Over Before It Starts?

Maybe.

Right now, there are only 50 working Democratic Senators (Tim Johnson D, S.D. hasn't cast a vote yet this year), and there are only 49 if you don't include Joe Lieberman.

....You need 51 senators for a quorum, in the event that someone makes a quorum call — which any senator can make at any time. So all it takes is one Republican to stay in the chamber, object to anything the Democrats try to do, and then note the absence of a quorum. When the quorum is called, and only 50 senators are present, the Senate adjourns (or at least it can't come out of the quorum call without unanimous consent), and the whole stupid stunt is over before Senator Byrd can even begin his outraged four-hour speech.

All the Republicans need to do is enforce a complete boycott of the session except for one Senator to oppose the 49 Dems. Who thinks Joe Lieberman might be the man for the job?

What it boils down to is this: Will the handful of Republicans that voted for this already stand by their positions and stay with the Dems giving them over 50 or will they succumb to their party's pressure? We'll find out, but I'm not hopeful. It also now occurs to me that Reid has certainly known this all along...

Reid: It. Is. On.

Harry Reid's heard the word on the street. Make the Republicans get off their asses and filibuster.

Moments ago, Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid (D-NV) announced that in response to conservative obstructionism, he plans to force war supporters to physically remain in the Senate and filibuster Iraq withdrawal legislation.

Reid accused conservatives of “protecting the President rather than protecting our troops” by “denying us an up or down vote on the most important issue our country faces.” He said that if a vote on the Reed/Levin Iraq legislation is not allowed today or tomorrow, he will keep the Senate in session “straight through the night on Tuesday” and force a filibuster.

“I would like to inform the Republican leadership and all my colleagues that we have no intention of backing down,” Reid said. “If Republicans do not allow a vote on Levin/Reed today or tomorrow, we will work straight through the night on Tuesday. The American people deserve an open and honest debate on this war, and they deserve an up or down vote on this amendment to end it.”

Can the GOP shop keep the talking points coming long enough for these empty suit jackasses to stand up there? We'll see.

Executive Privilege = Anything Embarrassing

Seriously, is there anything the Bush Administration won't try to conceal behind claims of "Executive Privilege?" ANYTHING?

White House, Pentagon cite executive privilege to hold up documents on friendly fire victim Tillman

Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) revealed on Friday afternoon that the White House and Pentagon were holding up a House Oversight and Government Reform Committee investigation into the friendly fire death of former professional football player and Army Corporal Patrick Tillman.

"[T]he Committee wrote to White House Counsel Fred Fielding seeking 'all documents received or generated by any official in the Executive Office of the President' relating to Corporal Tillman's death," noted a press release from the Committee.

But the White House has apparently again invoked its executive privilege to hold up the documents sought by Waxman and Ranking Minority member Tom Davis (R-VA).

"The White House Counsel's office responded that it would not provide the Committee with documents that 'implicate Executive Branch confidentiality interests' and produced only two communications with the officials in the Defense Department, one of which was a package of news clippings," the Committe noted. "The response of the Defense Department to the Committee's inquiry was also deficient."

In their letter to Fielding, Waxman and Davis doubted that the two documents were the limits of White House-Pentagon communication over Tillman's death.

I cannot imagine what possible legitimate claim to privilege they have here. Bush, Cheney and Fielding seem to think that "Executive Privilege" is for anything that might prove embarrassing or compromising to them. As far as I understand it, it can't be used to cover up illegal activity or abused to conceal innappropriate activity. There is no other explanation for this claim about Tillman—what possible communication could they be hiding other than a White House-directed campaign to mislead the public and use his death to their political advantage?

This is perhaps the clearest, most textbook case ever of "if you've done nothing wrong, you have nothing to hide" turned on it's head. There was no communication necessary except for doing something wrong and then covering it up.

UPDATE: Steve Benen has a nice recap on the Tillman story if you need refreshing. Mark Mleiman and Emptywheel agree that this is a good place for Dems to put up a fight. This case has the capability of holding the attention of the media and casual observers far better than more intricate or obscure Bush scandals.

Nelson Award: GOP Moralist First One Snared in D.C. Madam Net

The rank hypocrisy of the GOP is on display yet again. We had Newt leading the impeachment movement against Clinton while in the midst of his own extramarital affairs; the Republican leading the charge against online sexual predators sexually harassing his pages online, and now the "staunch, family values" Senator from Louisiana who ran as "the "Defender of Marriage", slammed his House and Senate predecessors, Bill Clinton, Hollywood, and "Massachusetts values" all while cheating on his own wife. With prostitutes.

[link] Sen. David Vitter (R-La.) apologized last night after his telephone number appeared in the phone records of the woman dubbed the “D.C. Madam,” making him the first member of Congress to become ensnared in the high-profile case.

The statement containing Vitter’s apology said his telephone number was included on phone records of Pamela Martin and Associates dating from before he ran for the Senate in 2004.

His defense? That he did this "several years ago" and has been "forgiven by God and his wife." All that means, asshole, is that you are not only a hypocrit now, but that you were lying when you ran for office.

People had been giving Vitter credit for getting out ahead of the story and making a statement on his own once the phone records were ordered turned over by the Court. ABC News had been poring through the lists and made no connections to Vitter.

Well, evidently the only thorough public guardian left is Larry Flynt. In one day, Hustler tied Vitter to the list and contacted him. Only then did he 'fess up and make his statement.

And the icing? It all comes just after Vitter was the first GOP Senator to publicly endorse Guiliani for President and was appointed to chair Rudy's campaign in the South. Let's review Rudy's staff, shall we? Coke dealer, racist bigot, child molester and now a prostitute-using adulturer. You just can't make this stuff up.

UPDATE: Andrew Sullicvan has the ultimate karmic Quote of the Day:

"I'm a lot more like Lorena Bobbitt than Hillary. If he does something like that, I'm walking away with one thing, and it's not alimony, trust me,"
[Vitter's wife] Wendy Vitter, 2000, talking about the Clinton scandal to the New Orleans Times-Picayune. Male genital mutilation may be about to have a comeback.

I Guess There ARE Frivolous Lawsuits

The first one is from the also-a-lawyer Baseball Crank:

BOSTON -- [link] A man who claims he failed the Massachusetts bar exam because he refused to answer a question about gay marriage has filed a federal lawsuit, saying the test violated his rights and that his religious beliefs were targeted.

Stephen Dunne, 30, of Boston, is seeking $9.75 million in the suit against the Massachusetts Board of Bar Examiners and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court. He was denied a license to practice law in May after scoring 268.866 on the exam, just shy of the 270 passing grade.

Dunne, who is representing himself in the case, refused to answer an exam question addressing the rights of two married lesbians, their children and their property, and claims in the suit that it cost him a passing score.

In the suit, Dunne called the question "morally repugnant and patently offensive," and said he refused to answer it because he believed it legitimized same-sex marriage and same-sex parenting, which is contrary to his moral beliefs.

He probably should have been sure he was scoring well enough to pass before he climbed on his high horse. Sorry, counselor, a failing grade is a failing grade. You lose. And you're a douche.

And $9.75 million? Something tells me when you barely pass (or fail) the bar, perhaps you are slightly overestimating your earning potential.

Consolation Prize: Dunne displayed all the important qualifications for a job in the Bush DOJ!

UPDATE: Great analysis and mocking by a Law Prof here.

--

The second one regards the verdict in a case you may have heard about—the asshole who sued his drycleaner for $54 million...

"The D.C. administrative law judge who sued his neighborhood dry cleaner for $54 million over a pair of lost pants found out this morning what he's going to get for all his troubles.

Nothing.

h/t: Hilzoy, who has a nicewrap-up.

Ouch.

Glad I didn't see this story before I took my family to Disney World, and then, the other night to the local carnival.

I've never been able to fully relax and enjoy a roller coaster or other thrill ride without the possibilty of a horrific accident poking me in the back of my brain. The fact that I now have kids does not ease that at all. Especially when it comes to safety regarding some sketchy travelling amusement park that Transformers™ out of a bunch of trailers.

Anyway, Ruby loved The Scrambler. Here's an interesting drawing I found while looking for a photo:

iDiots

Look, I'm as big an Apple fan* as anyone, but I was just astounded at the display last week of jackasses camping out on the street to get in line for an overpriced, oversized phone/iPod. People scalped their spots in line for thousands of dollars!

I'm sure it's slick and pretty—all Apple products are—but come on, people, get a fucking life. It's a phone!

Anyway, at Christmastime the jokes on all of those asshats that overpaid for the oversized first-gen iPhone, when Apple unveils the newer, smaller, cheaper nano-based iPhone...

NEW YORK - Apple Inc. plans to launch a cheaper version of the iPhone in the fourth quarter that could be based on the ultra-slim iPod Nano music player, according to a JP Morgan report.

Kevin Chang, a JP Morgan analyst based in Taiwan, cited people in the supply channel he did not name and an application with the U.S Patent and Trademark office for his report dated July 8.

Apple filed a patent application document dated July 5 that refers to a multifunctional handheld device with a circular touch pad control, similar to the Nano's scroll wheel.

Apple spokeswoman Natalie Kerris declined comment.

Don't these nerds know that it never pays to buy the first version of something? Especially with Apple? Jobs always has something else up his sleeve.

Here's a funny bit from The Daiily show on the iPhone...



UPDATE: But, will it blend?

* Full disclosure: Pretending I haven't had two Apple products utterly fail and screw me over the last five weeks...AND, I just gave Apple another two grand to replace my wife's laptop and get myself a new display. For the G5 that's still in the shop.

Mr Furious Heartily Endorses...

Neal Pollack I've stumbled across Pollack before, but in his new "cool guy struggling with fatherhood" persona, I've found a soul mate. Not that I think I'm so cool or anything, just that I find his blog absolutely hilarious, and Mrs. Furious and I are taking turns slogging through his book "Alternadad." Funny enough that I actually can't read it while holding a sleeping baby without waking her up. Thanks a lot, Neal.

Whole Foods 365 Everyday Vanilla Sandwich Cookies Quite simply the finest sandwich cookie ever baked. Or assembled. Whatever. Just the right consistancy, cookie/filling ratio, with the slight saltiness that ensures you eat like five at a time. More, if you have milk.

Iced Coffee Nectar of the gods. We've finally mastered the process of having it constantly available at home (which means me remembering to brew a pot, sweeten it while it's hot and put it in the fridge before I go to bed), and Michigan seems to finally have caught up to the East Coast and you can actually find it on the menu(board). For the first few years we lived out here, people behind the counter would look at me like I just asked for a glass of dishwater, and thusly confused would offer to "put some ice in the coffee?" No, jackass. That just results in a watery, melty coffee-ish broth that sucks. Iced coffee is brewed strong (accounting for ice meltage) and served cold (or room temp) over ice. And if you are a place as good as Naidre's you offer Simple Syrup as a sweetener. Few things make me miss Park Slope more than iced coffee...

This Thermal Mug I don't remember the manufacturer, but that link tells you where to get it. I am astonished how well insulated this thing is. I come back to my car after hours in the summer sun, and there is still ice in the thing. Around the house, your aforementioned iced coffee stays cold and not-watered down forever. Fantastic.

Taco Bell Grilled Steak Taquitos Is there such a thing in Mexico? Who knows and who cares. These suckers are good, cheap and relatively healthy for fast food. They are a lunch standard for me when I run out of the office. In fact, look for me in the Taco Bell parking lot in about ten minutes...

THE JURY'S STILL OUT...
Bose TriPort OE Headphones I got frustrated finding a place that had the Sennheisers I wanted, and just bought these at Target when we had a coupon, and while they are worlds better than the buds that came with my iPod, they don't seem as good as the Bang & Olufsens I returned at Christmas... These cans are a bit too heavy in the bass, and the controls for that are tough with the iPod. Yesterday the exceptionally-produced "Diamonds On the soles of Her Shoes" by Paul Simon came on and they sounded great, but at other times things get muddy. they look great, are collapsible and compact, and I love the cloth cord which is much less prone to tangling, but I still can't give them a total thumbs up (or down) yet.

I'm Back. Mostly.

Posts have been sporadic at best since I have no dependable computer at home right now, and things are busy at work. That and the fact that we took and impromtu trip to Disney World as a treat for the bravest, greatest daughter in the world. So, I'll try to keep up. I have a tremendous backlog of links I want to post on—from Libby, travel, Sox, cars, and everything else under the sun. We'll see how things go...

Sticking my toe in the "Adult Swim" pool...

I've never watched Aqua Teen Hunger Force, and it's likely I'll never see the movie, but clips like this might convince me otherwise...Check out the opener to the movie. It's brilliant.

"Hold" On a Second...

Last week (below) I vented on the ability of Republicans to control the agenda in the Senate through "filibustering without filibustering." Republicans are forcing legislation off the table before a vote because Reid knows he cannot guarantee cloture without 60 votes in his pocket. And he cannot overtun a Bush veto without the 2/3 majority of 67 votes.

Thus, things like the stem cell bill last week fade away without a vote because Bush promises to veto it, and Reid cut his losses early. I think this is bad politics and bad policy, but later in the week there was an even more egregious example...

Bill aims to solve racial killings

The House passed a bill Wednesday to establish a new division of federal prosecutors and FBI agents focused strictly on cracking unsolved murders from the civil rights era.

The bill, which is also moving swiftly through the Senate, would authorize $10 million a year over the next decade to create the unit in the Justice Department. It also would earmark $2 million per year in grants for state and local law enforcement agencies to investigate cases in which federal prosecution isn’t practical, and $1.5 million more to improve coordination among investigating agencies.

The bill, passed 422-2, is named in honor of Emmett Till, a black 14-year-old from Chicago who was beaten and murdered in Mississippi in 1955 after being accused of whistling at a white woman. His killers were never convicted.

[...] State and federal prosecutors have had a string of successes recently in reopening racially motivated slayings from the 1950s and 1960s, including the 1963 Birmingham, Ala., church bombing and the 1964 slayings of three civil rights volunteers in Mississippi.

Sounds like a goood idea to me, it sailed through the House, actually has Bush's endorsement ahead of time, and seemed poised to cruise through the Senate...so, what happened?

One single Senator ground the whole thing to a halt. Tom Coburn (R-Okla.) put a "hold" on the bill and threatened to block it permanently.

Wait a sec...everybody (seemingly) wants this thing, and one guy in the minority can stop the whole thing?

The first thing I thought, even before considering the actual merits of the legislation, was "can one guy really stop legislation (good or bad) with a procedural hold? And if that's true, why the fuck weren't the Democrats doing that the last six years?"

And, get this, you don't even need to put your name on a hold! In May, bipartisan legislation expanding the Freedom of Information Act was cruising along in he Senate until "the vote was blocked by 'Senator Anonymous.' Some Republican senator called the Minority Leader’s office and objected to a vote on the bill, but asked for anonymity and did not publicly state the reason for the hold." [link

As I read these stories I was flabbergasted. I heard about "holds" and "unanimous consent" and other esoteric Senate procedural terms, but I didn't realize exactly how this could work. So I looked it up. From the Senate website's glossary [emphasis mine]:

hold - An informal practice by which a Senator informs his or her floor leader that he or she does not wish a particular bill or other measure to reach the floor for consideration. The Majority Leader need not follow the Senator’s wishes, but is on notice that the opposing Senator may filibuster any motion to proceed to consider the measure.

This again? Fucking outrageous bullshit! Make Coburn stand up there by himself and filibuster the goddamn thing. That he is holding the Senate and this legislation hostage with what amounts to a thinly-veiled bluff is pathetic. Now it's possible that the support from the GOP side of the aisle is posturing because Coburn has agreed to wear this one by himself, but I don't fucking care if he votes are there or not. MAKE THEM (OR HIM) STAND UP AND TAKE THE HEAT AND ACTUALLY FILIBUSTER!

The fact that this is worthy legislation, just like the stem cell funding and the OPEN Govenment Act (the FOIA bill defeated by a mystery Senator) is almost beside the point to me now. Why the hell is Reid running things this way? They should have brought that FOIA bill to the floor just to find out who put the hold on it.

The more I learn about how things work (or don’t work) in the Senate the less enamored I am with our caucus and its leadership.

UPDATE: They're at it again this week. The "Ethics and Lobbying Reform Bill" and the "9/11 Commission Recommendations." More at Kos here and here. Why the hell doesn't Harry Reid want to make the Republicans stand up and filibuster Ethics Reform and 9/11-related security measures?

"Votes and Vetoes and Filibusters, Oh My"

It was just yesterday when I read about the impending veto of another stem-cell bill that I wondered to myself "why aren't the Dems sending something "good" up to the White House for a veto on a weekly basis?" It would give the impression that they are trying to get shit done, and would make Bush veto something that, in all liklihood, is supported by the majority of the country... Everybody already hates the guy, I say continue kicking him while's down. Who cares if we don't have the votes to overturn a veto? Make Congressional Republicans go on record twice voting against it.

As John Judis in TNR points out; in the late 80s, the Dems sent Bush 41 plenty of popular items to veto:

...Mitchell and Foley sent Bush 36 pieces of legislation that he vetoed. These included the Family and Medical Leave Act, tax relief and urban aid (in the wake of the Los Angeles riots), extended jobless benefits (during a recession), a crime bill, the removal of a Bush administration ban on federal funding of fetal tissue research (which had been instrumental to discovering a polio vaccine), a bill removing the gag rule that forbade federally funded family planning counselors from discussing abortion, a bill regulating cable rates, and a campaign finance measure.

Sounds like a plan, right? Kevin Drum (the source of the above Judis quote) and Steve Benen point out the difference between the late 80s and now.

Unfortunately, all of these votes, as Judis acknowledges, required support from Republican moderates in order to pass. But that strategy pretty clearly won't work in today's Senate, which contains no more than half a dozen Republicans who could truly be called moderate. And even those half dozen are rarely willing to join Democrats in passing moderate legislation. The Gingrichization of the Republican Party has made moderate insubordination too costly to seriously consider.

The result is that Senate Republicans can filibuster anything they want to keep off Bush's desk, allowing through only those bills that he's willing to sign — or those in which a veto is actually helpful to the cause. Democrats simply don't have the ability to force moderate legislation to the Oval Office as veto bait.

Benen adds:

Consider what we’ve seen the last few months when it comes to GOP obstructionism. Senate Republicans have filibustered a non-binding resolution criticizing Gonzales, a minimum-wage increase, a debate over a non-binding resolution on the war (twice), and a bill that would have led to lower prices on prescription medication. And that doesn’t even include procedural hurdles in committees. (All from the party that whined about non-existent obstructionism for six years.)

Why has Reid failed to garner moderate GOP support the way Mitchell did? Because the numbers just aren’t there. Reid has 51 members in his caucus. One of them is Joe Lieberman. Another is Tim Johnson, who has been physically unable to work. So, to break a filibuster, Reid starts with 49 votes and looks around for Republican moderates.

If we want more progress, we’ll need to give Reid more Democrats.

Let me first say that these are two bloggers I like alot especially Benen—The Carpetbagger Report is indispensible reading to me—but this is crap.

"Give Reid more Democrats?" Well, that ain't happening the rest of the time Bush is President, so that's not really a plan. And besides, it's a cop-out. The whole fucking thing is a cop-out. Drum says the Republicans "filibuster anything they want to keep off Bush's desk"? Really? I don't remember reading about any "filibusters" do you? We heard plenty about it—and how bad it was for the country—when the Democrats were in the minority, but I don't really hear much about it now. Why is that?

Because Reid isn't making the Republicans "filibuster" anything. He counts heads and has a cloture vote, which brings debate to an end artificially, and they move on to the next item. Bullshit. MAKE. THEM. ACTUALLY. FILIBUSTER. Make these assholes actually go to the podium and speak. I don't care if they argue their positions or read the phone book, make them earn it. Reid is letting them off easy with an "implied" filibuster. Fuck that.

The Republicans invested heavily in painting the filibuster as the last resort of desperate obstructionists. Make them fucking wear it. It highlights their hypocrisy, it won't win them any fans (or at least will confound and confuse) their moronic base, and puts them—and here's the important part—visibly on the wrong side of issues popular with everybody else.

The Democrats swept back into power by promising a bold new direction. Reid (and Pelosi) are ceding too much to the Republicans in Congress and Bush if they continue to let them stall and run out the clock until 2008. They may not actually be able pass any bold new initiatives with their slim majorities, but they sure as hell should look like they're trying.

"More Democrats?" Great. But first lets outfit the ones we have with some testicles.

No Apex Tech Lawyers for Bush

Spinning off of the previous post, the lawyers that actually do work for the President got reinforced last week...

Besieged White House Reinforces Counsel's Office
[WaPo] President Bush has authorized another surge -- this time in the White House counsel's office. Facing a blizzard of congressional investigations, hearings and subpoenas, the White House has hired a new crop of lawyers to do battle with the Democratic Congress.

[...] "Obviously, there's been an increase in requests from the Hill, and we want to make sure we have the appropriate level of staff in place," said White House spokeswoman Emily Lawrimore.

Yeah, ya don't say? "Congressional investigators are looking into the dismissal of U.S. attorneys, the disappearance of White House e-mail, internal disputes over warrantless surveillance, partisan activities in federal agencies, various aspects of the Iraq war and other issues."

Do you think George is tapping a fresh crop of Pat Robertson's finest to defend him and his Administration? Not likely. All seven of the added lawyers are from Ivy League law schools. Tom Schaller at TAPPED put it best...

So, when it comes to policy-making over at the so-called Justice Department, a Regent University law degree, like the one held by Monica Goodling and a battalion of other fundies, suffices. But when it comes to protecting the president's backside, apparently a divine legal degree is no substitute for an East Coast elite Ivy School pedigree.

When hiring lawyers to defend the Constitution, the People, the Laws and our system of Justice, Lionel Hutz with a degree from the 700 Club is first in line, but for his own ass? Bush only hires the best.

Law and Orders

A great column at Slate.com that discusses how DOJ lawyers should advise an Administration...

The proper role for presidential lawyers is actually quite clear... The Constitution explicitly commands the president to "take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed," and it is up to the attorney general and, under his direction, DoJ's Office of Legal Counsel to provide the analytical expertise the president needs to ensure the legality of his administration's actions. Presidential lawyers should operate first and foremost as stewards of the rule of law and our constitutional democracy. Their legal advice must reflect an accurate and principled view of the law, not just plausible, ends-driven rationalizations. And in order to do that with any effectiveness, they must be allowed to tell the president "no."

The Constitution? Isn't that one of those "quaint" documents we now ignore? The Bush Administration has so clearly used the DOJ as a resource to seek out and rationalize any justification possible for what it wants to do rather than as a source of objective legal analysis. They have replaced or driven out anyone (even Ashcroft) who ever dared to raise a question, never mind an objection.

The Department of Justice is supposed to work for the People and even moreso, The Constitution. Congress should NEVER have alllowed the President to appoint his personal lawyer to head that Agency. This was all so predictible. Time for Congress to undo it's own mistake and reassert the Rule of Law.

Time to impeach Gonzalez. It might be a little while, I can wait to see how the Miers and Taylor subpoenas play out, and whether they get Rove under oath or not, but the endgame has to be the same. Gonzalez has to go, and it is increasingly clear that impeachment is the only way that will happen.

Happy Fathers Day (to me!)

Went to Father's Day brunch buffet at the incomparable Webers Inn here in Ann Arbor this morning. Ruby the Carnivore and I indulged in an absolute Meat Bonanza—sausage (patties, of course), ham from the carving station, and she enjoyed some steak tips and even fried chicken—but there was NO BACON! I quickly rallied and switched from protein to carbs and started downing those miniature Belgian waffles and pastries to fill the void. Rachel valiantly stayed within the boundaries of normal human consumption, but I made a pig of myself—what the hell, it's my day, right? That, and I reminded myself of the fact that I'm armed with the first season of "The Shield" plus "Casino Royale" on DVD to put in some extra treadmill time.

It was all delicious and a great start to the day, but alas, there is NOTHING more enjoyable than a good slice of bacon.

We're home...

[I'd like to add this as an update to the previous post, but the old browser on this machine isn't allowing me to...]

Everything went very well, the surgeon seemed very upbeat about the results, and Ruby did great. She really is a tremendous bad-ass for a four-year-old, and is a total inspiration. Those of you who know me, know I have kind if a "thing" about eyes and even hypothetical eye injuries (borderline irrational phobia, really—aka, I'm a pussy). Anyway, the way she handles this stuff has challenged me to get over myself.

Here is a basic overview of the procedure if anyone's interested.

Ruby is doing well. The "a little bit bloodshot" description from the doctor post-procedure was not really entirely accurate nor good preparation for Ruby's actual condition—her eyes are a bit more gruesome than that, disturbing in a horror movie kinda way, complete with bloody tears. It's a good thing she's done with school!

Our biggest concern going in was the anesthesia, and we had a great team, particularly the nurse anesthetist who thoroughly explained things (rare) and helped us with our fears. They were able to give Ruby a drug before she went into surgery that was longer lasting than the general anesthesia gas and she had a MUCH better experience in recovery than after her MRI in December.

Ruby is having some discomfort, but Tylenol, lots of My Little Ponies and Disney DVDs seems to be helping. We just need to watch and be sure things are healing. She'll hopefully feel better over the next few days, the redness will last a couple weeks, though I fear some black eyes/bruising might be in the works...and we will have struggle with some ointment applications—bribes could start to add up! Her eyes/vision should acclimate to their new positioning in about 6-8 weeks. For now she has some double vision ("I see two daddies"), but that should lessen as her brain adjusts.

We are really hoping this is the last stressful medical issue for Ruby. At one point we thought they were having us wait for the doctor in what seemed to Rachel to be the grief room, I pointed out that I didn't think they had enough Kleenex for it to be the grief room—but I couldn't shake the feeling that there might have been a complication. They really shouldn't shut you in a small room to wait for the doctor to come "talk with you" though—that just seems bad. Far too much suspense for one day.

If you polled me tonite, I would say watching Ruby go through this wasn't worth it. We just hope the doctor is right and we just have to get through a few uncomfortable days and it'll all be better in the long run. It's tough to ask a four-year-old to go through something that they can't really understand, but waiting until they are older and able to better handle it renders the operation somewhat moot. Doing it now while she is still developing means her brain can retrain itself to use both eyes properly. Later on it becomes too late for the brain to regain "binocular" vision, and more of a cosmetic procedure (her eyes point in the right diection, but her brain is only using one of them).

That's it for now, we're all tired after the loonnng day. Thanks all for your supportive thoughts and messages.

Matt, Rachel, Ruby & Charlotte

[UPDATE: Got my computer back which allowed me to go back and clean up typos. Two days post-surgery and Ruby is doing better—less discomfort and sensitivity.]

Ruby

Tomorrow morning (Thursday) we take our daughter in for eye surgery. Everything should be fine, it's not a particularly difficult procedure, it is being performed by a great doctor in a great hospital—but it is my little girl, it is her eyes, those gorgeous blue eyes, and she has to be out for a couple hours, which is always dicey for little kids.

She has really had a tough year and has seen way too much of the inside of the U-M hospital—but she is so brave and I am so proud of her.

Send your positive energy, in whatever form you choose, towards Ann Arbor and my little girl tomorrow—we'll use some and spread the rest around.

Thanks,
Matt (it just seems dumb to say Mr. Furious...)

It Had to Happen Some Time...

I guess I had it coming since I was just recently talking a bunch of Mac smack in some thread somewhere... After twelve-plus years of owning Macs and using them for even longer than that, I finally had a major breakdown. Never in all that time have my machines at home or work given me a problem I couldn't work out myself. Well, my G5 had to go under the knife, and it's now been a week since it went in for service. Thank God I got Rachel that iBook for Christma— ->POOF!<- the screen went dead the day after my G5 got picked up last week. Such are the risks of buying a used laptop...

At least my G5 is still covered under AppleCare. They came to my house and picked it up, and new processor this, logic board that, it should be back home tomorrow. I had to dust off the old G3 (running system 8), and it's like using one of the shitcan Dells at work compared to the glory that is OSX. Just painful... So pardon the shortage of posts, I can surf around a bit, but half the websites I frequent flip out the ancient Explorer on here, and the whole Blogger thing is a total fiasco.

I'll be back in the swing soon enough.

#!@%@$!

Sully is really coming through with the YouTube clips lately. He points out this funny Bud Light commercial that, as a guy who hardly watches any tv, is new to me. Serious question: Do they really show this on tv?

Of course, there's always the classic...

SLAM!

The Associated Press

Judge Orders Paris Hilton Back to Jail
Jun 8, 6:07 PM EST

LOS ANGELES -- Paris Hilton was sent screaming and crying back to jail Friday after a judge ruled that she must serve out her sentence behind bars rather than in the comfort of her Hollywood Hills home...

[...] Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer was calm but apparently irked by Sheriff Lee Baca's decision to release Hilton three days into her sentence due to an unspecified "medical condition."

"I at no time condoned the actions of the sheriff and at no time told him I approved the actions," Sauer said. "At no time did I approve the defendant being released from custody to her home."

The Superficial:

Some witnesses say they saw a rainbow above the courtroom. And others say they saw a giant man in the clouds with a white beard nodding his head approvingly. And me? Well I saw Judge Michael Sauer grow to be twelve feet tall, with muscles the size of tree trunks. And when he smiled, little cartoon hearts appeared above my head and there was a strange tingling sensation in my pants.

NOTE: I officially nominate Judge Michael Sauer for President of the Entire Universe.

Don't fuck with that judge! Good. It was an outrage that she was released in the first place. And he reinstated the 45 days instead of the reduced-to-23 days sentence. She still could get time off for good behavior, but she at least has to endure some punishment like the commonfolk.

And with that, I can go right back to pretending that Paris Hilton doesn't even exist.

"Free Paris!" Oh, They Already Did?

You know, after Sarah Silverman's viscious beatdown the other day, I actually felt bad for Paris. She was forced to endure a level of public humiliation that was downright cruel, unwarranted, and in my opinion, cowardly of Silverman.

Now it seems that will be her only punishment (besides house arrest in a mansion, I mean)...

[/sympathy]

K…A…K…I…S…

Last week during the Scripps National Spelling Bee, there was a young finalist from Madison, WI, Isabel Jacobson, who during her brief video bio revealed that her favorite word was "kakistocracy." Needless to say, from that point on, she was the one I wanted to win—even though there was still a kid from the town I grew up in (Avon, CT--and the reason I was even watching) in contention!

A twelve year old, already politically aware, badass rebel girl vs. a bunch of über-nerd boys? No contest. Hope my girls'll be following in her footsteps...

Since then, I've gotten some hits and comments at my 2006 Word of the Year: Kakistocracy thread from last year, so "Welcome" to anyone else who clicks over from a Google search. Look around a bit, there's a few years worth of me ranting about all sorts of stuff...

--

Did my own google search, and you know I'll be ordering up some of these...



More here.

Sullivan Part 2: Electric Boogaloo...

Pearl Jam lyric translation:



Was the best part "Make me fries!" or "Potato wave"?

[h/t Sullivan]

"Great shot, kid, that was one in a million!"

Andrew Sullivan has been a must-read over the last few months...on Iraq, Bush, Republican and Democratic Presidential candidates, and he still throws in the occasional pop culture/humor. This video is pretty funny...

Mr. Furious Sports Machine

Can anybody remember waaay back before there was Sportscenter you had to wait for the weekly (and primitive) "George Michael Sports Machine" or "This Week in Baseball" to catch your higlights? It was like some kind of Dark Ages... Anyway, getting ready to assemble the latest "Links Post" I realized they are all sports-related, so without further ado...

A-HOLE-ROD Twice over the last week Alex Rodriguez has has some "adventurous" trips around the basepaths. Last week it was the totally cheap-ass take-out slide / elbow piledriver to Dusin Pedroia's crotch. This week in Toronto, while running between second and third he called for a pop-up while behind the third baseman, causing him to give up on the play and the ball fell. While I don't think this is the capital offense some have made it out to be, it is a pretty bush move. Couple those with the infamous Arroyo ball play, and the conclusion is that Slappy McLipstick is something of a prick.

BO KNOWS... Last weekend I found myself watching some of "Lethal Weapon 2" and there was a moment in the film where a tv showed one of the old Bo Jackson nike ads, and Danny Glover mutters some comment. I said to myself, "God. Remember Bo Jackson?..." A couple days later I came across this great article about Bo Jackson and what an exciting athlete he was. Little-known fact: Bo was drafted by the Yankees in 1982, but opted to go to Auburn instead.

->SEND<- "Oops! Ah, shit!" Pittsburgh Steelers offensive line coach Larry Zierlein apologized Thursday for accidentally e-mailing an explicit sex video to numerous NFL employees, including league commissioner Roger Goodell. [link] Oh, that's gotta suck. Hmm. How would he ole Sports Machine've handled that highlight...?

GREEK GOD OF WALKS BLOGS Sox firstbaseman Kevin "Not Actually Greek" Youkilis started a blog this week. Good timing. His kick-off post is about his inside-the-park home run (the most exciting play in baseball) and he's in the midst of a 23-game hit streak.

BARRY BONDS' HEAD WOULD STILL BE SWOLLEN W/O STEROIDS Barry Bonds has no plans to give the Hall of Fame anything from the game when he break's Aaron's record...

NEW YORK (AP) - [link] As Barry Bonds nears his record 756th home run, he's stockpiling quite a collection of souvenirs — bats, balls, helmets and spikes, pieces of baseball history perfectly suited for the Hall of Fame.

Whether he'll donate any of them to Cooperstown, however, is in doubt.

"I'm not worried about the Hall," the San Francisco slugger said during a recent homer drought. "I take care of me."

Stay classy, Barry. Douche.

As Deadspin reminds us, don't feel bad for the Hall and its Director. He's the dick that banned Tim Robbins and Susan Sarandon from a recent celebration of "Bull Durham" because they were critical of the War and the President.