The Campaign For DA


Random Friday Morning Thoughts

- Think about your tax bill. Ok, Ready. Headline: "Hutchison wants $100 mil for border drug war." When did she lose her mind?
- There's a road sign on 407 headed towards Justin that warns you of "low flying aircraft." Why? I mean, I know there's a little airport there but how exactly am I supposed to react to the warning?
- Odd moment of Fox 4 News at 6:53 this morning when they were showing us a dog ts back on the carpet they wanted us to adopt: "Show us that money shot," said Evan. I thought Tim was gonna lose it.
- Speaking of Fox 4, Todd Carruth is leaving as well. I'm afraid that I'm going to turn it on one morning and see nothing but an empty studio.
- Private poll dancing mishap. Good times.
- Don't care to much about the California Supreme Court ruling paving the way for gay marriage. But the fact that hottie Portia de Rossi plans to marry is deeply disconcerting.
- And it's good to see Sen. John Cornyn was quick to suggest that the federal government will get involved in the gay marriage debate. Thank goodness the federal government comes to save us again.
- More crazy federal intervention. That crazy story where some teenager killed herself after being duped on myspace?: The lady who might have done the duping was federally indicted. Incredible. Simply incredible.
- Geekiest thing I've done in a while: Learning PHP and mySQL. Ya know, if I could earn a living being locked in a room for nine hours a day writing code, I think I would.
- It's time for The Preakness and the very wheels off Running Of The Urinals.
- If you want to understand the mortgage crisis, check out this week's podcast of This American Life.


Anonymous said...

Are you using Linux as your development platform?

Anonymous said...

Since when did the Repub's, i.e. John Cornyn, become anti-states rights?

Anonymous said...

I'm saddened at the manner in which modern so-called "conservatives" have lost their way. They seem to believe that "conservatism" means forcing a particular set of values down the throats of everyone else. In fact, that's fascism - conservatism taken to an irrational extreme; just as communism is liberalism taken to an irrational extreme.

True "conservatism" is a philosophy about the manner in which political decisions are to be reached ... NOT some "ends justify the means" ideology.

True conservatives believe, and have always believed - first and foremost, to the days of the founding fathers - in "State's rights". So, if California - or any other state - should determine to socially liberalize it's definition of legal marriage - while true conservatives might campaign IN CALIFORNIA to prevent that, they would never - NEVER - under any circumstances, move to involve the federal government in the decision.

Cornyn's imbecility is reflective of the rise of a sort of inner sense of self-righteousness that has corrupted modern conservitism.

Make no mistake, liberals often suffer from an equally self-righteous and "ends justify the means" motivation. But that has been the rap against them for some time. What is sad is that it is now clear that so-called "conservatives" are in this regard no better; and perhaps worse.

We all need a civics lesson - that the genius of American Democracy (and for that matter, the genius of the original Athenian Democracy) - has always been a clear and public understanding that what is important is the process by which we govern ourselves; and not an abject childish insistance on "having my way." Should we forget that we are all brothers and sisters in social compact, it won't matter who is a "weenie" and who isn't, because we'll all find ourselves roasting on a spit of our own creation.

Anonymous said...

Maybe KBH is trying to win over people who don't already know her with that 100 mil $ crazy talk. Thinking folks who have been with her all along won't bail when it's about to get good, in spite of this nonsense.

Anonymous said...

Hutchison lost her mind a long time ago.

They just want you to know a wheel may run accross the top of your car...No biggie.

Do you have a money shot?

I am starting to think your favorite neews station is a crappy place to work.


What is up with her mouth...

Is there anything that the federal government doesnt get involved in?

I followed this story when it first came out. If she did what they say she did then she should be indicted for child endangerment. What adult would tell a child they are fat and a whore. A child you know has problems with depesion.

Yep your a geek.


Will this really help? Do I really need to understand the mortgage crisis?

Anonymous said...

Just make Maria Juanita a naturalized citizen-problem solved.

Anonymous said...

OH I like the pop up window. :)

Anonymous said...

The low flying aircraft signs are good so you don't get startled and lose control when it feels like one is about to land in your lap.
I like that sentence. Read it slowly a few times in your best Barry White voice. Ain't that cool? Sheeesh, I gotta quit smoking dope so early in the morning.

Anonymous said...

Sean Penns movie Into The Wild was a great telling of a true story. Didn't leave the viewer to "make up their own mind" or whatever that dimwitted statement is but, it just tells the story very close to all available facts.

Jarhead said...

Those babies are built for speed and comfort. Damn.


Anonymous said...

KBH is positioning herself to look better to Texas voters and stronger on illegal immigration because, AND ONLY BECAUSE, she will run against Perry and whoever for Govenor. Otherwise, she couldn't care less. She's a PHONEY!

Anonymous said...

Thank you Barry for the Scarlett photo. You have brightened my Friday.

As for Cornyn. He is a certified fool. When he promoted the constitutional amendment to ban same sex marriage, he said if we allow people of the same sex to marry, people will start marrying box turtles. Me thinks that is a private fantasy of our senator.

Anonymous said...

Good heavens, someone put Anonymous 8:51 on the ballot. I'd vote for him/her. That is a great analysis. Well said!

M&M said...

To 10:56 & 8:51 In 2000, the folks of California voted to maintain the definition of marriage as being between a man and a woman. The vote was 61% to 39%. Yesterday, the state supreme court decided the folks of California's opinion and vote doesn't matter and overturned that vote. Last year a state court did the same thing in .....I can't remember, somewhere in the northeast. This is pure craziness to have these renegade judges think they know better than the majority of the folks and want to impose their thinking on all of us. So, even though they normally wouldn't according to their philosophy, conservatives are forced to try and trump these liberal judges by using the federal government, which will take a constitutional amendment to do so. I think Cornyn's reference to the turtle, was in regards to the homos excuse for wanting to marry because of love and begs the question of where do we draw the line? I love my "blank" (fill in the blank with dog, cat, fish, boat, sister, dad, 3 woman etc.), thus I should be allowed to marry them.

Anonymous said...

M&M, the notion that the conservatives "have to resort to use of the federal government" to trump liberal judges is mindboggling hogwash. Isn't it "the conservatives" who used to object to use of the "liberal" federal government to trump their local "state's rights" issues?? You can NOT have it both ways and call yourself a conservative.

The issues in California will be worked out IN California BY Californians. I am quite sure there will be more referenda for California voters, and more legislation out of the California legislature, and more cases tried to the California courts before it is over and resolved. But it is THEIR issue to resolve.

If you believe that federal power should be used to trump them, then prepare yourself for more nationwide turmoil on every issue of the day ... and if you come out on the losing end about guns or the death penalty or abortion or whatever, you will have made your own bed.

Anonymous said...

Since moving from the Cult of Wise county I have had the honor of developing several gay friendships. One of my favorites is Cheryl who has been with her partner Erica for more than 8 years. Last year they had a beautiful baby girl, thanks to a sperm donor, and are the most perfect parents I have ever met. I have had the priviledge of being a part of their lives and only wish I could stand up at their wedding. They, much more than my straight friends--many of whom are divorced, symbolize to me the true meaning of a commited relationship. I work with students everyday that would benefit from the family support they offer and I can not understand how the government feels it should have the power to dictate a personal choice. Yes, I believe in a loving God. One who would not create errors.

M&M said...

Anon 3:08 I agree there will be further battles in California, but the whole problem hinges on these maverick judges imposing their will on the people and the fact that their will is in opposition to the will of the people. So, the view of some, like Cornyn, is that if there were a federal constitution amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman, then these idiot judges couldn't do what they are doing in these individual states. If these judges would do their job and stop legislating from the bench then there wouldn't be the need for an extreme measure like a constitutional amendment.

Anonymous said...


Would that same loving God you believe in kindly refrain from tornadoes, monsoons, earthquakes, wildfires, malaria, ozone imbalance, volcanoes, fire ants, tsunamis, cobras, dope, and corruption? I mean as long as he is at the helm?? Know what I mean??

Anonymous said...

I would drink a quart of Scarlett Johansens bath water just to listen to her fart over her cell phone.

Anonymous said...

Based on your argument, the prohibitions against interracial marriage should never have been eliminated in 1967. After all, most of the country's citizens at that time were in favor of that particular prohibition. It took "idiot judges" to legislate from the bench and recognize the larger good while delineating the difference between "the will of the people" and what was, ultimately, the right thing to do.

M&M said...

Anon 5:29 Just because God defines marriage as being between a man and a woman, doesn't mean all those unions are going to be perfect. Agency of the individual is still allowed to each partner and it takes a great effort by each for a successful union.

The relationship you describe, I have seen similar between a person and their pet, between siblings, between kids and their parents, between friends, etc. That doesn't mean they should be allowed to be married. This definition of marriage doesn't discriminate or violate the civil rights of anyone. It applies to everyone equally. No one can marry someone of the same sex or anything else and everyone can marry someone of the opposite sex. That doesn't discriminate against anyone.

You say you believe in God and that he doesn't create errors. If he created them that way, why then would he turn around and command that they not act as homos in both the old and new testament. In fact, in the old testament, violaters were put to death? Doesn't make sense does it? Name any society that has flourished and not failed when that sin has been accepted as normal. What positive effect does that lifestyle have on any society? Why has all societies had sodomy against the law? All religions have homosexuality as sin, from christianity, muslim, buhdist, hindu, jewish etc. The list goes on and on. It is sin and not normal. God has so declared and God has also defined marriage in the old testament and the new testament as being a union between a woman and a man only. Nothing else. The homosexual agenda continues to be crammed down our throats (no pun intended) and I for one am extremely tired of it. If they want to live that lifestyle, let them, but quit trying to make me and society accept it as normal.

Anonymous said...

KBH's voting record on illegals does not please this conservative. 100 million bucks? Here is an inexpensive solution: Arrest 20 builders in Texas along with a few meat packers and lets not forget the lawn mowing contractors. Conficate their assets. The news media will do the rest including free publicity and mug shots of those slimy un-American builders who are arrested. Within a few days the builders and meat packers who have not been arrested will clean house and all the illegals will provide their own transportation back to Mexico. With this solution we wouldn't need a fence. When that happens our automobile rates and health insurance premiums will drop. Our school taxes will drop since a large percentage of students will be at home in Mexico and can't attend class in Texas. We can cancel some of the school expansion projects that were recently approved by voters in the bond elections.

One more benefit will be lower unemployment rates just like Oklahoma is enjoying. Oh, sorry about all you folks who dream of buying a McMansion built with illegal labor. You can still buy a new home, but it will have to be smaller because the builder's slaves all took the underground railroad to Mexico. The new labor force will be American citizens and expect to be paid more than the recently departed workers. On the other hand, maybe you can aford a large home. You will be paying automobile liability and paying for health care for you and your family, not half of Mexico. And your school taxes should be lower. You should have more money to make mortgage payments with. You might get that big house afterall.

I heard rumor that the soon to be retiring President Bush is building a new home in Highland Park. Just a rumor but, if it is true, I wonder if illegals are building it?

M&M said...

10:41 First, these miscegenation laws did not re-define marriage, they were a prohibition of interracial marriage and sexual relations.
Second, The majority of the folks were not necessarily in favor of them. In fact, only 16 states had such laws on their books in 1967. I think 6 out of the 13 original colonies had them as well.

Third, Your argument supports Cornyn's and others idea of the federal branch over-riding the stupid decisions being made in the individual states, just like in 1967.

Anonymous said...

First, you advanced the argument that if the "majority of folks" are in favor of something, judges shouldn't "impose their will". I merely pointed out the reality that, yes, the majority of folks in those states which prohibited interracial marriage were in favor of maintaining those prohibitions. I realize that you now, in hindsight, wish to shift the focus of your argument, but that is what you wrote.
Secondly, I do think that federal judges sometimes have to act to correct laws which seek to discriminate. That is why ridiculous "sodomy" laws are no longer in place.
Third, (and I know this will come as a shock to you) the laws of the United States are not based on those contained in the old and new testaments of the Bible. If that were the case, interracial marriage would still be outlawed, widows would be required to marry their brother-in laws and disobedient children would be stoned....along with adulterers, men without beards, women wearing red, those who plant more than one crop in a field and anyone caught wearing polyester. Ok, so maybe that last one isn't such a bad idea.

The fact is, I have never met anyone who actually opposed the existence of gay citizens based on what is written in the Bible. If that were actually the case, I doubt they would resort to such cherry-picking of scripture. I have only encountered people who use the Bible as an excuse for simply bigotry.

Anonymous said...

I would lick Scarletts toes