So I must laugh, dear readers, when I opened my mailbox not ten minutes ago to find a curiously large orange box, containing a complimentary free Gilette Fusion razor. Life, like many great endeavors, is all in the timing.

He rests in his death-like slumber, awaiting the time when he shall again
rise and feast on the souls of man. Until that time when the stars are aligned,
and he breaks his sleeping seal, Cthulhu comes to the minds of men and....
ANSWERS YOUR CALLS!

For those who've never heard of Cthulhu, he is one of the Old Ones (ancient extraterrestrial beings of incredible power), and is the creation of author H.P. Lovecraft. Creepy, creepy stuff, but fertile ground for humorous parody.

I frigging hate SPAM, and apparently I've been inundated with it on the blog. I made a few tweaks to the settings (which will hopefully solve things), but decided to start hunting down some good MT plugins. Big. Waste. Of. Time. They generally fell into one of the following categories:

• Not updated to work with MovableType 3.3x
• Won't work if the pages aren't dynamically generated
• Require enough hand holding as to be pointless

Typical. Hopefully my mods to the SpamLookup plugin will do the trick. In any case, it is well past time to hit the sack. Hopefully I can finish the template/layout tweaks tomorrow.

Revolvo ergo maleficus sum. I brood, therefore I am evil.

UPDATE - The switchover has been.....interesting, to say the least. Still need to clean up the trackback and comment pages, plus implement a few tricks/tweaks, but the majority of the work has been accomplished.

Eleven months into this quest, my lips had tasted naught but failure...betrayed it seems by my own preference. Nine differing store/chains across two states, countless circulars and newspaper ads, and not a single piece was as I desired. I had thought my requirements rather simple. A sofa, long enough for pleasant napping, deep and cushioned enough to be most comfortable for those of a taller stature. Seems a simple thing, really, but finding those qualities in combination with a color/pattern pleasing to my sense proved most frustrating. Each failure reinforced in me the belief that my perception of the home furnishing industry was wrong. Furniture it seems was not utilitarian in nature, but had taken on the mantle of abstract art...meant to be viewed, pondered, aesthetically appreciated but by God never to be truly SAT UPON! A smarter man I believe would have given up by then.

Ah, but the tenth...in that tenth store, not one week past, nirvana itself opened to me. A sofa, long and luxurious, with smooth supple leather and a solid construction. As if some toiling laborer reached into my mind and dragged my desired out in order to give them form. I had found the pillar, that perfect center piece, to my arena of lounging. That combination of leather, wood, and padding upon which my fleshy posterior would find most of its repose. My mind screamed yes before my wallet could even wake, and the purchase was made. That should have been a sign...

Today, $1500 dollars worth of furniture traveled from a voluminous shipping warehouse in Pennsylvania. Today, $1500 dollars worth of furniture is making its way back to that voluminous shipping warehouse. In my quest for the perfect piece of furniture, it seems I left out one minor detail. A year of searching, it turns out, means nothing if the furniture cannot fit through the front door. More specifically the length and depth of the sofa is such that it proves incapable of navigating the right turn from the outside foyer to the front door, much less the immediate left turn from front door to stairs. The ceiling is too low, see. A scant matter of inches, it seems, scant enough to begin the cascade. Seeing as the love-seat matches the sofa, there is little point in accepting it when the sofa is an impossibility. With those two departed, the purpose of the table/end tables becomes complete negated. As the great philosopher Homer often said, "D'OH!".

Such accursed dilemma...as most would advise the simple, the obvious...find a smaller sofa. Therein lies the further rub. Select a sofa with less length and depth, and the front door problem is solved. Lessen the length and depth of the sofa, and the sofa will no longer interest me (as I seem to often have to remind some around me, I see no point in purchasing furniture that I don't want to use). At 6'3", the length/depth of a sofa is paramount as proper positioning can not be achieved when one's head or legs hang completely over the arms and the posterior feels no difference from an office swivel chair! Why can't they bring it in over the balcony and through the sliding door, a friend asked? The lawyers of the delivery company aren't too keen on that method...something to do with liability apparently. So back it goes, my living room still naught but bare carpet and most likely it will remain.

Ah yes, and in the spirit of heaping insult upon injury there was a further C.O.D charge for the paid in full furniture, a gift from that effete popinjay our esteemed(HA!) Royal Governor Johnathan Corslime, may his nethers boil and rot a festering meat. His sales tax increase it turns out, with regards to furniture, avoids the messy trouble of ex post facto status by being tied directly to delivery/possession. Though my furniture was purchased well before the legal deadline, the tax is 'retroactively' applied to the purchase as my delivery did not occur until AFTER the deadline. A hale and hearty thanks for the crafty wallet rodgering, you elitist Liberal jackanape!

Somehow I stumbled on this link which briefly details the passing of Proposition H, a rather far reaching gun control measure by even the standards of the Left Coast. The name itself, Proposition H, had me convinced this was some sort of joke, some sad pun on gun owners taking it 'up the ass' once again. Even the date give, April 1st, had me guessing this was someones sick joke. Turns out the joke's on everyone.

From the text of the Proposition we can easily see the following:

The sale, manufacture, transfer, and distribution of ALL FIREARMS AND AMMUNITION within the City and County of San Francisco is now verboten.

The possession of handguns by ANYONE within the City and County of San Francisco (aside from the chosen and annointed holy arms of government such as the Police, Sherrifs, and even Animal Control) is now verboten. In addition, any persons possessing a handgun beyond the 90 day grace period ending April 1st, 2006 will be subject to unspecified criminal penalites.

There will be NO COMPENSATION to anyone who voluntarily turns their handguns in before the 90 day grace period ends.

If you look beyond the basic '90 day' case presented by the text itself, long term ramifications support the logical conclusion that this is nothing less than a complete ban on ALL civilian owned firearms within San Francisco County, not to mention the criminalization of thousands of individuals through absolutely no actions of their own. Yes, I know...the law doesn't specifically say 'possession of firearms'. For the uninitiated, in order for someone to purchase a firearm in such places as California, or New Jersey, or New York, or almost every state in this nation, the prospective buyer must actually PURCHASE the firearm from a second party, most likely a gun store. Well, with the SALE and TRANSFER of firearms now being illegal....the avenue for a person to obtain a firearm legally in the County has now been destroyed. What will happen in SanFran will mirror the happenings in D.C. exactly. Those who own firearms will either transfer them out of state, or transfer THEMSELVES out of the state. With the majority of firearm owners taking this option, the only people left in the city with guns will be the police and the criminals. In one respect, the San Fran County government at least displayed more courage than D.C. in their law. The language of the law, and the specific inclusion of the Feinstein 'turn them all in, Mr. and Mrs. America' quote, leaves no doubt as to their intentions of an outright ban. The SFGATE sadly has it right, in that San Francisco has risen to surpass D.C. as having the strictest gun laws in all of the United States. One would not be so surprised if the effect on violent crime rates will not similary rise.

Even an idiot could see that there is massive potential for judicial challenges to this proposition. You've got US Constitutional challenges via Article 1 sections 9 and 10 (provision against the federal and state governments prohibiting ex post facto laws), the Second Amendment (violation of the right to keep and bear arms), Fourth Amendment (effects secure against unreasoanble seizures), Fifth Amendment (deprivation of propery without due process of law), Fourteenth (privileges & immunities, due process, and possibly equal protections). Of course, with the 800lb gorilla (more like the 8lb soaking wet rat) of this arena, the NRA, has an aversion to supporting Second Amendment challenges to California gun bans akin to a Vampire and the Gilroy Garlic Festival, so the chances of such a challenge making it are...well...about as high as the chances of defeating the measure in the first place. If a challenge can be mounted and monetarily supported, I would bet any amount you please it will follow this path: every single court will affirm the law, up to and including the Ninth Circu-I mean-Circuit Court of Appeals, and the case will be appealed to the Supreme Court. With Roberts, and most likely Alito, sitting on the court and O'Connor gone, there's a better than even chance they won't deny cert outright as they do every other 2A challenge. As to whether that is a good or a bad thing, I leave that as an excercise to the reader as I for damn sure can't tell yet...

Of course seeing as I live a good 3000 miles from the Left Coast, there is little left for me to do than rant. Except this:
The only way anyone could ever get me into San Francisco is if they drag my putrid, stinking, decaying corpse into that hellhole.

UPDATE: As with many things, I am neither completely right, nor am I completely wrong. It seems the 800lb gorilla has decided to jump into the fray. The NRA has filed suit challenging the San Francisco firearms ordinance. I was, however, once again proven correct. They don't make any challenges on and specific Constitutional grounds, but instead seek to have the law struck down based on equal rights violations and state law preemption. Cowards way out, in a sense, but in no way surprising coming from the NRA...

Hate to say it, but this is a fluff post. Why, you ask? Well, because honestly the first thing I thought of when I read the article was this:

Yes, I went so far as to dig out the DVD from my moving boxes (a web search provide nothing, unless you consider a page filled with pics of Uschi Digard, the bountifully bouyant and bounced breasts from Catholic High School Girls in Trouble, something) because unlike you, dear readers, aside from work and the occasional dalliance I don't have too much resembling a normal life at the moment!

Looks to me like Bush is taking a page from the Samuel L. Bronkowitz playbook. He'll go far, so long as he remembers to call on BIG JIM SLADE when things get rough (and the capitol of Nebraska is Lincoln!). Isn't it fun when decades old humor ends up so....topical in modern time?

Sadly, I think it also covered the response of Senator Schumer quite well:

(For those of you not up on useless trivia, the gentleman in the picture above is actually George Lazenby....as in George "oh, so YOU'RE the James Bond nobody knows" Lazenby. He did On Her Majesty's Secret Service in '69, then dropped the part like the plague out of fear it would sink his career. Wise move? I think not...)

Posting should resume with a greater rapidity (or so I hope!). I'm working on a number of posts regarding my specific reasons of absence, and they should be up in the coming days..with pictures even. So fear not, dear reader!

James Dobson, founder of Focus on the Family, said he spoke with Deputy White House Chief of Staff Karl Rove on Oct. 1 -- two days before the Miers nomination -- and was told that "Harriet Miers was at the top of the short list." Also on that list were several candidates that many conservatives say they would have preferred, Mr. Dobson said on his radio program that was recorded yesterday and will be broadcast today. "Well, what Karl told me is that some of those individuals took themselves off that list," he said, according to a transcript obtained last night. "They would not allow their names to be considered because the process has become so vicious and so vitriolic and so bitter that they didn't want to subject themselves or the members of their families to it." White House officials could not be reached for comment last night.

This marks the third time I've seen this point made, albeit the first time in solid print media and not referenced to "anonymous sources". If this proves true it would cast even more doubts on the "Bush=coward" meme, and provide a more rational explanation to the Miers pick than just mere cronyism.

Considering that this second nomination is to replace Sandra Day O'Conner, a strict constructionist would very well have an effect on the balance of the court, something conservatives strongly desire and liberals utterly abhor. That is why the Democrats will oppose a strict conservative nomination in this situation, and will utilize (or fabricate) any means necessary to do so. I cannot find it within myself to blame anyone for desiring not to be subjected to scrutiny of such a vicious nature.

*** UPDATE ***
Confirmed by the White house here.

Let us put aside the issue of legal requirements, simply because by a quick read of the Constitution, legally all one really needs to be nominated a justice is to be selected by the President. So let us move on to the ground of the less firm. As many of those opposed to Miers stand ready to point out, and even I am more than willing to admit, not even the most potent orator could persuade the public that Miers is the living heir to Rehnquists efficient management, nor blessed with the wizened pen of Scalia. Is that, though, a valid criteria for the Supreme Court? I suspect one must give some deference to the highest court of the land with regards to what is required of potential applications. But does a silver tongue and learned pen equate to competence when dealing with the law? Nor does she seem to have much experience in dealing with cases specific to heady constitutional issues. But, how much of the Supreme Court docket is composed of specific constitutional issues? I believe almost anyone would admit that a solid, working knowledge of the law and the US Constitution a valid criteria for consideration for nomination to the Supreme Court. After 30+ years of practice, it is highly likely that Miers does have a deep, solid understanding of the law. On the question of the Constitution, however....that I believe is a valid question, and one which unfortunately at this time has no answer.

Neither can it be said that her posterior has even once graced the bench, nor her shoulders been adorned by the robes of a court of law. Surely, one would suspect, a person nominated to the "highest court of the land" should be well versed in the running of a judicial bench? I must admit that my own analysis of this 'criteria' leaves me with two serious pieces of outright humor. The first laugh comes from this criteria being one which would have the supporter of it place themselves against the nomination of former Chief Justice William Rehnquist. He was plucked by Nixon in 1971 from the Office of Legal Affairs, where he served as Assistant Attorney General. Obviously nothing more than a Nixon crony with no understanding of the operating of a high court! The second I believe was summed up perfectly by the keen wit of Varifrank (gotta trust anyone named Frank!), in speaking about the Miers nomination:

In my opinion, Justice Breyers is a dangerous man, not be cause he’s unqualified, but because despite of all his legal background, he doesn’t have the common sense that God gives dogs to figure out how dangerous that idea is, and yet, he manages to have a seat on the top court of the land. Justice Breyers’ ideas of “flexible truths” are what some people would say are a fine idea from a fine legal mind, but I think its dangerous, and hey, some people who oppose Mrs. Miers also think he is much more qualified than she is but for goodness sake, this pack of qualified super smart overqualified Harvard grads that makes up the current Supreme Court just passed “Kelo”!

Several of the more 'relativist' judges on the Supreme Court, the type opponents of Miers so desperately wish to avoid, possessed many years of experience on the bench. One could even say they have spent much time as part of the judiciary contemplating the Constitution and the various legal theories surrounding it. Of course, I doubt any of the Miers opponents who support this criteria would wish another Sandra Day O'Connor, Anothony Kennedy, or David Souter.

What of external factors? Since we are judging not just the person selected but the nomination in and of itself (not to mention some outright insulting Bush over it), should we look at those factors influencing the process? Are they relevant to the President selecting Miers, even lauding her as a top candidate? Without a doubt, those are factors that must be considered in evaluating that decision. That belief is in my mind strengthened in part by the impractical refusal of those opposing Miers to seriously entertain the possibility of certain factors that are destined to have an effect on the nomination. We are, of course, speaking of the United States Senate, that august body delegated the responsibility of providing advice and consent to Presidential nominations.

Simple logic dictates that the temperature of the Senate was a serious factor in selecting both Miers AND Roberts as potential Supreme Court ustices. Why, it must be asked, was Bush so concerned about the ubiquitous 'paper-trail', lack of which being touted as almost a virtue for both nominations? The answer to that question lies I believe some five months previous, with a group known as the Gang of 14. Seven Republican senators, at the behest of nothing but their own ego, betrayed their Party and brokered a 'compromise deal' with the Democrats that forestalled the 'nuclear option', granted votes to several judicial nominees, and left more than one hanging in the wind. With only a 5 seat majority in the senate, these 7 found themselves in a position of power over their own party. With the margin being so slim (not to mention this being the selelection of SECOND Supreme Court justice for Bush), and several of the short listed nominations being previously filibustered, the fraudulent seven could definitely represent a deadly obstruction to the nomination. But would they be a factor? And would the 'nuclear option' be necessary for a more papered and conservative nomination?

Those opposing Miers would profess that they are not. From John Hawkins dismissal of both the possibility of their interference and the Democratic filibuster in a re-nomination what-if scenario:

...but the Democrats aren't happy. There is even some talk of a filibuster. But, after just seeing the terrible "wrath of conservatives scorned" over the Miers' nomination, Republican members of the "Gang of 14" become terrified of the consequences of a vote against the nuclear option. John McCain understands that going the wrong way means his presidential campaign in 2008 is doomed. Mike DeWine knows he'll lose his Senate seat if he votes with the Democrats. Lincoln Chaffee has a tough primary coming up and he knows going the wrong way means defeat. Lindsey Graham, who has already been stung by criticism over his role in the "Gang of 14" deal, doesn't want a repeat performance.

to David Frum's continued evasions when questioned by Hugh Hewitt:

HH: All right. Now my second question goes to...you said he was in the position to get them confirmed. I'm still curious of the Gang of 7. Which do you, plus eight, really, if you count Specter, whose not part of the Gang of 7. Which 6 are you absolutely confident of, because we need to have 50 votes, plus the vice president to confirm anyone that we would want, even though that might be a bad idea in some circumstances. Which ones are you confident of coming back to the fold?

DF: Two points. One is I think the filibuster deal was a good deal, and I think it worked for the Republicans, and we saw that with Roberts. But second, Hugh, I think we're going to discover Harriet Miers is the toughest confirmation. I don't think she's going to win, and if she does win, it's going to be after a horrific and expensive and costly political fight for the president.

HH: But I have to press you, David, because the assertion that he could have won with Luttig or McConnell is central here. I don't think they had the votes to get one of my top three. I think that what happened was a calculation, that they had to go with the best choice that they knew was acceptable, and so there's a disagreement here. I just want to know...

DF: You know, I think on that factual point, I think you're wrong. I don't think there was a calculation. Actually, I think this was a very impulsive decision.

HH: Again, I'm going back, David. I'm pushing you on the Senators.

DF: And because the vice president...look, the vice president has been under surgery. Karl Rove has been distracted by this stupid and unfair inquiry, but he's been distracted, and he's also had medical troubles. So who was making this decision? It wasn't Karl, and it wasn't the vice president. It was Andy Card and the first lady, and the president, and Condoleezza Rice.

HH: You're taking me out on a limb, David. I'm not going to go with you. I mean, that's a big limb. But before we go down that limb, just name for me the Gang of 7 who would come back to the fold for McConnell or Luttig.

DF: Sorry. But the Gang of 7, the filibuster problem, is a two-stage problem. The first question is do we believe that if the president had nominated a Michael McConnell or a Luttig or a Priscilla Owens or a lot of other people, that the Democrats would have filibustered. Would they have violated the deal to filibuster? I don't believe they would.

HH: And I believe they would have, absolutely.

DF: They didn't filibuster John Roberts.

HH: They had no choice with their base.

DF: But if they had, if they had, the president's got...there's 55 Republican Senators. There are probably 51 reliable, and then there at least one or two Democrats. And...but I think what happened here is he got forced not to what people think of as his third choice, or his fourth choice. This is nobody's choice, and I think that the political damage that the president has done himself here is so enormous.

HH: David, I'm going to go back, though. I'm trying to be a reporter, because I really am curious about this. Would you agree with me that Specter and Chafee and the two Maine ladies are not reliable votes?

DF: Chafee is not, and the Senators from Maine are not reliable. I'll agree with you there.

HH: And Specter?

DF: Specter is troublesome, but not hopeless.

HH: But possibly of going the wrong way, correct?

DF: Possible. Absolutely.

HH: So we're down to 51. If we lose two more, Democrats could conceivably enforce party loyalty.

DF: It's conceivable.

HH: So is McCain going to vote for whoever Bush sends up?

DF: Not for whoever, but the right nominee? Yes.

So not only is the influence Gang of 14 marginalized, but the opposition fails to even seriously consider the possibility of a Democratic filibuster. As if, simply by the awe and power of a strict constructionist, the Senate would be forced to acquiesce. Champagne would fall from the heavens. Doors would open. Velvet ropes would part. Let us leave the realm of subjective fantasy and return to the cold reality...

Lincoln Chafee, who confirmed Roberts depsite his concerns that Roberts would vote to restrict abortion rights, is facing pressure from NARAL over his decision, which could seriously threaten his 2006 campaign

“Given our recent conversations with Senator Chafee, this vote is surprising and extremely disappointing,” Keegan said in the release. “We’d like to know what pressure the Republican leadership put on him. We will be watching closely his future votes on judicial nominees, including William Pryor and those for the Supreme Court.”

Olympia Snowe, in her decision document on the nomination of John Roberts, listed her "threshold qualifications" for a Justice of the Supreme Court. Those four include such penumbras as a respect of the right to privacy (read: abortion), respect for Court precedent and the stability of stare decis (Roe v. Wade perhaps?), and of course:

And he responded to Senator Specter that Roe is “settled as a precedent of the court, entitled to respect under principles of stare decisis. And those principles, applied in the Casey case, explain when cases should be revisited and when they should not. And it is settled as a precedent of the court, yes

Susan Collins, also a friend of the pro-choice movement, also plays the 'stare decis' card with a veiled reference:

At our meeting, I asked Judge Roberts about his views regarding the importance of stare decisis – the principle that courts should adhere to the law set forth in previously decided cases. I asked Judge Roberts whether a judge should follow precedent, even if he believed that the original case was incorrectly decided in the first instance. He told me that overruling a case is a “jolt to the legal system” and said that it is not enough that a judge may think a prior case was wrongly decided. He emphasized the importance that adherence to precedent plays in promoting evenhandedness, fairness, stability and predictability in the law.

And that after only 10 minutes of research. I will grant you that it is impossible to say that they would buckle under the pressure of their supporters and constituency in a Supreme Court nomination vote, but the corollary of that also remains true. It is impossible to say that they would resist such pressure, and thus to patently assume that to be the case would be a very dangerous position to take. Of the three who are facing re-election in 2006, only Michael DeWine is facing serious competition, so the effects of the '06 elections on their choices are minimal at best....except in the case of Chafee and Snowe, where their support from the abortion lobby could factor heavily. One must also ask, has the fact that none of the seven have been truly and effectively reprimanded for their double-cross of the party had an effect on their outlook? The near pride with which many wear their membership in the 14 I believe provides all the answer necessary to that question. As I said earlier, I believe the lack of concern over this issue strengthens my position that the external factors ARE important to considering the nomination. To my mind it is analogous to Bush asking his supports to 'trust him' on the Miers nomination.

Thanks in part to the 7 Republicans in the Gang of 14, the 5 seat "on paper" majority in the Senate is just that, on paper only. The President could not reliably count on their support for a staunch conservative nomination, to the point that several have expressed opposition to the nomination of such "ideologues". Without that surety of support, there exists a rather strong possibility that the nomination could result in a Senate bloodbath. Combine the near inevitability of a Democratic filibuster with the strong possibility of a weakened Republican base failing to muster enough votes for the nuclear option, and the result would not only be a stalled nomination, but the further decline of Republican party influence. I firmly believe the condition of the Senate had a great amount of influence on Bush choosing Miers. Nominating a staunch conservative would be a gamble in and of itself due to the filibuster, but to do so when Republican Party support was in question, and the whispers of 'lame duck' already beginning to make the rounds.....many have criticized Bush as weak, spineless, and cowardly for making this choice. To that I can only respond: It is far easier to demand that someone else fall on their own sword...

I won't even bother to address the 'Democrats won't filibuster' canard in great detail. When you consider that almost half the desired 'short-list' has been filibustered for lower court nominations, and the 'extraordinary circumstances' clause of the Nomination Compromise...if you truly believe the Democrats would fail to find extraordinary circumstances in the likes of, say, William "I believe that not only is [Roe] unsupported by the text and structure of the Constitution, but it has led to a morally wrong result. It has led to the slaughter of millions of innocent unborn children" Pryor...

These issues are what make the Miers nomination so difficult to, pardon the pun, judge. There are indeed several important and unanswered questions involving her capability to serve on the Supreme Court. As much as I respect many of the people lining up against the Miers nomination, their near Kos-ian disdain for Bush, the capriciousness with which they consider the politics of the Senate, and their continued judgement of Miers based not on her own merits but on who she is not, brings too much to question for me to completely accept their positions. I would agree that there are nominees who would not have such questions regarding their ability, but the opposition feels neither the need nor the interest to prove that those persons would survive the Senate. I believe their desire that Miers be denied even the ability to stand as witness on her own behalf also calls into question motives...

Nor do I hold Bush as having sole 'blame' for this fiasco. A decision was made predicated on the support of the Senate. Nor can I find blame for him in employing that logic. The effects of a stalled Senate nomination would, in the long term, be more catastrophic to the party, and to the possible future Supreme Court nominations Bush might have to make, than the current kerfuffle. My ire is generally reserved for the 7 Republicans who, in snatching defeat from the jaws of victory, turned a 55 seat majority into a deadlock. Bush did nothing more than worked with the conditions he was given.

I believe the question of the nomination, as it was originally placed by President Bush, is truly all about trust. On one side we have Bush with hat in hand, asking his Party and people to trust in his judgement. Truly a difficult proposal as many of his more recent policy positions have left staunch conservatives with a rather poor taste. However on the other side, those wishing Miers to either step down or be shot down, are also standing with hat in hand, asking for the President and his supporters to trust....not in them, but in seven people. John McCain. Lindsey Graham. John Warner. Olympia Snowe. Susan Collins. Michael DeWine. Lincoln Chafee. The Republican half of the 'Gang of 14' who so infamously derailed the 'nuclear option' back in May of this year, ironically enough over several court nominees whom the Miers opposition would much rather see in her place. I honestly do not know whether or not I should trust Bush. However, I know for damn sure I can't trust those seven as far as I could throw them, and there's a compromise document in Congressional record as proof of that.

And so we are left with a rift in the party. On the right we have the Coalition of the Illin, marshalled in stiff and unyielding opposition to Myers. On the left, the Coalition of the Chillin, trusting Bush to know what he is doing. Myself....I'm NOT happy with this choice. While I do not expect her to become the next Souter, there are too many questions about her to elicit my own endorsement. However....due in part to this dearth of information, I am not willing to oppose her without giving her the ability to present her case (bad pun!), nor am I going to judge her based solely on my own wishes for a nomination pick. She must stand, or fall, on her own merits. I guess that places me with:

Today I was reminded of something that makes me wonder if I am, in fact, a hypocrite. Earlier today, I had the happenstance to view a particularly fetching specimen of the female form. Now, being male, I have a particular appreciation for the beauty of feminine wiles, so of course I paid some attention to this display. Not glaring attention, but the subtle admiration one would give to, say, the paintings of the great Renaissance masters. In the midst of said appreciation, and sadly not to my surprise, she raised a cigarette to her mouth for a long pull.

To borrow a quote from Bill Paxton in Aliens, that simple act for me was "Game over, man. Game over!!". By my sensibilites it didn't matter that she was stunningly picturesque. She was rather tall for a woman (one of my particular favorites!), possessed of a lithe stature, with a long mane of soft, chesnut hair, and piercing blue eyes. She was about 10 pounds beyond the body type usually seen on magazine racks (no, not THOSE racks, gutterminds!), which is again one of my preferences (I tend to prefer my women to look like women, rather than beanpoles, no offense to Keira Knightley intended). All that drained away the moment the cigarette hit her lips. I lost any interest whatsoever. It made me ask myself....am I a hypocrite for this?

I find the habit of smoking cigarettes to be simply disgusting, vile, and about ten other adjectives that all mean the same thing, ESPECIALY when practiced by the female of the species. She could have been the most warm, funny, intelligent, and kindhearted woman I would ever meet...but I would never actually meet her. I simply could not find it within myself to look past the cancer sticks. And yet there I stand, on a near regular basis, cigar firmly betwixt my fingers, smoldering.

Now, before you proceed to eviscerate me, this view is strictly limited to women in which I have both an appreciation and a possible interest. A few female friends of mine, including the wife of one of my friends, partake of the cigarette. I neither judge them nor think less of them because of this...but as far as romantic interest, it's a deal breaker. Period.

Double-standard? Maybe. Elitist snobbery? Possibly. But hypocrite?

Hot Damn! For years (9 to be exact...ever since I picked up KOF 95 for the PSX) I'd hoped someone would come along and make an OAV/TV series that would do justice to the King of Fighters franchise. The series is filled with memorable characters, each with their own deep and involving backstory, and with all the attention paid to animating Street Fighter (II, II V, Alpha, and so on) I thought it would only be a matter of time before it would be done. Years later, I'd pretty much given up on the possibility.

Dear GOD do I love to be proven wrong somedays. Not only will KOF finally be brought to the screen, but it is being done by none other than Production IG! The same production IG involved in the production of such titles as:

• Blood: The Last Vampire
• Blue Seed
• Ghost in the Shell
• Howl's moving Castle
• Kill Bill's animated sequence
• Neon Genesis Evangelion
• Spirited Away
• Vision of Escaflowne

If ANYONE can do proper justice to the frenetic action, pathos, and legend that exemplifies The King of Fighters, they can.

A 90 second trailer movie (that ought to fire the blood of ANY KoF fan!) can be found here. Not much detail is known about the series, except that it will premier in December, will take the form of a 4 part OAV series with possible net release, and that all the VA (Voice Actor) talent used in the games themselves will be utilized for the OAV (Original Animated Video).

In a bold and decisive move (snort!), the Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments in the case involving Anna Nicole Smith and her bid to obtain more of the sizeable estate of J. Howard Marshall II her dearly departed honey, despite the fact that she was never mentioned in the will. Out of 1900 cases.....a handful of cases out of almost two thousand and this is what the highest court in the land feels to be a worthy and necessary issue for their consideration?

So, Black Robes Inc. deems Nicky Big Tits pining (read vamping) for her sugar daddy's wealth an endeavor worthy enough for their time. Let me guess, with Ms. O'Conner on the backslide they felt they needed to sex the place up a bit? Why should I be surprised when, thanks be to our great and esteemed justices and their no doubt erudite interpretation of the Fifth Amendment, Mayor Jane Glover of New London, Connecticut feels empowered to say this about her constituents:

The Supreme Court has given us the authority to just go in with a bulldozer, but I don't think the state of Connecticut or us particularly want to do that, not just because of the tenants but it's just not good politics. We were hoping the people would buy out.

Were I a tenant of the properties involved in this dispute, I'd see this statement in no other way then an outright threat of force by the government. Capitulate to our demands (unfair as they are), or we shall destroy thee. Perhaps Miz Glover ought to put taxpayer funds to better use and channel King George III. Ask HIM how well it worked out.

Is it any wonder why respect for the auspices of the Supreme Court are in such decline? I'd write a long, drawn out, tortuous treatise on the subject, but frankly it has been done to death by those far more intelligent than I, and I'm just too fucking angry. Abject stupidity has a tendency to bring that out in me...

As much as I enjoy music, I don't often find myself attending concerts/live shows. Not that I don't like the idea of going to a concert, far from it. In fact I still have extremely fond memories of the few shows I've seen....all three of them. Yep, just three across a span of almost 30 years. Part of the issue stems from my tastes in music, as I'd wager a good 80% of the music I listen to comes from foreign acts who rarely tour the US, if at all. Of the remaining, I'll have to be honest and say that there is no blame but myself for them. Most of my friends have tastes in music that run more toward the mainstream, so in the times where I consider attending a concert I am most often faced with 'riding solo'. Habit drives me to great lengths in avoiding any crowds when I am alone, which tends to rule out the whole concert venue.

The damnable thing of it all is that I have been left burned quite a few times by this. To this day I still berate myself for missing Guano Apes at the Electric Factory, especially now since they've split. I discovered my enjoyment of Loreena McKennitt only a scant few months before she withdrew from music (though I understand she is now working on a new album, much to my surprise and delight!). I missed a chance to see Evanescence with one of my good friends, unfortunately due to a rather horrendous workload. I was sorely depressed in 2001 when I'd heard that John Lee Hooker had passed, and that he had been performing almost right up to his death! I'd pretty much resigned myself to having little luck when it came to concerts, but that I'd be sure to jump whenever a chance came my way.

Sometimes, it seems, dumb luck can strike the very heart of No Love For Frank, as it did earlier this evening. About two years ago my family made the switch from Comcast to DirecTV (we'd been Comcast subscribers since 1983, but recently they've been less than abysmal. I shall definitely be blogging on that quite soon!). As our specific Comcast locale carried a much smaller selection of channels than even most other Comcast regions, DirecTV was simply astounding. The first thing I did was sample that divining rod of cable news channels, the one you either love or hate....FoxNews. Now, this is 2003 and I'd never once seen the station that seems to so polarize people. Call it a morbid sense of curiosity, I guess.

"How does that pertain to a post on concerts", I hear you ask? Strangely enough, it is the catalyst that brought about the events I am writing about. One evening probably more than a year ago, when flipping through the channels, I noticed an ad on FoxNews for a new album called Pure, by a New Zealand artist named Hayley Westenra. I was, simply to say, enraptured. I must admit that I possess a great weakness for the female singing voice, specifically in the realms of operatic and folk styles. In other words, women who can really SING, unlike the standard bubblegum trash that passes for music among the 'popular music' scene. Turns out she is the fastest-selling debut classical artist of all time, has the the best selling album of all time in New Zealand, and was the biggest selling classical artist in Japan for 2004, so don't just take my word for it! Needless to say, within a few scant minutes of seeing the commercial I had placed my order. Not much else to say except that even now I still listen to that album almost daily...

Which brings me to tonight. I'd been poking around the web for a decent version of 'Wondrous Love' (Christian hymn published by Benjamin Franklin White in 1844...What wondrous love is this, oh my soul, oh my soul, etc.), part of my usual 'deflating from the workday' ritual of websurfing, when I thought of checking her website (she sings several christian songs, including a beautiful rendition of Amazing Grace). Why something compelled me to check the Events section I honestly cannot explain, but I am quite glad I was so compelled. Well below the large banner section promoting a UNICEF benefit concert (she is an Ambassador for both UNICEF and Save the Children), I read two words of which I am well familiar: NEW YORK. Apparently she will be playing the Supper Club in NYC on October 20th, which happens to be shortly before one of my closest friends, C.G. of So It's Come To This, is getting married, also in the City. I'd asked two of my close friends if they would be interested in attending, but both declined. Unsurprisingly, as it turns out neither had even heard of Hayley nor it seems were they too enamored of going to the City on a Thursday evening. Perfectly legitimate reasons to my mind for passing. So once again I was faced with the prospect of deciding whether or not to run solo.

Now I may not be the most perceptive of individuals, but when fate decides to pull a Frank Thomas with a clue-by-four on my skull...well, I tend to listen. I'm going to be in the exact same location around the exact same time as the event, and for an artist I would most like to hear live and would not expect to be appearing in the US at all! So I decided I'm going to go...by myself, on my own, flying solo, and all those other trite phrases. I actually just received the confirmation email for my tickets. Call it a late birthday present to myself. Hell, I'm thinking of making a whole evening of it. Drive down instead of taking the train, show up in the full three piece, then hit Ruths Chris for steak and a cigar afterwards. Should prove to be a very interesting evening....now I just have to figure out in which box I packed my digital camera!