar, and I haven't been admitted to practice. Could I call myself a lawyer? Perhaps in some general sense I could, but not formally--it would be a crime to pass myself off as one. I might look like a lawyer, act like a lawyer, and basically resemble a lawyer in every outward way. But unless I jump through the right hoops, I can't in actuality refer to myself as a lawyer because the legal community has a monopoly on the word; unless I do what they tell me to do, I can't expect to call myself a lawyer.

In similar fashion, I think we as a society are slowly coming to realize (or at least we should realize) that marriage as we have traditionally understood it is like becoming a lawyer: marriage is (or, at least, traditionally was) a formal designation with religious prerequisites in the same way requirements exist to formally becoming a lawyer. In both instances, traditionally you have to do certain things, jump through certain hoops, in order to either refer to yourself as a lawyer or have your union termed a "marriage." Consider how religious marriages work. The hoops to jump through are fairly easy:

1. One man

2. One woman

3. A duly-ordained minister

4. An exchange of mutual promises of support, etc.

So if I can check off all those prerequisites, congratulations, I am now "married." Eventually, however, the government began solemnizing marriages as well, due to the pervasiveness of marriage in society, only the churches didn't object so much because, well, hey, you're really just substituting a minister for a county clerk, so what does God care? And besides, all those areligious people out there wanted the same substantive benefits of marriage without the religious rigamarole, only the churches didn't object because nothing these nonbelievers were doing seemed explicitly contradictory to their requirements for marriage. Call it laziness, complacency, whatever you will. That's how it evolved from a religious institution to a religious AND a civil institution.

Now we're in a situation where a more important prerequisite is being challenged--the idea that you can have two people of the same sex marry, something that is diametrically opposed to clear Biblical (or Q'ran-ical...is that even a word?) mandate. Civilly, there's no problem with this: civic institutions cannot and do not operate as exclusive clubs--because of our notion of equal protection, civic institutions cannot discriminate at all on such a basis. But private institutions (like religions or certain professions) can demand that others conform to their mandates--follow the rules and you're in, break the rules and you're out, and we'll discriminate as we please because we're a private organization and we can. Now religions are fighting to keep their institution, while pro-gay groups have legitimate civil arguments to make against them. A fine mess we've gotten ourselves into.

Thus, in the end, we've got a civil institution performing a traditionally private-sphere function, and now the private sphere has decided to do something about it when it may be too late. How does it play out? I don't think the Prop 8 solution is the answer, namely, reserving the word "marriage" for hetero couples and terming homosexual unions as "civil unions." It's an overly parsimonious solution that strips religious marriages of virtually all substantive distinction, so in that sense the religious right has already lost its bid to preserve traditional marriage and is clinging to semantics as if it was substance; on the other hand, this distinction will piss off all the pro-gay groups who want to whine and moan about how they're being denigrated or treated unfairly. Basically, nobody wins. Prop 8 is really just a stopgap measure. I wish it would work but it won't.

One of two things are going to happen:

Scenario One: Gay marriage is completely legalized everywhere. After that, it's only a matter of time before churches are forced to marry gay couples against their wishes because the state granted them the power to solemnize state-recognized marriages in the first place. It would be a violation of equal protection, if gay marriage were legalized, for a church to deny homosexuals the right to marry when the church derives its ability to solemnize marriages from the state, the Free Exercise Clause notwithstanding (at the very least, it would present a problem of epic proportions for the courts in which one fundamental right has to give way to another). So gay marriage is legalized and churches are forced to fall in line, or risk some sort of legislative backlash, such as losing their 501(c)(3) designation or something along those lines. This is the worst-case scenario in my mind.

Scenario Two: The government strips all churches of the right to marry and designates marriage as a purely secular, civil proceeding. Just take the institution of marriage and make it purely civil. If a couple wants to go through additional practices or ceremonies for religious reasons, let them. Couples who want to marry will first have to go to the city and get a certificate that legally makes them a "married" couple. Then they can go on to their churches and temples and do whatever else they see fit to do in the eyes of their God to further solemnize the union. I like this idea better and it's actually already the norm in countries like France. Don't get me wrong, I don't like the idea of the civil sector appropriating a traditionally religious function like that, but it's the lesser of two evils. This way, churches aren't forced to do anything against their will, members can still feel like their marriages are substantively distinct from gay marriages, free exercise is not impeded, and gays can finally get what they want, at least formalistically.

I don't see any other way out of this mess...do you?

Money is the Root of All Evil

Today, I realized that the best things in life are indeed free. Everything else, however, costs much more than it is usually worth.

I hate money.

Blind Leading the Blind

I'm worried. I'm more than just a little fearful. Not about the economy, mind you. Not about nukes, health care, abortion, or taxes. I'm worried about ignorance and zealotism. Partisanism scares me to death. Why? Well, let me start with ignorance.

The perennial dictum is that knowledge is power. In Mormon circles, the phrase "no man can be saved in ignorance" reflects a bedrock tenet of our faith. Take a look around you. Unless you're sitting in a field full of dead grass, odds are that everything you see, hear, and touch is the result of some clever guy acquiring knowledge, putting it to good use, and creating something wonderful. Knowledge will eternally be the most invaluable necessity for human survival and advancement. That being said, knowledge has the tremendous potential to be used for good, and can have devastating effects if faulty. I truly believe that the most dangerous threat to our species is the man who claims to know something that is, in fact, not true. I watched video this morning of a protester at one of the so-called "tea parties" held yesterday across the nation to protest taxes. He went on an on-camera tirade about how President Lincoln believed in "liberty" and how everyone had a right to enjoy the fruits of their labors. Rabid grandstanding of this sort scares me. First off, does this guy even know what "liberty" means? It's such a relative word that his definition probably differs greatly from mine, and chances are that he defines it in a way that's most advantageous to him because, after all, that's human nature--we all do it. And what does it mean to enjoy the fruits of your labor? Did Lincoln say that? I don't recall him saying that. Considering the context of a government protest against taxes and government spending, is he saying that Lincoln would somehow be against all this government spending and taxation and such? Because I seem to recall that his legacy involved exercising federal authority to compel the states to do something pretty important (read: abolition). Sounds like the big government you're trying to protest, sir. I'm not going to begrudge him his beliefs, however. If anything, I'm sympathetic to his cause. But I do wish I could hear something a little more measured and thought out.

I don't know if I'm driving the point home as clearly as I want to. Honestly, I'm just ranting on the Internet and I realize this, so I'm probably not as clear and concise as I would otherwise be. My point is this--too many people think they know it all these days because they rely on the oversimplifications of history and science that they were taught since grade school, when in fact life is much more complicated, too complicated to adequately explain in the course of a school year. When you learn in generalities like most of us have, that gives you the luxury of marshalling those principles into whatever ideological mold you wish. The upshot is that the same general principles are used to promote opposite views. Then we all get confused and I'm brought to ask "does anybody even know what they're talking about?" Not to mention the fact that most people invariably wind up looking stupid for it.

On to partisanism. This dovetails well with what I was just saying about marshalling generalities into particular ideological molds. My big problem with partisanism is that it tends to put the cart before the horse, in a sense. The idea behind joining or upholding a social group of any kind (religion, political party, canasta group, whatever) is that you have your personal beliefs first. Then you find a group that feels the same way, so you join them. Partisanism, however, occurs when you believe something because your group does. Instead of believing something for yourself, you now base your beliefs on what others tell you to believe.

But Todd! You're Mormon! Don't you believe what you do because your church told you to? Actually, no, I don't. I don't avoid alcohol because my church told me to. I avoid it because I believe that it is what God would have me do at this point. I believe that a man can talk to God and voice His will to the people. But it's still incumbent upon me to get on my knees and ask God for myself whether it is true. Brigham Young once said "My greatest fear is that the people of this church will take what I say to be the word and will of the Lord without going back and obtaining a witness of the same for themselves." So there's that.

Back to partisanism. I defy anybody to tell me we don't live in a society of political zealots and partisans. Find me one Congressman who's more concerned with his constituency than by furthering his own image within his political party. These tea parties are great examples of partisanism as well. What you have is a bunch of working-class Republicans who probably don't know all the intricacies behind this recession (I don't either) most of whom have succumbed to populist rage because they heard something about taxes going up somewhere, somehow. I'll save the debate about the wisdom of the bailout for another day. My point is, these tea parties are great examples of what partisan opinion leaders can do with the sway they hold. The same formula was on display during that whole ridiculous "Impaeach Bush" campaign. That was nothing more than partisan opinion leaders using populist sentiment to suggest ridiculous, baseless measures in order to make themselves look more progressive or revolutionary or what not. These tea parties are the same thing. As if that weren't enough, the CNN correspondent in the video I mentioned clearly had a pro-government agenda, using her reporter's platform to tout the supposed benefits of all this government spending. In brief, it was one of the more shoddy, poorly done reporting jobs that I've ever seen, and reeks of the CNN/Democrat/big government zealotry that CNN has come to be known for. They're far from fair and balanced, although I guess it's not as bad as Fox News using "fair and balanced" as their slogan (how ridiculous is that).

And here I thought change was coming to America. Maybe when we all start thinking for ourselves, change will come.

"Let them alone: they be blind leaders of the blind. And if the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch." --Matthew 15:14

"Abiding in the midst of ignorance, thinking themselves wise and learned, fools go aimlessly hither and thither, like blind led by the blind."--Katha Upanishad, sacred Hindu treatise

Still Like That Old-Time Rock 'n Roll...

That title has nothing to do with this post.  I'm just listening to Bob Seger in the foyer of the law school and wow, do I love this song.  In fact, I'm putting it on repeat.  Play it again, Bob...

So, it's been a while since I've posted.  I'm not sure why, but I think my good wife shed some light on it the other day (as she often does).  She thinks I only post when something catches my attention and occupies my thoughts, and usually that only happens if it annoys or frustrates me.  And you know, she's absolutely right.  I'm not a well-respected opinion leader.  I don't have any particular expertise (unless you count "Man v. Wild Aficionado" or "Wasting-Time-During-Class Specialist" as experts).  I don't have a big following of any kind (which just makes me appreciate my readers more, incidentally), probably because my opinions aren't extreme enough to garner that kind of attention.  So I really only have one motive to write my blog, if not to continue my fame or increase my wealth: pissing and moaning.  Hooray for the Internet!  Then again, isn't that why most people write columns and such?  When's the last time Maureen Dowd or Bill O'Reilly did a feel-good story anyway?  

So does that mean that if I haven't posted in a while, that I must be something less than pissed off?  Actually, I think so.  The vicissitudes of daily life notwithstanding, I'm actually feeling pretty good, and the great thing is that it's not a fleeting thing.  There was a time that a genuinely "good" mood came around once in a blue moon for me.  Yet these days, despite mounting school pressures, a looming job search in a crappy economy, bitterly cold weather, and those little everyday annoyances that we all go through, somehow I'm staying above it all, and I'm happy.  Hitting a groove, you might say.  I suppose this may the time God in His infinite wisdom would see fit to throw me a curveball to keep me on my toes.  I guess I could go home and my apartment could be burned down or something.  But you know, those "what-ifs" will forever be just around the corner and usually beyond our control.  It's something I've learned to embrace and put in its proper context and I think that's a big reason I'm a lot happier these days.  A loving wife helps too, as you might guess.  All in all, this is just one of those times in life where the important things in life seem to be working for me at the same time, to the point that the usual crap just isn't getting to me like it might otherwise.  I know it won't last forever, but nothing does.  All you can do is enjoy it while it lasts.  

Then again, maybe it's just Bob Seger.  He always puts me in a good mood.

What Are These "Tax Cuts" of Which You Speak?

Politics are often reduced to maxims that the average non-congressman types among us (myself included) can easily understand while sitting at the dinner table, little quips or "rules" we can throw around over conversation in a vain attempt to make everyone else think we know politics. These maxims generally consist of defining party lines and the basic difference between the two major parties. For example, Democrats tend to create more new taxes, and Republicans don't. This doesn't mean one is better than the other, mind you, it's just two different policies intended to reach the same financial goal and there are pros and cons to each approach.

The point is, it's maxims like that which made Obama so fascinating during the election. He broke the mold, so to speak. Remember his little half-hour infomercial before the election? The one clearly intended to snipe off those few remaining right-leaners on the political fence?

For those who don't remember, here it is below. If you have half an hour to kill, by all means watch, but I doubt most of you have half an hour to watch a useless political ad. So let it load for a while and take it to the 4:45 mark and watch what Obama promises:



See, that was the funny thing about Obama. A Democrat making a tax cut for the middle class a major part of his campaign rhetoric. It was the kind of thing that made me think "hey, this guy might be willing to play some bipartisan ball, use some common sense!"

Then, after a day or two in office, he made a speech in which he said some promises would have to be "delayed." Fine, I can deal with that, we're in a fiscal funk right now, I understand.

Now this comes along. $1 trillion in taxes over the next decade? Really? You promise a tax cut and then do this? I mean, I understand we're in a really bad recession but come on!

It's not the policy for me so much as the principle of the thing. Taxes are a fact of life. I guess I just feel a little (ok, a LOT) disappointed in this little move. I'm really pulling for Obama here, and I think he's made some good steps. But this sort of stunt tells me he's more of the typical politician than I wanted to believe.

Top 10 Albums That Influenced My Life

I'm not talking about things like philosophical viewpoints or which albums shaped my opinions or anything. I prefer to think of it as the soundtrack of my life. The albums that I've listened to so much that they will always stay with me.  Ok, so I cheated a bit with the Tool and Breaking Benjamin albums, but they're pretty much one contiguous album in my eyes.  

1. Sunburn, Fuel

2. Aenima/Lateralus, Tool

3. Sixteen Stone, Bush

4. Saturate/We Are Not Alone, Breaking Benjamin

5. Morningview, Incubus

6. Wonder What's Next, Chevelle

7. Chronicle, Creedence Clearwater Revival

8. Happiness Is Not A Fish That You Can Catch, Our Lady Peace

9. The Blue Album, Weezer

10. Core, Stone Temple Pilots

Bleary-Eyed Blogging

I'm tired.

You see, I used to think I was "busy."  I mean, after all, a full first-year class load at law school?  40-50 pages of reading a night?  Toss a girlfriend and that time committment in there to boot.  Then over the summer I worked two jobs.  No rest for the weary, right?  I had no idea.

Enter 2L year.  People kept telling me "oh, don't worry, it just gets easier after your first year!"  Wrong.  Erroneous.  False.  I spent the whole semester writing a brief for Bristol County when I wasn't spending the rest of my time in the library trying to keep up with my Con Law II professor, who I'm pretty sure was an ethereal conglomeration of cosmic intelligence and light manifesting itself as an Eastern European male in his late twenties.  Oh, also, I was helping my fiancee plan our wedding/honeymoon.  

Now I've reached a tipping point.  I have to write a brief that convinces a panel of judges that a foreign government official with a loaded gun in his house has qualified immunity from prosecution, and I have to do it in three days.  This same week I need to prepare a direct examination for a witness for trial practice.  And let's not forget that the entire cast of the school musical is counting on my band to polsih roughly 10 of songs by Thursday.  Then we perform next week.  

To compensate for my lack of time to study at home, I've been coming in to school extra early to read up on the Trusts & Estates assignment that morning so I have some semblance of an idea where we're headed when Ilana Hurwitz takes off at 80 mph as I type furiously to keep up until my computer starts smoking.  So now I'm losing sleep too.  

Something needs to be done.  I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to bend time and space to add a 25th hour to the day.  Didn't Stephen Hawking do something about that?  I think I'll ask him...add that to the list of things to do.

Saving American Tax Dollars

So, apparently, according to the Drudge Report:

Democrats may have eliminated provisions on birth control and sod for the National Mall in the "job stimulus" -- but buried on page 147 of the bill is stimulation for prevention of sexually transmitted diseases[.]

The House Democrats' bill includes $335 million for sexually transmitted disease education and prevention programs at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, the DRUDGE REPORT has learned.

If you're interested, you can read the whole bill here.

$335 million for STD prevention, if you ask me, does NOT, in any way, shape, or form, represent the kind of economic stimulus this country needs and this bill is supposed to provide. In fact, I'm pretty sure anybody with even a bundle of synapses in his head would understand that STD prevention has but the slightest tangential connection, if any, to economic stimulation. And I'm the guy who can see the theoretical purpose to providing abortion and family planning funding, even if it's all partisan bull crap, as is probably the case. (Interestingly enough, I heard Obama asked his party to keep all this stuff out of the stimulus bill. That shows the kind of bipartisan spirit I admire in a president.) After all, we could always follow China and Japan and limit the number of children born in the U.S. as a way of helping the economy. It's simplistic enough to border on the stupid, has a multitude of Constitutional hurdles to overcome, and is probably about the dumbest idea I've heard so far, but hey, it would probably work.  But I digress.  

It's amazing to me that some of my fellow Americans have elected officials that think you need to spread STD awareness and prevention methods in order to stimulate the economy, first off, and that you need $335 million to do so in a time when American jobs are dropping like flies.  

So, as a favor to the American people and Congress, I've devised my own STD awareness program.  And best of all, it doesn't cost a dime.  Ready?  Here it is:

GUYS:  USE A CONDOM YOU IDIOT!  

GIRLS: MAYBE DON'T GIVE IT AWAY SO MUCH!

There you go.  Now just cut, print, paste, and hang in your local school/civic center/hospital/brothel and you're good to go.  Maybe put a humorous picture of an anthropomorphic condom next to it.  Or better yet, an Uncle Sam poster with those slogans on it. Go crazy with it.  

Go ahead, take it.  No, really, I insist, no charge.  Just doing my job as a concerned citizen.  I just saved America $335 million.  

Chump Change We Can Believe In

So, while I was busy getting married and escaping the blizzards in Boston and Utah, you may have noticed that there was a lot of buzz about a certain black dude winning some popularity contest and becoming one of the most powerful people in America. (Speaking of blizzards, I wonder why people are even talking about global "warming" right now because I'd sure like to have some of that here in Boston. Seriously, just a little bit of warmth. My spit freezes before it hits the ground and I can count the temperature on my freezing, blue hands. Please, I don't ask for much.) The amazing thing is, this guy didn't win American Idol. No, he became our president. And so, while the likes of Stevie Wonder and the Jonas Brothers sang on in the background, Barack Hussein Obama was sworn in as our 44th president in front of tens of thousands of people.

Here's my question: I understand the need for security, given the record crowds, the terrorist times we live in, and the fact that some supremacist nut with a mullet and a rifle might try to off the guy during the proceedings. And I understand the fact that a logistical nightmare such as this must incur some heavy cost. But really, $170 million? That's ABC News' tally of the total, but since I'm leery of CNN, MSNBC, and FOX, I figure ABC is the best estimate. Do you realize how much that is?

We're in the worst recession in over two decades, we're fighting two wars, just bailed out the financial and auto industries, but you want $170 mil for a party? Sure, sounds like a swell idea! We'll just print up some more for you along with the rest of the bailout money!

The funny thing to me is that the same people who were all for this little shindig are the ones who slammed Dubya for spending a meager $40 mil for his second inauguration. The Associated Press and New York Times both questioned the wisdom of spending that much when it could be used to armor vehicles in Iraq and what not. But now, especially since that our economy is in the crapper, where's the outcry over $170 million? That's FOUR TIMES MORE than Bush's hootenanny. Now? No matter. People don't want to hear it. It's not vogue to bash on Obama the way it was to bash on Bush. It doesn't sell. So the media glosses over it. Or even better, they justify it by saying it's a landmark in history, and people need a big party like this to get them fired up and positive again. Maybe I'll tell that to the bank when I'm hopelessly behind on my law school loan payments.

"Look, I know I'm in deep with you guys, but I'm just so downtrodden and hopeless! And I just became a lawyer! I know if you'll just give me another $15 thousand on top of what I owe, that will fire me up like no other! Come on, it's a life-changing event for me!" You're the banker--does this sound like a good investment? Or do you smack me across the face and take everything I own?

Also, I wonder how many white-bread conservatives were disappointed that Obama used a Bible at his swearing-in ceremony. Remember those ridiculous rumors that went swirling around that Obama wasn't going to swear on the Bible, or even that he'd use a Q'ran in its place? Remember all the fear that struck into the Christian conservatives and the anti-Muslims out there? He won't use the Bible! That means he's not fit to be president! He's a terrorist! Look, as a guy who threw in the towel and marked down Ron Paul on his ballot, I feel like I can say this: the kinds of outrageous theories and conclusions both parties floated out to the public in their shameless votemongering efforts floored me on so many levels. First, that someone has the audacity to think that sort of crap will actually work in the U.S. makes my head spin. And when I realize that it actually worked on a lot of people, I...I don't know what to say. I can't even make a joke there, it's...it's just too insane.

Was it a historic day? Sure, our first minority is president. Wonderful. But aren't the comparisons to God a little much here, people? I mean, really, what's actually going to change? Race relations? Not so long as Jesse Jackson and Al Sharpton are allowed to roam freely. The economy? Last I checked, a president's race doesn't weigh too heavily on our Gross National Product. Remember all those wonderful promises Obama made? I'm pretty sure he was referring to those promises when he said less than a month ago that "some promises will have to be delayed." Oh, really? Our government is falling into so much debt that you can't cut taxes like you promised to? Wow, sure didn't see that one coming!

While I'm sure Dr. King must be smiling in his grave, and while Obama's election surely serves as an example of how far we've come since the dog-and-hose days of the civil rights movement, I don't see how that really affects the average American right now. Race and history do not cut taxes, get our troops out of Iraq, stabilize the job and housing markets, repair our damaged international image, or put more money in our pockets. I like Obama as much as the next guy, but I think this whole thing has been blown out of proportion, even as historically significant as it concededly is.

On the Other Side...

So, about a month ago, my life pretty much descended into a snow-covered blur of frenzied activity on a variety of fronts. Between finals, packing, unpacking, moving, meeting new faces (and immediately forgetting names), traveling (and travel delays), making eternal commitments, joining a new family, taking a cruise, coming home to even more snow, and adjusting to married life, my brain has pretty much exploded inside my head just in time for classes to start all over again and suck out the remains...so, you know, I've been a little remiss on my blogging, if you haven't noticed. Only now I'm rollin' Scarecrow-style (without a brain), so don't expect any profound revelations or pearls of wisdom on this space any time soon (as if you did anyway, right?).

I'll cover more of this in successive posts, but I suppose I should start with the thing most people ask me about. Usually when something happens in my life, I have a pretty good handle on it and when people ask me how it is, I can usually respond in a coherent, dare I say witty, manner. Like, for example, "how's law school?" To which I reply "It's a completely singular, soul-crushing journey that has stripped me of any sense of pride or self-esteem I may have had, and replaced it with hordes of mounting debt. I absolutely love it!" See? Ironic, witty, and maybe just a little bit insightful if you can get past the humor that I'm obviously using to mask my insecurity and keep myself from crying. I really want to be a lawyer, but law school is like the fiery hoop you have to jump through, only if you're drenched in gasoline at the time.

The reason I preface with this is that people have asked me how it is to be married, but I never quite know how to respond. I'm actually speechless, and for those of you who know me, that happens about as often as, oh, never. On Dec. 27, 2008, I married the love of my life. It was a monumental, life-changing event, the best day of my life and a day that will influence every facet of the rest of my life from here through the eternities. If it sounds profound, that's because it is, and so I feel as though a question like that begs an interesting, thought-provoking, or otherwise quasi-profound answer. And yet, I'm lost for descriptors. I really can't articulate it. To use Marisa's words, it just feels natural and right. I mean, we spent so much time together over the last year-and-change that her moving in with me wasn't really that big of an adjustment in and of itself. It's been a transition learning to live with each other for sure. But, on the whole, being married feels a lot like being a bachelor, only I'm with my best friend a lot more often and I don't feel that fleeting sense of loneliness when I go to bed at night, among other things. Basically, it's like life before, only better. And as an added perk, my apartment actually looks like a home now instead of a dorm room, and now I cook for two instead of one. Oh, and my roommate smells really, really good. And she's hot.

Anyway, I've always felt that something was missing in my life, and that feeling is gone now. I guess you could say that's the biggest change about being married. I'm fortunate to feel that way, I think, because a lot of people get married thinking it will fix all their problems and it doesn't. If you have personal issues and such before getting married, getting hitched will only exacerbate them, in my opinion. Nevertheless, I know there was a definite (albeit amorphous) deficiency in my life, and getting married has definitely filled it. So, I guess you could say that marriage makes me feel complete.

Yeah, complete. That's a good way to put it.

"Stewie, how ya holdin' up back there?"
"Umm, I feel right, Brian. I feel right."