When You Can't Say Something Nice About Somebody, Say Something Else

Why should I struggle so to artfully express myself when others already speak from my heart?

Why?

Here's another outstanding example...

I couldn't come up "just the right words" to say regarding the passing of Jesse Helms ('cept for: "As a Christian, I wonder how he's liking Hell?") until I came across the following via our Friends at Wonkette:

http://news.aol.com/political-machine/2008/07/04/jesse-helms-american-garbage/

By Ken Layne

...Helms became the new, stupid face of the Republican Party, the party that left behind intellectualism and civil rights and took up the Southern Strategy of pandering to bitter white losers while actively working against that same white working class. Helms was the perfect hack, the kind of lifelong fraud who made his career on the ignorant resentments of the same people he screwed so hard by always representing the mill owners and the tobacco corporations. He was mean, cheap, petty and unloved. He was the ugliest kind of bigot and a stain on America. Anybody who says different is a liar.

Thank you, Mr. Layne. That's all for now.

Funeral For A Friend

I got the MLB.TV package for being such a great dad a couple of weeks ago and I can't bring myself to look away.  I checked in on 11 different games a couple of nights ago.  Right now, here on the 4th of July, I'm watching the Red Sox/Yankees.  The only thing I can say for sure is that Red Sox 1B  Kevin Youkilis is the ugliest man in Organized Ball ( OB).  In a Top Ten Ugliest Guys in Major League Baseball contest, he'd be #1 thru, like, 5. 

Anyway...

A "friend" has written to me inquiring as to whether I would mind if he posted, on the world-wide web, Back-in-the-Day tales from our shared yootz.  Tales which involve what were all very hellaciously good ideas at the time but which, seen in today's light  (now that we are parents and The Responsible Party and all, O.M.G.) have the potential to embarrass.

But, that would be true only of someone with pride and/or shame which, and I doubt I have to tell you this, would not be me.  Because, as you know: "Richie?  He don't give a f---." 

So, I'm okay with it as long as we didn't have sex.  We didn't, right?  Good.  (I'd been drinking and I don't remember the whole thing--our now better than 30-year relationship).

I think I'd go with the pseudonyms, though.  And none of that "Nick" and "Alex" crap like you suggested.   Sounds waaay too gay to me, buddy.

I want to be called, "Brock Landers." 

In Re: Footnote 23

Chicago attorney Dave von Ebers is a fine legal writer. As proof I offer The Meaning of Footnote 23: http://journalplagueyear.blogspot.com/2008/06/meaning-of-footnote-23.html 

In The Meaning of Footnote 23, von Ebers suggests that individual States may not be bound by the recent Supreme Court decision on the 2nd Amendment and, moreover, that the Court acknowledges this to be the case in Footnote 23 (talk about "burying the lead, eh?) of the Majority Opinion written by Justice Scalia (who I saw called "Scaligula" in a post somewhere a couple of days ago and which I will be stealing for my own personal use from now on).

I found The Meaning of Footnote 23 to be Interesting as Hell so I passed it on to someone else I know who happens to have a first-rate legal mind and he apparently thought it was Interesting as Hell, too, posting the following comment at Dave's Blog, Journal of the Plague Year:

 (I have bolded the best parts so you don't have to.)

I agree with you and I think the footnote is very important; your analysis is pretty much on the mark. Scalia has consistently raised the shibboleth of original intent against more egalitarian/pro social doctrines that have evolved from Constitutional interpretation over the last forty years because in most cases on a very simple intellectual level it works.

What the proponents of this tact fail to take into account is that the world at the end of the 1700s and before slavery's demise was not one of actual equality or one we would particularly want to live in. However Scalia and the remainder of his unholy four also know that if that cry of WWTDD (What would the drafters do) is to be their Excalibur-like sword cutting away the vines of social justice that grew out of the Warren years their analysis must be consistent with that doctrine. They must tie up the loose ends and your interpretation of the footnote is one fine example of this. Without consistency to their mantra their bold political agenda will be shown for what it is, nothing more than intellectually dishonest right wing hackery.

The footnote is there because it has to be.  Otherwise their orignialist claims would be a sham. However the import of the main decision is designed to be a hit to our national solar plexus so as to scare the states from ever realizing what leeway in dealing with gun violence is left to them in the footnote. The stun factor is the political component of the decision; it scares and puts the states off the track for awhile. The Unholy Four thus continue to pray that some operative of the GOP finds/manufactures an Al Sharpton/Obama gay sex tape and thus insures that they get their fifth justice so we can return to the good ole’ days of women in the kitchen, blacks tending our lawns and the one true cross governing our thoughts.

-------------

So, I think my friend is a fine legal writer also.  Everybody is impressed, to say the least.

What we have got here is two (2) outstanding legal minds in accord.  Everybody says, "Nuff said."

Meanwhile, wasting no time, the NRA has filed a lawsuit seeking to overturn a local handgun ban based on this            SC(r)OTUS ruling.  Everybody wonders, will Footnote 23 come up when the case goes to court?  

Post of the Day

At Wonkette today this snippet: This morning, (Karl) Rove was speaking with a group of poor, Average Americans known as “Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club” to describe, in layman’s terms, Barack Obama: he is like “that guy” at the “country club” who, uh, won’t be sociable with the other members. ABC News’ Christianne Klein reports that at a breakfast with Republican insiders at the Capitol Hill Club this morning, former White House senior aide Karl Rove referred to Sen. Barack Obama, D-Illinois, as “coolly arrogant.” “Even if you never met him, you know this guy,” Rove said, per Christianne Klein. “He’s the guy at the country club with the beautiful date, holding a martini and a cigarette that stands against the wall and makes snide comments about everyone who passes by.”

In response, our POD from somebody calling themself "2goats":

Karl Rove is, I respectfully submit, more evil genius than Lord Cheney. He first managed to sell the pampered wealthy son of a failed President as ‘the kind of guy you could have a beer with.’ AND got him elected despite losing. Then, after 4 years of awful governance, including the largest casualties on U.S. soil since the Civil War, the complete destruction of American foreign policy and getting us trapped in a land war in Asia, the S.O.B. got his AWOL reservist buddy elected as more fiercely patriotic than a multi-decorated hero of the last fiasco. Won a majority of votes on a “safety” platform for the guy who sat in stunned ignorance while the Twin Towers fell. Making a pot smokin’, hoop playin’ Chicago community organizer/pol come off as an arrogant country club martini swiller, that’s just a morning’s work for Karl. What a guy!

The Old Ways Will Not Do

We will talk some other time about why John F. Kennedy is my hero. For now, we will simply stipulate that he is.

I posted an excerpt from President Kennedy's acceptance speech at the 1960 Democratic National Convention on Jesus' General a while back and have decided to reprint the entire speech here.

As I read it, I am amazed at how relevant the remarks Mr. Kennedy delivered on that July night at the Los Angeles Memorial Coliseum nearly 50 years ago now remain to we Democrats today. As you will see, by merely updating of some of the historical references and by changing the name Nixon to McCain, it is a speech that could be delivered (and to great effect) by the Democratic nominee for president in 2008.

One note of interest. The speech as written was better than the speech as delivered. This surprised me, given John F. Kennedy's well-deserved reputation as a one of the greatest orators in American history. However, listening to a tape of the speech reveals that he strayed from the text a few times, and I think to his detriment. Still, it was a very effective presentation. But it could have been better, would have been better, had he delivered it word-for-word.

The link to the speech is: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/index.php?pid=25966

The link to the recording is: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/mediaplay.php?id=25966&admin=35

Address of Senator John F. Kennedy Accepting the Democratic Party Nomination for the Presidency of the United States - Memorial Coliseum, Los Angeles
July 15th, 1960

(Except for proper names, BOLD type has been added by the author of this post)

Governor Stevenson, Senator Johnson, Mr. Butler, Senator Symington, Senator Humphrey, Speaker Rayburn, Fellow Democrats, I want to express my thanks to Governor Stevenson for his generous and heart-warming introduction.

It was my great honor to place his name in nomination at the 1956 Democratic Convention, and I am delighted to have his support and his counsel and his advice in the coming months ahead.

With a deep sense of duty and high resolve, I accept your nomination.

I accept it with a full and grateful heart--without reservation--and with only one obligation--the obligation to devote every effort of body, mind and spirit to lead our Party back to victory and our Nation back to greatness.

I am grateful, too, that you have provided me with such an eloquent statement of our Party's platform. Pledges which are made so eloquently are made to be kept. "The Rights of Man"--the civil and economic rights essential to the human dignity of all men--are indeed our goal and our first principles. This is a Platform on which I can run with enthusiasm and conviction.

And I am grateful, finally, that I can rely in the coming months on so many others--on a distinguished running-mate who brings unity to our ticket and strength to our Platform, Lyndon Johnson--on one of the most articulate statesmen of our time, Adlai Stevenson--on a great spokesman for our needs as a Nation and a people, Stuart Symington--and on that fighting campaigner whose support I welcome, President Harry S. Truman-- on my traveling companion in Wisconsin and West Virginia, Senator Hubert Humphrey. On Paul Butler, our devoted and courageous Chairman.

I feel a lot safer now that they are on my side again. And I am proud of the contrast with our Republican competitors. For their ranks are apparently so thin that not one challenger has come forth with both the competence and the courage to make theirs an open convention.

I am fully aware of the fact that the Democratic Party, by nominating someone of my faith, has taken on what many regard as a new and hazardous risk--new, at least since 1928. But I look at it this way: the Democratic Party has once again placed its confidence in the American people, and in their ability to render a free, fair judgment. And you have, at the same time, placed your confidence in me, and in my ability to render a free, fair judgment--to uphold the Constitution and my oath of office--and to reject any kind of religious pressure or obligation that might directly or indirectly interfere with my conduct of the Presidency in the national interest. My record of fourteen years supporting public education--supporting complete separation of church and state--and resisting pressure from any source on any issue should be clear by now to everyone.

I hope that no American, considering the really critical issues facing this country, will waste his franchise by voting either for me or against me solely on account of my religious affiliation. It is not relevant. I want to stress, what some other political or religious leader may have said on this subject. It is not relevant what abuses may have existed in other countries or in other times. It is not relevant what pressures, if any, might conceivably be brought to bear on me. I am telling you now what you are entitled to know: that my decisions on any public policy will be my own--as an American, a Democrat and a free man.

Under any circumstances, however, the victory we seek in November will not be easy. We all know that in our hearts. We recognize the power of the forces that will be aligned against us. We know they will invoke the name of Abraham Lincoln on behalf of their candidate--despite the fact that the political career of their candidate has often seemed to show charity toward none and malice for all.

We know that it will not be easy to campaign against a man who has spoken or voted on every known side of every known issue. Mr. Nixon may feel it is his turn now, after the New Deal and the Fair Deal--but before he deals, someone had better cut the cards.

That "someone" may be the millions of Americans who voted for President Eisenhower but balk at his would be, self-appointed successor. For just as historians tell us that Richard I was not fit to fill the shoes of bold Henry II--and that Richard Cromwell was not fit to wear the mantle of his uncle--they might add in future years that Richard Nixon did not measure to the footsteps of Dwight D. Eisenhower.

Perhaps he could carry on the party policies--the policies of Nixon, Benson, Dirksen and Goldwater. But this Nation cannot afford such a luxury. Perhaps we could better afford a Coolidge following Harding. And perhaps we could afford a Pierce following Fillmore. But after Buchanan this nation needed a Lincoln--after Taft we needed a Wilson--after Hoover we needed Franklin Roosevelt. . . . And after eight years of drugged and fitful sleep, this nation needs strong, creative Democratic leadership in the White House.

But we are not merely running against Mr. Nixon. Our task is not merely one of itemizing Republican failures. Nor is that wholly necessary. For the families forced from the farm will know how to vote without our telling them. The unemployed miners and textile workers will know how to vote. The old people without medical care--the families without a decent home--the parents of children without adequate food or schools--they all know that it's time for a change.

But I think the American people expect more from us than cries of indignation and attack. The times are too grave, the challenge too urgent, and the stakes too high--to permit the customary passions of political debate. We are not here to curse the darkness, but to light the candle that can guide us through that darkness to a safe and sane future. As Winston Churchill said on taking office some twenty years ago: if we open a quarrel between the present and the past, we shall be in danger of losing the future.

Today our concern must be with that future. For the world is changing. The old era is ending. The old ways will not do.

Abroad, the balance of power is shifting. There are new and more terrible weapons--new and uncertain nations--new pressures of population and deprivation. One-third of the world, it has been said, may be free--but one-third is the victim of cruel repression--and the other one- third is rocked by the pangs of poverty, hunger and envy. More energy is released by the awakening of these new nations than by the fission of the atom itself.

Meanwhile, Communist influence has penetrated further into Asia, stood astride the Middle East and now festers some ninety miles off the coast of Florida. Friends have slipped into neutrality--and neutrals into hostility. As our keynoter reminded us, the President who began his career by going to Korea ends it by staying away from Japan.

The world has been close to war before--but now man, who has survived all previous threats to his existence, has taken into his mortal hands the power to exterminate the entire species some seven times over.

Here at home, the changing face of the future is equally revolutionary. The New Deal and the Fair Deal were bold measures for their generations--but this is a new generation.

A technological revolution on the farm has led to an output explosion--but we have not yet learned to harness that explosion usefully, while protecting our farmers' right to full parity income.

An urban population explosion has overcrowded our schools, cluttered up our suburbs, and increased the squalor of our slums.

A peaceful revolution for human rights--demanding an end to racial discrimination in all parts of our community life--has strained at the leashes imposed by timid executive leadership.

A medical revolution has extended the life of our elder citizens without providing the dignity and security those later years deserve. And a revolution of automation finds machines replacing men in the mines and mills of America, without replacing their incomes or their training or their needs to pay the family doctor, grocer and landlord.

There has also been a change--a slippage--in our intellectual and moral strength. Seven lean years of drouth and famine have withered a field of ideas. Blight has descended on our regulatory agencies--and a dry rot, beginning in Washington, is seeping into every corner of America--in the payola mentality, the expense account way of life, the confusion between what is legal and what is right. Too many Americans have lost their way, their will and their sense of historic purpose.

It is a time, in short, for a new generation of leadership--new men to cope with new problems and new opportunities.

All over the world, particularly in the newer nations, young men are coming to power--men who are not bound by the traditions of the past--men who are not blinded by the old fears and hates and rivalries--young men who can cast off the old slogans and delusions and suspicions.

The Republican nominee-to-be, of course, is also a young man. But his approach is as old as McKinley. His party is the party of the past. His speeches are generalities from Poor Richard's Almanac. Their platform, made up of left-over Democratic planks, has the courage of our old convictions. Their pledge is a pledge to the status quo--and today there can be no status quo.

For I stand tonight facing west on what was once the last frontier. From the lands that stretch three thousand miles behind me, the pioneers of old gave up their safety, their comfort and sometimes their lives to build a new world here in the West. They were not the captives of their own doubts, the prisoners of their own price tags. Their motto was not "every man for himself" --but "all for the common cause." They were determined to make that new world strong and free, to overcome its hazards and its hardships, to conquer the enemies that threatened from without and within.

Today some would say that those struggles are all over--that all the horizons have been explored--that all the battles have been won-- that there is no longer an American frontier.

But I trust that no one in this vast assemblage will agree with those sentiments. For the problems are not all solved and the battles are not all won--and we stand today on the edge of a New Frontier--the frontier of the 1960's--a frontier of unknown opportunities and perils-- a frontier of unfulfilled hopes and threats.

Woodrow Wilson's New Freedom promised our nation a new political and economic framework. Franklin Roosevelt's New Deal promised security and succor to those in need. But the New Frontier of which I speak is not a set of promises--it is a set of challenges. It sums up not what I intend to offer the American people, but what I intend to ask of them. It appeals to their pride, not to their pocketbook--it holds out the promise of more sacrifice instead of more security.

But I tell you the New Frontier is here, whether we seek it or not. Beyond that frontier are the uncharted areas of science and space, unsolved problems of peace and war, unconquered pockets of ignorance and prejudice, unanswered questions of poverty and surplus. It would be easier to shrink back from that frontier, to look to the safe mediocrity of the past, to be lulled by good intentions and high rhetoric--and those who prefer that course should not cast their votes for me, regardless of party.

But I believe the times demand new invention, innovation, imagination, decision. I am asking each of you to be pioneers on that New Frontier. My call is to the young in heart, regardless of age--to all who respond to the Scriptural call: "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed."

For courage--not complacency--is our need today--leadership--not salesmanship. And the only valid test of leadership is the ability to lead, and lead vigorously. A tired nation, said David Lloyd George, is a Tory nation--and the United States today cannot afford to be either tired or Tory.

There may be those who wish to hear more--more promises to this group or that--more harsh rhetoric about the men in the Kremlin--more assurances of a golden future, where taxes are always low and subsidies ever high. But my promises are in the platform you have adopted--our ends will not be won by rhetoric and we can have faith in the future only if we have faith in ourselves.

For the harsh facts of the matter are that we stand on this frontier at a turning-point in history. We must prove all over again whether this nation--or any nation so conceived--can long endure--whether our society--with its freedom of choice, its breadth of opportunity, its range of alternatives--can compete with the single-minded advance of the Communist system.

Can a nation organized and governed such as ours endure? That is the real question. Have we the nerve and the will? Can we carry through in an age where we will witness not only new breakthroughs in weapons of destruction--but also a race for mastery of the sky and the rain, the ocean and the tides, the far side of space and the inside of men's minds?

Are we up to the task--are we equal to the challenge? Are we willing to match the Russian sacrifice of the present for the future--or must we sacrifice our future in order to enjoy the present?

That is the question of the New Frontier. That is the choice our nation must make--a choice that lies not merely between two men or two parties, but between the public interest and private comfort--between national greatness and national decline--between the fresh air of progress and the stale, dank atmosphere of "normalcy"--between determined dedication and creeping mediocrity.

All mankind waits upon our decision. A whole world looks to see what we will do. We cannot fail their trust, we cannot fail to try.

It has been a long road from that first snowy day in New Hampshire to this crowded convention city. Now begins another long journey, taking me into your cities and homes all over America. Give me your help, your hand, your voice, your vote. Recall with me the words of Isaiah: "They that wait upon the Lord shall renew their strength; they shall mount up with wings as eagles; they shall run and not be weary."

As we face the coming challenge, we too, shall wait upon the Lord, and ask that he renew our strength. Then shall we be equal to the test. Then we shall not be weary. And then we shall prevail.

Thank you.

---

---

Citation: John T. Woolley and Gerhard Peters,The American Presidency Project [online]. Santa Barbara, CA: University of California (hosted), Gerhard Peters (database). Available from World Wide Web: http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/ws/?pid=25966.

A Powerful Thing

I often, in my on-line life and elsewhere, deal with people who most assuredly do not believe in Jesus and who therefore think that the Christian faith is ridiculous and wholly without merit.

I am totally okay with that.  Yes, I am aware of the Great Commission.  I know Jesus said we are to go forth into all the world and teach His Gospel to every creature.  But, believe me, given all the shitty things I've done in my life, with all the mistakes I've made, I am in no position to proselytize.  Besides, this is America.  You can believe what you want to believe.  Hell, you can believe a horse fell out of a tree.  Richie?  He don't give a fuck.

For whatever reason, I just wanted to get that on the record.  And, for the record, I am a Christian.  I'm just not very good at it.

When I lived in Grand Rapids I used to play hockey twice a week with a bunch of right-wing nutbag fundies.  I mean, hardcore nutbag fundies.  Don't believe me?  Check this out: One morning after the skate when the endorphins had kicked in and I'd engage all of them in spirited debate, one of 'em said to me, "God hates abortionists and fags."  I said, "Show me where it says that in the Gospel!"

They all supported Bush and they were all hot for the war and they were all hot for all the rest of it.  The tax cuts for the rich, you name it.  In short, they were all for all the things I hate.  They stood for everything I stand against.  But, to a man, I loved those guys.  They weren't bad people.  They'd just been fed a line of bullshit and, like all of those good Germans in the 1930's, fell for it.  Propaganda is a heavy thing and because propaganda is a heavy thing, these things happen.  And, of course, some people are simply stupid.  Again, these things happen.

As far as the religion part of it, I can assure you that they absolutely did not think I was a follower of Christ.  Once, one of them asked what my church's position (I'm Lutheran) was on homosexuality and I said, "It's interesting you'd ask me that.  I was having butt sex with my pastor last week and I asked him the same thing!"

They'd hold that homosexuality was a choice.  A choice!  I'd ask them when precisely they chose to have sex with girls instead of boys and whether they'd found the decision difficult.  Was it, in other words, a close call?  Also, if it's a choice, doesn't that mean that one can change ones mind?  Could I, for example, decide all of a sudden that I no longer wanted to have sex with a woman and get all hot for one of them?

I told them one day after the skate that I prayed out there on the ice virtually every morning.  They didn't believe it.  "Oh, yes," I said.  "When the puck is down at the other end (I'm a goalie) at least once a game I thank God for giving me the opportunity to get some much-needed exercise doing something I find challenging, doing something I love doing, and I thank Him for giving me the chance to have fellowship with you idiots".

But, as it turns out, I digress.  I know, it is hard (some would suggest impossible is more like it) for one to digress when one has yet to make the original point that one is digressing from but bear with me.

My church--only two weeks after we celebrated our 50th Anniversary as a congregation--lost a founding member this week.  Not only a founding member, one of our most important members.  Marie was the Music Director at our church for over 30 years.  She was my Sunday School teacher when I was in the 3rd or 4th grade.  I'd known her a long time.  Long enough to know that without her and her husband, we might not even have a church.  Mind you, this is the church where I was confirmed, where I was married and where my daughter was baptized. 

Now, just a note on deaths.  I write this crap for myself.  I don't even know why I bother to post it if you want me to be honest since the writing is often merely a personal catharsis for the author.  For that reason, because I am sharing thoughts of a personal nature and am trying to be honest, when I am talking about the death of someone I know, I usually will not use the persons full name or even the persons real name.  I don't want embarrass the decedent or the surviving family members in any way, even inadvertently.    

I had a girl who I thought was a friend (all right, an ex-girlfriend from 30 years ago; all right, a girl I loved more than anything in the world Back in the Day) go behind my back and find out the name of someone I had written about who died not long ago and now (in Sparky Anderson speak) I don't talk to her no more.  That's how angry at and disappointed in her I am.  I was stunned that as nice as I'd tried to be to her after she had gone through a divorce and a job loss, pumping up her tires whenever and however I could, that she was nonetheless unable to respect my wishes.  So, like I said, now I don't talk to her no more.  And I don't give (SparkySpeak, again) no kind of a fuck if I never speak to her again.  If there is one thing I learned in 30 years years of not having her in my life, it is that I can live without having her in my life.  Besides, she once told me she was "fascinated" by Insane John McCain and when she said that I immediately thought to myself, "Why am I even talking to this broad?"  But, I'm digressing again...

For Marie's funeral yesterday a lot of people who sang when she was the Choir Director down through the years came back to honor her by singing in the choir at the service.  Bottom line: our choir which numbers 15-18 members on a typical Sunday numbered about fifty for the funeral.  We had a little bit of trouble just finding room for everyone where the choir sits.

Was it ever something!  Among the songs we sang (Marie had picked them all out before she died, not that she could have after she died, of course) was When I Survey The Wondrous Cross.  A song about Civil Engineering, apparently. 

Now, I've only been in the choir for a couple of years and the only thing I know about the music they hand me every week is that it seems that it is supposed to have some bearing on the sounds I am supposed to make.  How, exactly, is not at all clear to me. 

At the start of When I Survey The Wondrous Cross, there is a small italic "p" on the score.  Since in rehearsal everyone was singing this part about as softly as they could, I assumed the "p" means you are supposed to sing softly. 

Towards the end, however, there was not one, but two "f's" in italics.  Now, I have learned the italic "f" means "forte" and that means to sing loudly and with gusto.  This, as I said, had "ff".  Forte, forte.  The directions were telling me and everyone else to sing as loudly and with as much enthusiasm as we could muster.  So you had fifty people all singing as hard as they could.  What a sound!  It was a powerful thing.  I've never heard anything like it, much less been part of making something like that happen.  I was singing my ass off.  We all were.  I remember thinking, right in the middle of it, "God damn, Marie.  What do you think of us now?"

Like I said, I'm a Christian.  I'm just not very good at it.

A final note.  That girl I referenced earlier.  There was a note posted to my MySpace page from her which said, "I moved to (sic) Cheboygan Tuesday."  We don't even know where that is, but we wish her well.

Good-Bye To PMS

One does not, in the strictest sense, "graduate", from Middle School.  Instead, one completes a three-year course of study with an eye towards matriculating from High School at a later date.  So, tonight, it was not Graduation Night at my daughter's Middle School (the initials of which are, unfortunately, PMS) but rather it was "Recognition Night".  My daughter was recognized in a way which amused the entire family.  Laura got herself a certificate signed by none other than our hero George W. Bush!

 

 

 

"Look at that signature, I said.  "The poor man's handwriting is that of a sociopath!"  It is.  His is the signature on the right.  I suppose that could be a "G", the "w" is little-tiny (just the opposite of what you'd expect, isn't it?) and in lower case, and only the "Bush" is legible.

Anyway, I'm glad my daughter was lauded by the President of the United States.  I'm sorry it had to be this one.  It's like I told her: Odds are this is the worst president you will see holding that office in your entire lifetime. 

It was hot inside the gymnasium, so after Laura got her Recognition and I had enough pictures, I went outside and sat in my car and, as a cool breeze wafted through I was mesmerized--mesmerized, I tell you--by the sound of Dennis Kucinich (I am so glad I was one of the 3% who voted for him in the Michigan Democratic Presidential Primary, inasmuch as my vote didn't mean anything anyway and I thought he'd earned it by running a hard campaign and by saying NOTHING I didn't agree with) reading Articles of Impeachment against George W. Bush.  Air America Radio was replaying, unedited, his floor speech from last night.  Everyone should listen.  I know he spoke for 4-and-a-half hours last night, but even listening to some of it will lift your heart.  I know it did mine. 

That and having a daughter I am so proud of.