~~~

Long ago, in a galaxy far, far away I watched Swingers; a great movie which I loved and which inspired me, like most people, to start using the phrase �You are so money (and you don�t even know it)� as often as I could before using it became entirely too annoying, even for me (the one who still uses the toast �To all my friends� while impersonating Snagglepuss which is who I swear Mickey Rourke was impersonating throughout Barfly). Well, at that time, someone voiced in my direction the patented �You are so money� line. My response? �Yeah�maybe �Eddie Money��

Big laughs were had by all and that became my new phrase of choice. It is used to describe someone who obviously thinks he is money and just as obviously is so not.

Anyway, I told John he was Eddie Money this weekend. He didn�t get it. I don�t even know if he ever saw Swingers and, you know, attempting to explain the joke just ruins it�and I think that�s just what I�m doing here, actually.

A couple of weekends ago (as opposed to this weekend, which we will cover momentarily), as you may recall (because I know ya�ll are just glued to every line of my every entry and have committed my various social outings to memory), Barbi, Arnett, Cathy and I ended up at a British Pub and proceeded to enjoy karaoke the only way possible � in an inebriated state. As we were inebriated we wisely (we thought at the time) decided to join together in a rousing sing-along version of one Mr. Money�s �Two Tickets to Paradise.�

You have to understand�Cathy, Barbara and I have a few musical artists who we find to be so cheesie that we just can�t help but love them. This would explain our Vegas trips to see the likes of Tom Jones and Wayne Newton and also our love for The Money. We went to see The Money at the Los Angeles County Fair Grounds around six years ago and have still not stopped laughing.

The Money has a penchant for two things while performing:

1. He holds the side of his head with one hand, repeatedly. Were he covering his ears, I might have understood. As it was, I assume this hand-to-head gesture was supposed to convey intense passion for his music and the thoughts provoked by such.

2. He repeatedly opens his jacket in an ever-so-enticing manner, so as to allow we in the audience to get a better gander at the gloriousness of the tee-shirt he is wearing underneath. I guess this is supposed to approximate sexiness.

So in our show-stopping karaoke cover of �Two Tickets�� we of course pulled out all of The Money stops.

Well�we thought it was funny.

And I can�t remember why I told John he was so Eddie Money, nor the point of this portion of today�s entry, but I�m sure whatever I meant to say was very amusing and/or startling in its intelligence.

~~~

So on Friday, both Amy and I flaked on Sondra because we got better offers.

Amy and I were supposed to meet Sondra at a pub where Lou�s band was playing. However, late Thursday night it was decided that I was going to visit John. Amy therefore attended a party at a friends� house.

Seeing as I was already scheduled to leave work at Noon on Friday in order to drive to Vegas (*sob*), I just went ahead and left at noon and instead drove to John�s.

Aside from the fact that it took me over two hours to drive the first 50 miles of my trip, I had a nice weekend.

Kinda.

I�m really giving myself head-trauma over my relationship with John. I'm trying to figure out if the last month-or-so is just �one of those things� or a sign that I really do need to cut the strings and permanently. I know people go through good months, then not-so-good months and all of that, so I am trying to be patient and let it figure itself out.

Patience is not one of my virtues, people.

Anyway, it took me over 7 hours to get to his pad on Friday, because of the dastardly traffic. Neither of us had eaten, of course, because we did not expect me to show up so late. I do not own a cell phone and since this was a semi-last minute trip I didn�t have time to borrow one from my folks, so I didn�t call John to warn him of my late arrival. Anyway, so we went to dinner.

Great dinner it was, too. We ate at this place called Carpos. No frills, no waiters, but some really great food. They have a daily selection of fresh fish, which is why we went there (I love me some fish, peeps). I had a wonderful California Sea Bass with some green chile sauce on it. YUM!

(One of these days, I am going to count the number of my entries that mention food.)

On Saturday, we went to a meat market and picked up some really yummy�meat. Steaks, to be exact. And even though I am really not much of a meat-eater, I won�t even tell you how big the filet was that I ate for dinner, because it is just too embarrassing. It was big. And it was gooooood.

Oh yeah, so we did other stuff besides eat.

Saturday was spent by the ocean. First we went to San Juan Bautista, which is a cute little town that has actually saved its historic buildings from the wrecking ball. They also have a mission there, so we peeked at that for a few minutes before just walking the streets and reading all about their old buildings. It is really a cute town and, you know - I like old stuff.

Then we went out to the Elkhorn Slough. We didn�t kayak or anything, but wanted to check it out. You actually can�t see much of the slough itself unless on the water, but we did walk along a portion of it for a little while. And yes, we saw lots and lots of birds and even had lunch with a little otter. We watched him catch and eat little critters for about fifteen minutes while we ate our lunch in the car. So cute!

We then went to the beach at the mouth of the slough and relaxed for a good long while. The ocean was really rough and choppy so no nude frolicking this time (well, plus, I doubt that family with the three kids would have appreciated the view of my naked white ass), but we spread a blanket and relaxed for a while. I fell in to a hypnotic half-sleep for a long time; my mind just going off on its own wacky tangent.

We went home and bar-b-qued (well, you know, later. This entry is time-condensed and has also been formatted to fit your screen). My plan of getting John drunk so I could take advantage of him backfired on me, though, as he fell asleep at freakin� 9:00pm.

Sunday was spent in the forest. We took a picnic lunch with us and hiked into the woods, about 3 miles in and then 3 miles out. Nice little hike, really. The reason we went on this particular hike was to see the scars on the ground from the 1995 Loma Prieta earthquake (uh...John's idea, not mine).

No such scars to be found. Still a fun day in the woods, though.

OH! A funny thing happened on my way to the Forum (actually, on my way to John�s): I stopped at this gas station, see. Wait, there�s more. This particular gas station is also a Travel Center, complete with a huge store, a diner and a Taco Bell for good measure (I guess they don�t sell quasi-tacos at the diner). Along the back side of the store-portion is a long mirror. I assume the store�s personnel are behind there, watching us all to make sure we don�t steal any Twinkies or baseball caps with the Firestone logo on them. That or they�re making fun of the shoes I wore with those pants�anyway, this very obviously drunk man walked toward the mirror as I watched from my position in front of the restroom (waiting in ever-increasing irritation in an extremely long line). He walked up to the mirror and politely moved out of the way to make room in the aisle for the person walking toward him�which would have been very courteous, except that the person walking toward him was of course himself. And he didn�t just walk, try to move out of the way, figure out his error and laugh at himself. He walked, moved to the left, then moved to the right, then left again before he made the connection.

Believe me when I tell you that I laughed all the way to John�s.

Plus, I would just like to say God Bless the Citizenry of Buttonwillow, California (population 13 �) who so kindly opened a drive-thru Starbucks in their borough recently. You made my ride home down the 5 last night a tad less tedious than usual. It would have been nice not to have wasted that 15 minutes in your drive-thru line, but the fact that you were there at all and filled my tummy with your lovely and yummy hot chocolate with lots of foaming whipped cream on top was most appreciated.

And I apologize for that crack I made about your tip jar after you initially screwed up my order, but seriously � is leaving a little jar full of money on the sill outside your drive-thru window really a very good idea?

~~~

� U.S. Supreme Court rules 5-4 to uphold University of Michigan�s affirmative action policy in law school admissions.

Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com (AOL Keyword: CNN) for the latest news.

� In second decision, U.S. Supreme Court rules point system which considers race as factor in University of Michigan undergraduate admissions is unconstitutional.

Watch CNN or log on to http://CNN.com (AOL Keyword: CNN) for the latest news.

WHAT THE RULINGS MEAN

The Supreme Court struck down a point system used by the University of Michigan to give minorities preference in undergraduate admissions. The court, however, approved a separate program used by the University of Michigan's law school that gives race less prominence in the admissions decision-making process.

The Supreme Court said racial quotas are unconstitutional, but left room for the nation's public universities -- and by extension other public and private institutions -- to seek subtler ways to take race into account. Analysts say the rulings mean that race-conscious policies in place that do not use a quota plan such as a point system will probably remain in place.

I am happy, happy, happy about this! I felt somewhat certain that this case would bring an end to Affirmative Action. While I will admit the policy has its flaws, I think Affirmative Action is essential. Sadly, as we have proven over the last three thousand years or so, we the people can not be trusted to police ourselves.

~~~

NY Times

In Arizona, a Mountain Retreat Is Reduced to Ashes

By NICK MADIGAN

Much of Summerhaven and a nearby community, Loma Linda, have been reduced to ashes, destroyed by a fire that started on Tuesday in the Coronado National Forest�

Oy..so sad. Poor Arizona, and right on top of last year's devastating fire, too.

~~~

Senator Ready to Filibuster Over Views of Court Pick

By ADAM NAGOURNEY

Senator John Kerry said that he would filibuster a Supreme Court nominee who opposes the legality of abortion�

"I am prepared to filibuster, if necessary, any Supreme Court nominee who would turn back the clock on a woman's right to choose or the Constitutional right to privacy, on civil rights and individual liberties, and on the laws protecting workers and the environment," Mr. Kerry said. "The test is basic: Any person who thinks it's his or her job to push an extreme political agenda, rather than to interpret the law, should not be a Supreme Court justice."

Although Mr. Kerry said he would insist that a Supreme Court nominee meet his views on a variety of subjects, the focus of his attention yesterday was abortion, an issue that is certain to be central to any nomination fight and to the 2004 presidential election. The court is divided over Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that legalized most forms of abortion. Advocates of abortion rights have argued that the decision is in danger because of Mr. Bush's opposition to legalized abortion.

"Bush has touted Justice Clarence Thomas, one of the court's most virulent opponents of Roe, as his model justice," Mr. Kerry said in remarks in Washington that were transmitted by satellite to Democratic leaders meeting in Minneapolis. "Just one more anti-choice justice could gut the protections of Roe."

Four Democratic senators are running for president, and Mr. Kerry's statement yesterday seemed certain to increase the pressure on them to join any filibuster. At a forum for presidential candidates earlier this year, Kate Michelman, president of Naral Pro-Choice America, a group whose support will be pivotal for Democrats in the primaries, said she expected the presidential candidates to lead a filibuster if Mr. Bush put forward a candidate who does not support Roe v. Wade.

Among the other Democrats, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina was described by aides as almost certain to support a filibuster. Mr. Edwards said in a statement, "I believe very strongly that the right to choose and right to privacy are fundamental constitutional rights, and I can't imagine supporting a Supreme Court nominee who doesn't share my view of the Constitution."

But Senators Joseph I. Lieberman of Connecticut and Bob Graham of Florida, although supporters of abortion rights, stopped short of saying they would join a filibuster.

"Senator Graham will reserve the right to decide how he will treat each judge on a case-by-case basis," said his spokesman, Jamal Simmons.

Mr. Lieberman's spokesman, Jano Cabrera, said that abortion would be "one of a group of important factors he would consider in deciding whether to support a filibuster."

Mr. Kerry's statement today suggested a bit of evolution in his thinking on abortion over the years. In an unsuccessful bid for Congress in 1972, he told The Lowell Sun, a Massachusetts newspaper, that while he believed abortion was a matter that should be "between a woman and her conscience and her doctor," he did not view it as a federal issue.

"I think the question of abortion is one that should be left for the states to decide," he told The Sun.

Mr. Kerry's spokesman, Robert Gibbs, said the statement was made before Roe v. Wade, and the senator had never wavered in his view of the regulation of abortion. "From the beginning John Kerry has consistently said and believed that privacy is foremost and that abortion should be a decision between a women and her doctor," Mr. Gibbs said.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

You know, while I appreciate Senator Kerry getting involved, here, and obviously agree with his position on this issue�it just amazes me that all of a sudden some of our Dems. are growing a pair of cajones. They have essentially allowed the Bush administration to run rough-shod all over our Constitutional rights for the last year, all the while keeping mainly mum. Now that they realize half of the country is pissed as hell at Bush; now that the primaries are coming up, they all of a sudden start speaking up.

Or maybe I�m being too hard on the guy�

~~~

The Masters of Spin

Why the Bush administration is the most arrogant in memory

NEWSWEEK WEB EXCLUSIVE

June 20 � The long, hot summer has begun in Iraq. American GIs are dying almost daily. So are Iraqis. But that hasn�t stopped President Bush from embarking on a fund-raising spree premised on his triumphal role as commander in chief. Who needs reality when you�ve got spin?

The pre-war spin was all about weapons of mass destruction and the price of U.S. inaction. Bush said we couldn�t afford to wait until there was a mushroom cloud. Critics who suspect the intelligence data about Saddam�s nuclear program was hyped are brushed aside like gnats on an elephant. Bush says they�re engaging in �revisionist history,� which is on a par with calling Watergate a third-rate burglary.

Bush wins the spin for now. The debate over weapons of mass destruction is an inside-the-Beltway story; it�s not resonating with the public. The bigger question is existential: do the gods punish hubris?

This is the most arrogant administration in memory. Every day brings another issue where a careful observer of the political scene cannot believe what�s happening. The latest outrage has the White House spinmeisters editing a report by the EPA on the status of the environment to omit mounting concern about climate change. The spinners have already stricken the phrase �global warming� in favor of the more benign �climate change.� The offending line declared, �Climate change has global consequences for human health and the environment.� In its place, the White House inserted a bunch of gobbledygook about how the �complexity of the Earth system� and various �interconnections� make it a challenge to render scientific judgments.

Howls from environmentalists go unanswered. The administration�s attitude is like the phone company before the breakup of AT&T when Lily Tomlin, the comedic actress, appeared on stage as a telephone operator telling irate customers, �We don�t care. We don�t have to. We�re the phone company.�

Karl Rove, the grand wizard of spin, is a smart man with a historical perspective. He is a student of the American consciousness, and he knows that the American public is disengaged from politics. That�s the reality that makes voters today uniquely susceptible to such deceptive spin. Apocalyptic assertions by Bush and other administration officials in the months leading up to the war created the impression of such an imminent threat that it�s not surprising Americans got confused. One third of those questioned in a poll taken by the Program on International Policy Attitudes at the University of Maryland believe that U.S. forces have found weapons of mass destruction in Iraq. Twenty-two percent said Iraq actually used chemical or biological weapons in the recent war.

Most Americans have no idea who the Democratic candidates are, and Bush�s fund-raising blitz is designed to envelop his re-election in an aura of inevitability. It�s summer in Washington even though the dreary, wet weather feels like April. If by Labor Day, U.S. inspection teams haven�t found WMD and Iraq is looking like a quagmire, then the public might wake up and credibility could become a serious issue for Bush. As insurance against that outcome, Bush is shifting the political conversation to a looming confrontation with Iran, which will keep war alive as an issue for 2004. An uninformed public disengaged from politics and an administration that knows no shame are the ideal conditions for Bush to win a second term.

Democrats once hoped that a return to domestic issues, where they hold an advantage, would be Bush�s undoing. But the White House spin machine succeeds here, as well. Republicans who ordinarily deplore big government are cheering the potential expansion of Medicare to provide a prescription-drug benefit to senior citizens. Never mind that the Rube Goldberg scheme under discussion in Congress won�t go into effect until 2006 or that millions of seniors would pay more for their drugs with the benefit than they currently do without it, Bush will strut like the greatest savior of seniors since FDR brought us Social Security.

The House just voted to repeal the estate tax permanently, a windfall for trust-fund kids that was sold on the false premise that it saves farm families from destitution at the hands of the IRS. Reporters in the farm belt failed to find a farmer with a hardship story that would illustrate the GOP�s argument. Even the American Farm Bureau Federation said it couldn�t cite a single example of a farm lost because of estate taxes. The House votes tax breaks for millionaires while children of low-income families and military families get left behind.

One of the key strategies of the GOP is to portray Democratic critics as un-American. Remember the anonymous Bush strategist quoted some months ago suggesting Sen. John Kerry looks French. There will be two GOP campaigns: the flag-waving one on the surface that Bush is involved with, and then the sub-rosa campaign waged by surrogates that will be less gentlemanly. A very strong point in Bush�s favor is that there hasn�t been another attack on U.S. soil. He�s kept us safe, and he�s kept us fearful, a potent combination that Democrats haven�t yet figured how to crack.

� 2003 Newsweek, Inc.

~~~

And let�s end with this cheerful little thought�do we really want a Secretary of the Interior whose mentor was freakin' James Watt??????? I�m telling you, people: Get out there and see this beautiful country now, while you still can. If Dubya and his band of Happy Idiots have their way, it will be filled with nothing but strip malls and oil platforms pretty soon.

Gale Norton Rouses Congress

The Bush administration, in particular its interior secretary, Gale Norton, has always wanted to transfer more control of America's public lands to state and local governments and to open them to a wider range of commercial and recreational uses. But Congressional Democrats and some moderate Republicans are only now realizing that what Ms. Norton is trying to engineer is not just a rebalancing of the scales but a revolution in public policy deeply at odds with a long bipartisan tradition of environmental stewardship and more threatening than anything attempted by James Watt, Ronald Reagan's reactionary interior secretary and Ms. Norton's onetime mentor.

Their displeasure, however, has gone largely unnoticed. The Democrats do not control the committee chairmanships, which in turn means that they have no real power to summon cabinet members like Ms. Norton for cross-examination. The two conservative committee chairmen who do have oversight authority, Pete Domenici in the Senate and Richard Pombo in the House, think Ms. Norton can do no wrong. Still, the discontent is growing, in angry letters and speeches. It has several major sources, two involving back-room deals Ms. Norton recently negotiated with the State of Utah with broad implications for public lands everywhere.

In one deal, discussed at length in this space last month, Ms. Norton removed interim protections for 2.6 million acres of federal land in Utah designated as potential wilderness by her predecessor Bruce Babbitt. At the same time, in a novel and astonishingly cramped interpretation of federal law, she renounced her indisputable authority to seek and recommend to Congress additional lands for wilderness protection. In effect, the interior secretary was saying: There will be no new wilderness on my watch.

The second deal was more complicated, but it, too, involved a retreat from responsibility. At issue were longstanding disputes about who has authority, Utah or the federal government, over thousands of miles of primitive rights of way that cross federal land � old mining and livestock trails, footpaths, even streambeds. Western states have long wanted to turn these ancient pathways into real roads in order to promote development and, effectively, pre-empt future wilderness designation.

Ms. Norton insists that the agreement involves only "process" and does not resolve specific claims, in Utah or anywhere else. But Democrats argue that it tilts the rules in favor of the states while denying the public and Congress any meaningful say in the outcomes. The states themselves seem to see things going their way. Colorado recently wrote Ms. Norton asking for immediate jurisdiction over "roads" crisscrossing huge swaths of public land, including wildlife refuges and national parkland.

The latest provocation is Ms. Norton's apparent decision to challenge a ruling by the United States Court of Appeals for the 10th Circuit that she had failed to protect three million acres of public land in Utah threatened by off-road vehicles. The administration conceded in court that the vehicles were tearing up the land. But it took the bizarre position that the public, and in effect the courts, had no real standing in the matter, that when and how to protect wilderness were questions best left to the department itself.

It will be interesting to see what the Supreme Court makes of this line of reasoning. To us the implications are pretty clear. It says that Ms. Norton is indifferent not only to new wilderness but also to protecting what she already has. It also tells us that her Congressional critics cannot rest.

Copyright 2003 The New York Times Company

last / next



~~~~~~~~~~~peace, love and smooches~~~~~~~~~~~~~


Don't know why you'd wanna, but on the off-chance you may feel tempted to steal any of my words and claim them as your own, please be advised: All material
Copyright 2002-2005, Howl-at-the-Moon Words



***DISCLAIMER: These are my thoughts and my thoughts alone. If you know me in my "real life" off the net and have come across this page purely by accident, please keep in mind that you were not invited here and I would suggest you leave this page now. However, should you choose not to do so, please be warned that reading my thoughts here is not an invitation to discuss them off-line. You may discover things you do not know about me and may not like very much. Such is life. Again, this is MY space and I will use it as I see fit. If you are offended by anything here, well that's pretty much your own fault at this point. I say all of this with love, of course, but there it is.