Just Mad, Ramblings

SLIPPERY SLOPE ARGUMENT IS LOGICALLY FLAWED

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 3 Nov 2011 12:17:00 -0600

Dear Isabella,

Enclosed are my thoughts concerning one of the arguments used against permitting same-sex marriages. As same-sex marriage is a topic of much debate these days, I am writing this blog in a vague attempt to summarize my feelings about condemning people for their genetic character. I have faith that there will be less discrimination, less stigmatization, and less hurt in the world by the time you are on your own -- you know, when you are 35 years old.

Your loving father,

Shawn

Professor Volokh wrote a very good article regarding same-sex marriage and the “slipper slope” arguments used against it. Let me just say that I encourage others to read this article, as it brings up several good points that are generally applicable irrespective of the one slippery slope argument discussed below.

It has always been my position that the contention that same-sex marriage could lead us to a “slippery slope” leading to polygamy (or bestiality) is logically flawed. It is my position that by definition different-sex marriage leads us to this slope. Specifically, “marriage,” as a sanctioned institution, is what creates the slippery slope that requires us to determine what types of marriages are acceptable among consenting adults. To conclude that same-sex marriage is the cause of the slippery slope is the result of making a morale judgment before the logical argument begins.

Particularly, polygamy is the would-be consequence of different-sex marriage (or marriage in and of itself) and not same-sex marriage. History bears this out, as men with more than one “wife” have existed publicly from the beginning of time. It is only when one views same-sex marriage as deviant in some way that you put it before different-sex marriage as the starting point for the slippery slope argument.

Again, please read Professor Volokh's article for a more detailed discussion.

This blog is intentionally short as I will discuss same-sex marriage in more detail in two upcoming blogs. One will discuss the decision of the Roman Catholic Church (“RCC”) to abandon its adoption services in Massachusetts, because it has determined that children are better off with no home than a gay home. Let me just say now that this is just one more case in which the RCC has put the welfare of our children second. Also, in this blog I will discuss the RCC’s continued discrimination against women and its continued policy of covering up child molestation cases in order to protect its priest. These three items are insupportable to me and are indications of how old-fashioned the RCC has become.

The second blog will discuss same-sex marriage as it pertains to the Constitution and a recent case Lawrence v. Texas. As Randy Barnett so eloquently details in his 2003 article, this case (to me) indirectly provides another way to examine this issue (i.e., liberties versus licenses -- and the potential application of the Equal Protection Clause). Given that I went to Boston University as an undergraduate, I find special pride in Professor Barnett’s article. I am especially glad to see a thoughtful constitutional writing put together by Justice Kennedy in Lawrence (something that is very lacking in the writings of Scalia and other originalist).

Please note that Professor Barnett also coauthored an amicus brief to the Supreme Court in Lawrence. To me this brief frames a very important question. Specifically, what liberties, which are not specifically mentioned in its text, are covered by the Constitution? As the founding fathers recognized, and as referenced in Madison’s famous dialogue in his draft writing of the Bill of Rights, not all of the people’s liberties are (or could be) spelled out in the Bill of Rights. Answering this question requires a courageous and thoughtful person as it is not easy. For this reason, I find Scalia’s writings (dissents) so disappointing. After reading Scalia’s dissents, one might think that the Constitution does not protect my liberty to eat more than 3000 calories in any given day. I guess the question is, “so does it?” I think in answering this absurd question do we further define what "liberty" really means and what it covers. One more question. Could Congress make it illegal for me to eat after 9 p.m.? Certainly I don't have a fundamental right (or liberty) in the Constitution to eat after 9 p.m., but nonetheless such a law would seem invasive to my ability to live my life as I generally see fit. Do I have a constitutionally protected liberty to drive? Or is this a license? Could driving be outlawed altogether? Driving certainly impacts others (and has the potential to kill) when it is not performed with basic skills.

It has always been my contention that if the Constitutional analysis is done correctly one should examine the “liberty” that is sought to be protected (and not the specific “act” -- such as sodomy). Assuming this is done, the specific “act” should only be controlled through legislation if it directly conflicts or infringes on the same (or similar) underlying liberty of the public -- with special attention given to "commercial" transactions.

For example, the right to use drugs in one’s home could be argued to infringe on the public’s right to tranquility in the home (or on the public streets) because of the resulting criminal behavior or physical damage or harm that such drug use will cause in enough cases. This argument could also apply to prostitution. Moreover, the “customer” relationship in such transactions creates a unique situation in which one is vulnerable and could be harmed -- not to mention the issue of true "consent." These situations are totally different, from consenting adults engaging in sodomy as part of a relationship, because they involve transactions that have been shown to result in public or personal harmed -- and where "consent" is at question.

MEDICAID IS A CHOICE

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 22 Feb 2011 11:41:00 -0700

We spend $400 billion every year on health care for people who can't otherwise afford it.

Personally, as this is a choice we make, it might make more sense for the States to decide if such care is going to be provided. Such States could then tax its residents to cover the costs. This might force States to be more competitive, effective in providing such services. Especially those States that exploit cheap labor.

I understand the debate of providing health care to all and generally agree with it. However, it should be paid for and not financed through additional deficit spending. In such a world, we might have a two-tier system; with the public "HMO" tier being paid for by premiums and taxes (which could only be used for such health care expenses).

How many uninsured individuals are there right now? I thought it was something like 40 million. If we take the 400 billion the Fed pays and the other 100 to 200 billion the States pay, couldn't we just pay the premiums for the uninsured?

Maybe the money paid includes insurance for the undocumented individuals that number around 20 million; and that is why is seems like the governments are paying way too much for health care.

I guess the only way this system could work is for all individuals in the U.S.A. to be documented and paying their fair share. A national sales tax might help?

FINANCIAL CHAOS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:12:00 -0700

We are living in a time of financial chaos. Currently the Government has accumulated debts (loans) of over $14 trillion. This amount is almost 100 percent of our nation's GDP; and does not include its off balance sheet obligations. This also doesn't include the States' debt obligations of around $3 trillion; or their various off balance sheet obligations.

The Government is going to collect around $2.5 trillion in taxes this year. However, it will spend about $3.9 trillion. This will add another $1.4 trillion to our Federal deficit. Are we becoming more like Japan like some people fear?

Japan has around 900 trillion Yen in debt obligations; which is almost 200 percent of its GDP. Japan brings in around 40 trillion Yen in tax revenues each year and spends about 55 percent of this amount on social security and debt servicing.

Based on our numbers, I expect the market to retest its lows sometime during the next five years. However, I would expect Japan to face a new crisis first if our deficits are to have this type of impact on our economy.

SPITTING IN THE FACE OF GOD

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:10:00 -0700

To assume that life has value only because it was a "gift" from God seems to be limit, or eliminate what we term as the inherent value of life.

For instance, does life have less value if God does not exist? To assume that it only has value because of "creation" seems to eliminate the "inherent" value of life we now hold to be true; and therefore, seems to suggest that such a gift is worthless without our Godly giver.

SPEED OF LIGHT

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 12:00:00 -0700

What if the speed of light is not constant, but is in fact relative? We might call it the relative speed of light.

What if the speed of light is moderately altered by the physical characteristics of the galaxy in which in travels through? Namely the diameter of the galaxy and the gravitational forces, masses within such galaxy.

It seems odd that we assume that the speed of light is a constant when we have not been able to test this notion from a point outside of our own galaxy. Maybe we should put an asterisk after this notion, theory to indicate that the speed of light is only (relatively) constant within our galaxy?

Doesn't light slow (no matter how slight) as it passes through solid objects?

TIME TRAVEL

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:47:00 -0700

I argue that time travel could be proven to be an impossibility by combining complex physics and logical equations; basically, by combining the complex and the simple.

If we assume time travel is possible, then what is the probability that time travel would be perfected as time approached infinity?

This "time travel probability" should approach 100 percent as time approached infinity.

As this (time travel) probability approached 100 percent, then what is the probability that someone would travel back in time and alter the course of our history. Let's call this the probability of someone violating our own "time travel prime directive."

Given the fragility of humans, it could be argued that as time approached infinity that the probability of humans violating this (time travel) prime directive would approach 100 percent.

Furthermore, it could be argued that the probability of humans violating this (time travel) prime directive at a prior point in time (from now) would also approach 100 percent as time approached infinity. As such, if time travel was possible, we should currently know of its existence; even if we are unable to reproduce it now.

Otherwise, the perfection of time travel and humans would have had to occur simultaneously. Now what is the probability of that happening?

BCS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:10:00 -0700

The BCS is a joke. The games should be determined by rankings; number 3 should play 4, etc.

Or, college football should get rid of the 13th game of the season and have a playoff with the top 8 teams (with 2 weeks between each round).

The first round would be held when the 13th game is normally held. The second round would be two weeks later and the championship game would be two weeks later.

This would add one game for most teams and two games for a couple.

The remaining teams (ranked 9 to 22) could play games during the off weeks according to rank; basically, the strongest teams play each other.

SPACE TRAVEL

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 21 Feb 2011 11:01:00 -0700

How do we effect space travel? We need to figure out how to rewrite DNA in order to control atomic particles. We need to figure out how to combine computer science, physics, and microbiology.

How does light (photons) pass through objects?

BUSH

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 13 Jun 2008 17:52:00 -0600

It has been 2 days, so I thought I should reiterate that Bush really does suck. I cannot wait for 2009!!!

And to think I used to be a Republican. He and others (including McCain) have ruined that party for me.

HAVE I MENTIONED LATELY THAT BUSH IS A TERRIBLE PRESIDENT

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 9 Jun 2008 22:08:00 -0600

Man Bush really really sucks the big one. He is what is totally wrong with a lot of developed nations. You know, if you are from a "rich" family then you get to step over people that are more qualified. But I guess this has always been true; its just the way it is.

Bush is a complete idiot. Just listen to him speak. He is the worst Presidential speaker that I have ever heard. Listening to him speak is like watching President Ford walk; waiting for that one inevitable misstep or fall.

It makes you wonder about the hanging chads in the 2000 election. It makes you wonder how easy it would be to manipulate the election in order to get a "Haliburton" man elected, as VP, in order to control a truly stupid President.

The real problem is our press is so incompetent at "investigating" criminal activity that we will never know. After all, each of our major press organizations are owned by publicly owned (big) businesses.

Now, and always, publicly owned businesses have one primary responsibility; to make their shareholders richer. They are obligated to their shareholders to increase profit margins and expand revenues, and to do so quarterly.

Sure, there are rules that prohibit broadcasters from "directly" spreading lies, but what about spinning the truth, or deliberately not reporting or pursuing the truth without actually telling direct lies?

After all, given that NBC is owned by General Electric (a major corporation with significant military endeavors), what is the chance that NBC would ever report on any illegalities conducted by GE or any of its affiliates?

Have you ever wondered why there are never "breaking news" stories before "Enron goes belly up;" basically all of the major stories these days are after the fact or involve some type of sensationalistic topic that consumes a month of news time.

Who is left to ensure that the truth is discovered? We know the media will not do it, and it is unlikely that any politician will either.

I guess we are left with the whistle blowers, and the loan revolutionary. With these as our options, it is probably better that we move towards a socialistic society. After all, power really does corrupt, and we have such a great concentration of power in this country.

NBA REFS SUCK

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 8 Jun 2008 21:20:00 -0600

I was watching the Finals tonight and just don't get some of the touch calls that change the game. It makes the game too boring for me. Let the stars play.

There has been some mention lately that the NBA fixes games. This would at least explain why the refs seem so incompetent some times.

During the 2002 Western Finals, I too did wonder what in the hell was going on with the calls. It always appeared that Shaq was being given calls in order to boost his status.

Because of the odd string of calls made by the refs in favor of Shaq, I thought long ago that there was a concerted effort to promote his success.

I guess the NBA is a bit "Broadway" too, along with our Congress and press. At least we still have football where we still have good old cheating, but the games are not fixed.

COST OF ILLEGALS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sun, 8 Jun 2008 19:02:00 -0600

Here is an example of the true cost of illegals to California.

Currently, there are about 1 million illegal families (with about 2 kids per family give or take) in California. For purposes of this example, and simplicity, we will assume that these 1 million illegal families include 1 dad, 1 mom, and 2 kids.

According to California, it spends around 9 thousand for education per kid. So for our example, each illegal family costs California around 18 thousand per year (or 18 billion in total).

Now if we assume that these illegal families do not have health care insurance; and such is paid for by California, then it is probably conservative to assume that these families cost the State around 15 thousand a year per family for "emergency room" health care. The "wholesale" price of health care for the average family of 4 is around 1500 per month. For most, this expense is paid for in good part by "employers" while the rest is paid for by the "employees." The retail (or emergency care) price of this health care is up to 3 times this. Therefore, assuming that this expense per illegal family is around 15 thousand seems fair for purposes of this example. At 15 thousand per illegal family, this health care expense costs California around another 15 billion dollars.

Now what about the expenses associated with incarcerating around 100 thousand illegals per year in California? At 40 thousand per inmate per year, this adds an additional 4 billion per year.

Now what about the expenses associated with all the infrastructure issues, such as maintaining the roads, dealing with the additional pollution, etc. Who knows what the number is, but for this example, let us assume it is at least 1 billion per year.

How about all the drugs that are brought into California directly from Mexico? How do you measure the expense associated with the fact that most of the big name drugs used in the U.S. are either walked or driven into the U.S. from Mexico? Again, who knows. But we will assume for this example that this costs California another 5 billion a year in crimes, deaths, health related issues, reduced productivity, etc.

In sum, under this example we have around 43 billion in direct expenses to California because of the illegal families now living in the State.

So what do these families give back to California? Well these families must be out earning some money right. Let us assume for this example that each family earns 60 thousand dollars. This is a guess, but it seems fair, give or take.

Now we know that around 50 percent of illegals do not pay taxes, but for this example, let us be very conservative and assume that 100 percent of the illegals pay taxes as they should. Let us further be conservative and assume that these families pay such taxes at an effective rate of 50 percent when you include sales and federal taxes (with 16 of the 50 going to the State).

Under these generous, conservative assumptions this would lead to 30 billion in total taxes (with a portion going directly and indirectly to California). Even, if we assume that 100 percent of these taxes ultimately made it to California then we are still running a 13 billion dollar deficit.

But there must be much more gains to California associated with having a cheap labor force, right? Personally, I would argue that these gains net to zero or thereabouts. First, any money saved by businesses go to these businesses profits and is therefore taxed, etc. However, if these businesses didn't have such a cheap labor force, then such savings would go to the employees as higher wages and be taxed.

Sure, maybe less businesses would be in place, and California's economy might not be growing so fast or be so large, but what would this mean to the average legal family? I would argue that there would be less traffic and a much greater quality of life. After all, how do you measure the cost of an additional hour in traffic a day because of illegals? What is an hour of a person's life worth? How about 250 hours a year?

Therefore, given all the quality of life intangibles, it could be argued that the costs associated with the deteriorating quality of life issues equals the so called "unseen" economic benefits of having this cheap, but illegal labor pool; at least for the average person.

Personally, the quality of life really deteriorated while we were living in California. Further, I never felt or realized any of these so called unseen economic benefits associated with all these illegals. Things still seemed expensive to me; much more expensive than other parts of the country. But it was the quality of life issues that made living in California unacceptable. To much time in traffic, too much pollution, just too many people. And way too many drugs and crimes.

So based on all of these assumptions, California should be experiencing around a 13 billion dollar deficit per year directly associated with its illegal families. Now this only equates to around 450 dollars per legal individual (including minors), but 13 billion is still a large sum of money. And I am sure each family of 4 could use that additional 2 thousand dollars each year.

Even though this is an example, we do know that California is running an overall deficit this year of around 14.5 billion. So maybe there is some truth in the numbers above?

I bet when you consider the huge amount of drugs coming into the U.S. from Mexico, and the quality of life issues, there are many more negatives associated with our "open border" policy. What about the thousands of people that die each year from the drug usage associated with the drugs coming across the border? The U.S. Census states that 20 thousand people die nationwide directly from illegal drug use each year. How many of these deaths are associated with the drugs coming across the border? 10, 20, 30 percent? How many of these deaths could be eliminated with a tougher border policy? I bet we could save at least a 1000 lives each year.

So what do you think?

MRS. OBAMA DOESN'T REALLY LIKE WHITE AMERICA?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:27:00 -0600

See prior post on Wright. It just goes to show you how complicated the issues are when a person that attended one of the best schools in the "world," and makes more money than 99 percent of all people in the world, still has never really been "proud" of her country.

A very "glass is half empty" attitude that reflects a psychology of racism that now exists in our nation. Truth be told, this psychology of racism causes more problems for us than just eliminating racism and poverty in American.

For example, even if we could magically eliminate the bigotry and poverty that exists in this country, a good amount of black Americans would still "perceive" racism. The simple psychology of it suggests that if you kick someone in the gut enough times, then this person will enter new relationships expecting to be kicked in the gut.

Therefore, the task of all America is not only to remove real bigotry and poverty, but also to prove to those black Americans that have suffered the effects of racism for decades that white Americans no longer hold those horrible beliefs towards black Americans. [And as Obama recently stated in his speech on Racism, this will require us to significantly improve our schools; and therefore the opportunities available to black Americans. This is however not going to be easy when our schools are also having to change their curriculum to account for large amounts of non English speaking students.]

Hopefully, if Obama becomes President some of his wife's disparaging feelings towards white Americans will dissipate just a bit (in her and others like her). This is why for me, notwithstanding the fact that Obama has made some racially insensitive statements (such as "typical white"), I think it is important for me to continue to support him in hopes of building a better tomorrow. How bigoted of me, right? Man I am confused.

CALIFORNIA'S CRISIS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 21 Mar 2008 18:04:00 -0600

For political reasons, the press always seems to represent that illegal immigration is an economic positive when it is all said and done. Well if this is the case, then California should be at the forefront of reaping the benefits, as a majority of the illegals currently reside in California.

So how is California doing?

The Governor recently stated that unless California takes action right now, and makes significant budgetary cuts, that California faces a projected $14.5 billion deficit by June 2009.

These cuts include a 10 percent reduction in teachers and educational spending in California. Not good, right?

Currently, there are around 30 states that spend more per student on education than California. So how can this be, given that California has an unrestricted supply of illegal immigrants?

Is it because the millions of illegal immigrants that live in California are primarily comprised on low skilled labor? Could it be that such low skilled labor provide less to the tax base than they require from California in social services such as education?

If the illegal aliens are adding so significantly to the economy of California, then should not there be a surplus of resources to help educate its children?

I guess only time will tell, but if illegal immigration is truly a good thing then why is California asking the government to keep the National Guard on the border?

WHAT'S UP EVERGREEN HIGHLANDS ASSOCIATION!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 13 Mar 2008 19:27:00 -0600

The move is progressing fairly well and Evergreen is a beautiful place. One thing that has been new is getting use to the rules, manners, and politics of a Home Owners Association; as we have never been part of one before.

One thing that is currently taking place is that some individuals (referred to as the "kid eaters") are attempting to put restrictions on outdoor "play sets" or jungle gyms; you know the wood ones. This is unfortunate as it seems to be creating a rift between the "kid supporters" and the "kid eaters." JUST KIDDING!!!! I AM JOKING, REALLY.

I do feel that these types of changes, which seem to be so blatantly targeting families, tend to create mild neighborhood hostilities between the traditional community members and the new families that have moved into the association.

The one item that we as adults should take on as a community is the well being and development of our kids; even if we are unrelated. In the end, we are all in it together and healthy kids in Evergreen (in our association) will support the growth of our nation as adults; and therefore kids everywhere. However, when such rules are put forth it does sadden me just a bit and brings me back to reality regarding how indifferent some people can be towards their neighbors, towards our kids. [In truth, there seems to be a struggle between the "RV" owners and the "play set" owners to some degree. How this will work out I do not know; even though I understand the desire of all parties to keep the lots clean, nice, or whatever.]

It really is a shame and I anticipate that this rule will lessen the community feel of the Evergreen Highlands if a compromise is not determined fast. I even find myself not sure if I should waive and say hello to people on the street as I am worried it might be someone that is resentful to have kids in the neighborhood; you know the kid eaters. JUST JOKING AGAIN!!!

It almost feels like we still live in the big city; but only just a bit. Otherwise things are good here.

I do think that people in Colorado are nicer than the people I met in California during law school. I also think that the move will be a good thing for the family, as things are much more family oriented here (outside the association issues) than our prior locations.

Let me just say, this place overall is much less stressful. It certainly displays fewer of the negative effects of illegal immigration that are currently overwhelming the infrastructure of Southern California. And as soon as we remove our California taint I think people will be more accepting of us; but you do get the sense that locals are "tired" of people moving here to get away from other areas that are undergoing a process of infrastructure decay.

The only thing that I find a little surprising is that locals really like to "tail gate" here. I expected such behavior in California, as things are so overcrowded, but here in Evergreen is a bit odd. It is usually a "soccer" mom that seems to be a day late getting somewhere.

CLINTON VS. OBAMA

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Tue, 11 Mar 2008 21:12:00 -0600

If you add up the votes to date, Clinton has 13,504,000 (rounded) and Obama has 13,587,000.

There is basically 83 thousand votes that separate the two (with Obama leading). Of course, these numbers include Florida and Michigan, which have been excluded by the DNP.

You can see the potential problem the Democratic party faces. If Clinton wins PA by a big margin, then she could easily have the popular vote while trailing in the delegates (excluding the super delegates).

Personally, in a fair system it seems that the person with the most individual votes should get the nomination.

I LEFT MY DEAD DAD AT A STRIP CLUB

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Sat, 1 Mar 2008 15:03:00 -0700

A Short Story by Irm Bjorklund

It was late as I drove up to the law school recruiting social. You know the kind of social in which I would be given an opportunity to hob knob with the best partners from a few prestigious law firms.

I was a little disheveled as my dad had just died. And for some reason his perfectly perceived, but quite dead body, was in the back seat of the car blankly staring at me; but not in an impatient way. I guess his death had made me feel a little sentimental this evening, but I had no time to ponder these feelings as I was running late to this recruiting function and had to be at the top of my game.

I parked the car outside the strip joint; oh yes, did I mention that this once in a life time recruiting event was being help at what could only be described as a raunchy, run of the mill strip club filled with cigarette smoke, large brawny bouncers, and the normally scantily dressed dancers. And in the middle of all this raunchiness, there were a handful of tables, all with five or six name tags each, that we where supposed to sit down at and discuss why we wanted become the next great lawyer with several prestigious partners.

Unfortunately, I spent more time paying attention to the bouncers and strippers; and not enough time "hob knobbing" with the partners. This was a once in a lifetime opportunity but I didn’t really seem to care. I guess I was a little distracted. Maybe it was my dead dad in my car. Maybe it was the fact that I was thinking (on a subconscious level) about my ex girlfriend. Maybe it was the confusion of telling a stranger my life story in a strip club; which is oddly enough the behavior that I would probably engage in even if the partners where not here.

Strangely enough, at this moment in which my mind was wondering and my smile grew evermore fake as the minutes passed, my ex-girlfriend showed up. I guess she had heard that my dad had died and was a little concerned about my state of mind; or she just hung out at these types of places? In either case, it was a great relief to see her and to know that I could spend some time with her. We decided to leave the club to get a bite to eat and spend some time talking about us, I hoped.

I told her I would meet her outside; I just had to show my face one last time to the partners and express my gratitude for their interest. As I left the club I couldn’t seem to locate my ex anywhere. The only people in the parking lot were one huge bouncer (that seemed to follow me with his eyes) and a few strippers that where smoking and looking at me like I owed them something; like I was some type of cute puppy dog.

I am not sure what made me more uncomfortable at this moment. The thought that my dad’s body lay in the back seat of my car or the fact that my ex had seemed to have vanished.

There was only one option; to drive around searching for that one restaurant where she was eating. So I grabbed by best friend from law school, Henry Lee, and headed off to find my ex.

We took his car of course. As he drove I attempted to find my ex’s phone number in my Blackberry. But I couldn’t find it. Maybe I was a little drunk but the screen on my phone seemed very blurry and my fingers seemed just a tad bigger than normal. I guess you could say I was all thumbs.

We must have looked for two hours, but we couldn’t find her. Man this was turning out to be one weird night. I had Henry take me home so I could wallow in my loneliness in private.

I guess I had forgotten about my dead dad in the back of my car. Neither my car nor his body seemed to be a real concern. Oh well. I guess I was hoping to have some closure with my ex. Maybe she would call?

Just then the phone rang. It wasn’t her; it was “Shaq” (you know Shaquille O’Neal, the famous ball player). He needed my help with some matters in Japan. I guess my problems would have to wait until I returned home.

BUSH: US NOT HEADED FOR RECESSION

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Thu, 28 Feb 2008 19:07:00 -0700

Oh no!!!! We must already be in a recession if dumb dumb Bush thinks otherwise.

Please Bush, just don't comment on the economy. It seems everything you touch turns to poo poo (sp?).

Just leave this to the regular people.

ROGER BJORKLUND

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Mon, 25 Feb 2008 21:25:00 -0700

Another Bjorklund that had diabetes (type II) and died of a heart attack.

Maybe it is in our blood?

THE DAY MY FATHER DIED

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 23:05:00 -0700

Dear Isabella,

Not sure how this post will turn out, but here it goes.

My "dad" died on February 18, 2008, so I guess this means that a part of me has died too? Even so, I don't feel anything.

Maybe this is because this part of me died a long time ago; when he left my mom and me 39 years ago? And for these many years maybe I have already mourned his death?

I know, how dramatic, how sentimental. Boo who!

I guess when a parent leaves a child, before the child has the mental capacity to deal with it, it can leave a permanent gap in this child's self; as if something was actually amputated.

And as this child grows older, this gap might lead him or her to believe that they are incomplete; maybe even disfigured? One might (like I did) try to fill this feeling, this "gap" with stuff; lovely shiny stuff. Man I love my stuff.

I have been told that what I have been able to overcome, to accomplish is nothing short of a miracle, but I have never really felt this way. I have always felt a little incomplete; and it is undoubtedly the result of (1) not having a father (or paternal relatives) and (2) having a mother that worked and went to school full time during my formative years.

A side note regarding death: You know I have a good friend whose dad died a few years back and I remember feeling how my friend's extraordinary grief was really a positive reflection of his father's acts on this earth as a caring and loving "dad."

Of course how do you even attempt to convey to a friend that his father's death is a good thing???

In many respects the grief that a "good" parent leaves behind is this parent's final masterpiece. It is the sum of this parent's work that is reborn and forces his or her loved ones to recognize the good parenting acts, the sacrifices, etc.

In some weird way this grief is a commencement of a new beginning. And in this weird, very weird way it is this grief that is to be cherished.

This is of course easy for me to say, as I feel very little if not anything. But then my dad left my life when I was six months old, so I am not sure what I am supposed to feel for the death of this stranger. I guess nothing is okay?

You know what is "strange?" My mom called to tell me that he had died and to let me know that the Bjorklunds needed me to sign some paper work. So I said "no problem," give them my contact info, or have them give me a call so we can get the paperwork figured out. But in classic form, instead of calling me, they sent the paperwork to my mom and suggested that I call them if I had any questions.

If truth be told, I am more of a Brennan than a Bjorklund, but it is what it is.

No matter, I must go on to make a better name for us. Or to give the name that I was given more value; at least to me.

Of course this is one of those "be careful for what you wish for" issues. Even though I believe that not having a dad during my life left me with some challenges, I do not think I would have been better off if my mom and dad stayed together.

The problem for me is that the mind "shields" a child that is in a difficult situation. However, this "shielding" is often hard to undue as an adult even if one realizes that things could have been much worse.

From all of the books that I have read growing up, these type of situations can be summarized "very" simply as follows. A child that grows up receiving continuously nurturing, or constructive “feedback” or molding from two positive parents grows up relatively more assure and confident about taking that next “steps” in life on his or her own. Even if those steps turn out to be incorrect, they are taken with a sense of confidence and purpose.

Second, a child that grows up not receiving this continuously nurturing feedback grows up with a little less certainty about taking these next steps. These steps are taken tentatively; and can be taken defensively no matter if they are the correct steps. This defensive posture can, however, lead to successes that are aimed at escaping or filling a gap in ones self image. One or two psychosis might be present.

And finally, a child that grows up receiving continuously damaging, or negative feedback grows up to be one giant walking psychosis. And in the very worst cases, a child might end up truly psychotic.

As with many issues of popular debate, I believe that very few people are born psychotic; or with psychosis that result in them being very poor parents, spouses, etc. I think that a vast majority of the people that display these types of problems “learned” them from poor or abusive parents, or other abusive situations that took place outside the immediate home.

Sure some people might be born with psychotic tendencies (as discussed in a prior post), but generally speaking these tendencies are learned.

And at the other end of the spectrum, nurturing parents are generally rewarded for their efforts with an ongoing relationship with their children. Nurturing parents don’t usually raise children that have zero contact with them as adults.

No matter how poor a dad my father was, I have little doubt that these beginnings were planted very early on in his life. Abusive parenting normally leads to abusive or neglectful parents. It is this cycle of life that undoubtedly requires great focus to break. It is this cycle of life that I work everyday to break in hopes of never permanently disappointing you Isabella.

Wish me luck. :)

CREEPY OLD MEN

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 22:45:00 -0700

Dear Isabella,

I showed up early today to pick you up from preschool; so I sat in the car and watched you play with your friends. I watched you run from this place to that as only a toddler can; as if everything is new.

And I watched the smile on your face grow and grow with every foot of elevation as one of your teachers picked you up so you could grab hold of the "rings." Man it looked like you were having a good time.

I never would have guessed how much fun it would be just to watch you smile; but it is truly one of life’s rewards. I sat in the car and watched you have fun. And in the end it was I that was smiling, that was feeling young.

Off course, all along worrying about your safety. Worrying that you might trip or get hurt. Worrying that you might fall. I guess that is just part of it, part of the constant conflict of being a parent.

On one hand it is great to watch you run about. Yet I have this voice in my head that won't let me stop worrying. I am such a "dad," such a nerd.

P.S. I guess some men sitting in cars and watching kids play are not totally creepy.

MY LIFE AND DRUGS

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 20 Feb 2008 21:57:00 -0700

Copied from a earlier post on Clemens . . .

Please note the names and dates have been changed to protect the guilty (innocent? you be the judge).

I have written numerous times about the pitiful job our government is doing in protecting our youth from serious drugs. So why have I spent so much time blubbering on about this topic? It is because I have been surrounding by drugs in one form or another from my teens to my late 20's. And during this period I witnessed many people that I knew and cared about make bad choices with respect to drugs that changed their lives for ever. And in one circumstance end a life.

Moreover, when I look back on my life I realize that I was very fortunate not to have been one of those persons. It would have been quite easy for me to have made one severely poor decision; as I almost made several that could have changed my life for ever. From my experiences, I have no doubt that luck played a good part in me avoiding the perils of drug use and addition. I also believe that if my home life was just a "bit" more uncomfortable I probably would have decided to abuse drugs as a form of "self medication."

Really, it shocks me that parents don't realize how pervasive drugs are; but then maybe the parents I know “now” are not from the neighborhoods in which I grew up. And the parents that need to be concerned are too busy working two or three jobs just to keep things together. Ironically enough, it is this courageous effort to keep a family together that results in young kids having to make adult decisions regarding drug use.

Let me just say that I know that drug use is prevalent in middle and upper class families. As with any family, when parents are not around kids will have to make these type of adult decisions, or might explore their curiosities. However, I would argue that middle and upper class families have more resources to fix problems caused by their children making poor decisions. Therefore, the lower class kids that make these same decisions tend to suffer longer-term complications.

Therefore, when you consider the fact that our government has failed to stop the drugs from entering this country in any meaningful manner, and the fact that the long-term risks associated with drug availability and use by “poorer” families are potentially staggering, our government's handling of this matter is shameful.

I was the child of a single parent who worked full time while attending school full time. I spent most of my waking hours without parental supervision. From the time of 2nd grade, I remember getting myself ready in the morning and walking to school. Most of the time until high school my walk was between one and two miles each way. Not that bad, but less than ideal by today’s standards for a middle class family. And most of the time, my mother was busy until late at night.

Did I mention that until my late teens we were basically broke? Bottom line, I had lots of unsupervised time in which to get in to trouble; and I often took advantage of this opportunity. Can you say “troublemaker”?

I was a young kid having to make adult decisions; or at least a kid being presented with choices that required an adult's sensibility. So you can see how easy it would have been for me to make a very poor decision that I would have had to live with for ever.

There were a handful of times that I can remember in which I was an instance away from making such game breakers. I therefore consider myself lucky to have made it through all of these hurdles with relatively few abrasions. Some might even say it is a miracle, but I prefer the term lucky as I don’t consider myself any more deserving than anyone else that was in my situation.

Now back to the point of this rambling. Drugs were everywhere when I was a kid; especially when I was in high school. At my prom I can still remember the surprise on my date’s face when she saw all of the cocaine that was piled up on a table of one of my friend's room. Fortunately my drug of choice in high school was beer. Even so, beer often left me in situations that could have been very bad as I made many poor decisions. Decisions that I would not tolerate as a parent because of the potential risk to others, etc.

Two years after high school I think most of my friends had some type of drug problem. Two people that were close to me ended up going to federal prison directly (or indirectly?) because of drug use. This would ultimately change their lives and indirectly lead to the death of one of them.

Some of my friends had to go to rehab for their additions. However, no matter the degree of their drug use, everyone that I knew that played around with drugs ultimately had the course of their lives changed in some fashion.

For some it was a minor change, but it changed their lives nonetheless. For whatever reason, it was during this period that I started to look evermore to academics. I think the primary reason was I wanted a "way out." I wanted to escape from my surroundings and those around me, and I kind of knew that if I just worked very hard (and put blinders on) that I might find a better more supporting life. And you know what, I did, but I was lucky. Really lucky.

And let me tell you that the availability of drugs did not go away in college or even law school. Especially law school. Man there were a lot of "pot" heads at UCLA. And some used harder drugs to either pass the time or help them stay up to study. But in Los Angeles drugs are everywhere. Cocaine is everywhere. Methamphetamines are everywhere. And really most middle class parents just don't realize it.

Bottom line, because the federal government has failed to do the simplest task of securing our border, I think our government officials are to be blamed for the ongoing drug problems many or our kids face. And when I see these two-faced officials cross examine a professional athlete and accuse him of being a bad influence, it becomes apparent that we either have the dumbest officials ever representing us, or these officials are basically corrupt to the point where the interests of our kids are not any of their true concern; they are just using this professional athlete as smoke and cover for their own indiscretions.

CLEMENS GETS GRILLED BY CONGRESS?

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 17:39:00 -0700

I don't get this. If Congress is truly concerned about our kids using drugs, then why does it not secure the Mexican border?

Right now, according to the DEA, over 66 percent of the cocaine used in the USA gets physically walked or driven across the border from Mexico. What does this mean?

This means that the South American countries that produce cocaine ship it to Mexico so that it can then be "reshipped" into the United States via the ground.

To me, this means that the cocaine producers think that it would be more difficult to ship the cocaine directly from South America via the air or sea. Specifically, it means that these drug "lords" think that it is safer to make two trips and basically walk the drugs across an unprotected border; and that shipping the drugs via air or sea would be more expensive.

So what is the big deal you might ask? Remember that according to the Census around 40 thousand people die in the USA because of direct and indirect illegal drug use. [See prior post for links.] One might wonder how many of these deaths are related to the drugs that get walked or driven across the border.

What if it was 20 percent? What if it was 10 percent? Then we could speculate that between 4000 and 8000 people die (directly or otherwise) each year from the drugs that are smuggled into the USA from Mexico (or the drug dealers that continue to enter the country in order to set up "meth" labs).

Some people argue that securing the border won't change the amount of drugs that come into this country, or the costs to bring them here. Personally I just don't get that reasoning.

If we secured our border and eliminated the foot trafficking of drugs, then the drug cartels would have to spend more money to either fly, ship, or drive their drugs to the USA. Further, I would argue that this would help us either find more drug shipments or (at minimum) materially drive the prices up.

If either of these events were to happen, then it might just make some of these drugs less available to our kids. Maybe we could make these drugs 20 percent less available? If so, then maybe we could save 20 percent of the 4000 to 8000 lives each year (e.g., at least 800 lives a year).

To me, there would be some drop off in the lives that are lost each year to illegal drug use if we would just secure the border. Maybe just 100 lives? Maybe 1600 lives?

At any rate, the only reason that our Congress ignores this fact is that most of its members are paid and bought by big business; or are more concerned with their careers than our kids. It also tells me that most of the members of Congress are so far removed from this drug issue that they just don’t care.

What does it tell you? How many lives would need to be saved before securing the border made sense to you? This is just another reason that our immigration policy is a disgrace to our nation and kids.

I guess the Congress is hoping that all of the new immigrants will pay for our Social Security needs. A problem caused by a big, corrupt government spending money it never had in the bank.

Question: Why is Congress allowed to spend money it collects in the name of Social Security (“SS”) on non SS items?

MY LIFE AND DRUGS

I have written numerous times about the pitiful job our government is doing in protecting our youth from serious drugs. So why have I spent so much time blubbering on about this topic? It is because I have been surrounding by drugs in one form or another from my teens to my late 20's. And during this period I witnessed many people that I knew and cared about make bad choices with respect to drugs that changed their lives for ever. And in one circumstance end a life.

Moreover, when I look back on my life I realize that I was very fortunate not to have been one of those persons. It would have been quite easy for me to have made one severely poor decision; as I almost made several that could have changed my life for ever. From my experiences, I have no doubt that luck played a good part in me avoiding the perils of drug use and addition. I also believe that if my home life was just a "bit" more uncomfortable I probably would have decided to abuse drugs as a form of "self medication."

Really, it shocks me that parents don't realize how pervasive drugs are; but then maybe the parents I know “now” are not from the neighborhoods in which I grew up. And the parents that need to be concerned are too busy working two or three jobs just to keep things together. Ironically enough, it is this courageous effort to keep a family together that results in young kids having to make adult decisions regarding drug use.

Let me just say that I know that drug use is prevalent in middle and upper class families. As with any family, when parents are not around kids will have to make these type of adult decisions, or might explore their curiosities. However, I would argue that middle and upper class families have more resources to fix problems caused by their children making poor decisions. Therefore, the lower class kids that make these same decisions tend to suffer longer-term complications.

Therefore, when you consider the fact that our government has failed to stop the drugs from entering this country in any meaningful manner, and the fact that the long-term risks associated with drug availability and use by “poorer” families are potentially staggering, our government's handling of this matter is shameful.

I was the child of a single parent who worked full time while attending school full time. I spent most of my waking hours without parental supervision. From the time of 2nd grade, I remember getting myself ready in the morning and walking to school. Most of the time until high school my walk was between one and two miles each way. Not that bad, but less than ideal by today’s standards for a middle class family. And most of the time, my mother was busy until late at night.

Did I mention that until my late teens we were basically broke? Bottom line, I had lots of unsupervised time in which to get in to trouble; and I often took advantage of this opportunity. Can you say “troublemaker”?

I was a young kid having to make adult decisions; or at least a kid being presented with choices that required an adult's sensibility. So you can see how easy it would have been for me to make a very poor decision that I would have had to live with for ever.

There were a handful of times that I can remember in which I was an instance away from making such game breakers. I therefore consider myself lucky to have made it through all of these hurdles with relatively few abrasions. Some might even say it is a miracle, but I prefer the term lucky as I don’t consider myself any more deserving than anyone else that was in my situation.

Now back to the point of this rambling. Drugs were everywhere when I was a kid; especially when I was in high school. At my prom I can still remember the surprise on my date’s face when she saw all of the cocaine that was piled up on a table of one of my friend's room. Fortunately my drug of choice in high school was beer. Even so, beer often left me in situations that could have been very bad as I made many poor decisions. Decisions that I would not tolerate as a parent because of the potential risk to others, etc.

Two years after high school I think most of my friends had some type of drug problem. Two people that were close to me ended up going to federal prison directly (or indirectly?) because of drug use. This would ultimately change their lives and indirectly lead to the death of one of them.

Some of my friends had to go to rehab for their additions. However, no matter the degree of their drug use, everyone that I knew that played around with drugs ultimately had the course of their lives changed in some fashion. For some it was a minor change, but it changed their lives nonetheless.

For whatever reason, it was during this period that I started to look evermore to academics. I think the primary reason was I wanted a "way out." I wanted to escape from my surroundings and those around me, and I kind of knew that if I just worked very hard (and put blinders on) that I might find a better more supporting life. And you know what, I did, but I was lucky. Really lucky.

And let me tell you that the availability of drugs did not go away in college or even law school. Especially law school. Man there were a lot of "pot" heads at UCLA. And some used harder drugs to either pass the time or help them stay up to study. But in Los Angeles drugs are everywhere. Cocaine is everywhere. Methamphetamines are everywhere. And really most middle class parents just don't realize it.

Bottom line, because the federal government has failed to do the simplest task of securing our border, I think our government officials are to be blamed for the ongoing drug problems many or our kids face. And when I see these two-faced officials cross examine a professional athlete and accuse him of being a bad influence, it becomes apparent that we either have the dumbest officials ever representing us, or these officials are basically corrupt to the point where the interests of our kids are not any of their true concern; they are just using this professional athlete as smoke and cover for their own indiscretions.

SHOW ME THE MONEY SENATE!!!

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 8 Feb 2008 21:00:00 -0700

JFK ASSASSINATION

noreply@blogger.com (Unknown) — Fri, 1 Feb 2008 17:16:00 -0700

I too don't understand how the final head shot could have come from about "9" o'clock (with JFK at 12 o'clock) when it appears the final shot forced JFK's head back and to his left (or around 11 o'clock).

The physics of it is unclear, but would seem to suggest the final shot was fired from a position in front of JFK (i.e., somewhere much closer to 5 o'clock). If this is the case then it could not have come from the book depository.