Gromnir

am admitted getting a bit predictable in our dotage. channel islands, death valley and sierra buttes. typical make it to death valley every other year, and channel islands a bit less often, but am doing the sierra buttes pilgrimage at least yearly... mostly 'cause we can bring the dogs as long as they is leashed at all times. there are a half dozen campgrounds in the sierra butte/sardine lake area with a wide range of amenities. we prefer salmon creek as it has water and vault toilets but little else. is always fun to do the fire lookout trail, though the dogs can't do the stairs, but am doubting they would appreciate the view as does Gromnir. typical we go in late september and/or may. highly recommend for folks in nor cal who like tahoe natural splendor but don't wanna deal with all the other tahoe tourists and nonsense. HA! Good Fun! ps picture is obvious from a drought year as there is typical a bit more snow on the ground even in july/august.

a talking heads album might not be most obvious place to find the funk, but we like it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-7kL1j_3C0o our second favorite talking heads song behind psycho killer. HA! Good Fun!

another bloomsday. another bloomsday we will not be rereading ulysses. HA! Good Fun!

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/smart-news/rules-about-how-to-address-us-flag-came-about-because-no-one-wanted-to-look-like-a-nazi-180960100/ HA! Good Fun!

well, try to imagine how much physical space and objective time would be wasted if you were utilizing computer punch cards for your games. relative speaking, the modern pc offers a massive resource savings for such tasks. HA! Good Fun!

But what if I like, really don't like them? public unfriend them and then craft a particular hurtful tweet? ... don't look at Gromnir as if he is crazy. in this brave new world, those sorts o' actions seeming drive people to homicidal rage or suicidal depression. HA! Good Fun!

No I'm not terribly worried about that. At least not for the next three years. It's the notion that "they had it coming" for supporting individual rights that sets me off. I'm hearing a lot of that today. I was hoping for better here. You would think a gun showed up and did this all by itself. The direction I saw this conversation going in my head is exactly what Hurlshot hit on. gun control is one o' the favorite monsters democrats, northern democrats, likes to parade 'bout the town square. is much lamenting the evils o' gun ownership as teary-eyed hand wringers ask why such violence must continue to be acceptable in 21st century america. particular after a school shooting, where bodies o' dead children is getting 24/7 news exposure, democrats like to play to the fears o' their constituency. lasts a couple weeks. maybe a month. is an easy battle for democrats to fight 'cause is unwinnable. democrats know the gun violence debates is nothing more than sound and fury and they lose nothing by appearing to fight the good fight vs. an increasingly obtuse and heartless foe. democrats won't need to expend any political clout trying to pass meaningful legislation 'cause the Court and republican Congressmen will invoke the second amendment effective making any real gun violence legislation functional impossible. am personal in favor o' greater gun control, but am recognizing the 2nd amendment is a highly effective bar to meaningful change to gun control legislation. worse, the most dangerous firearms, by an incredible large margin, is handguns as they is many times over the most likely firearm class to be used in homicides AND suicides. handguns is also the weapon least likely to be the target o' meaningful gun legislation. even weeping democrats mourning over the bodies o' dead school children do not suggest taking handguns away from honest and god-fearing americans who wanna protect their homes and families. *shrug* republicans don't need to fight, but they do 'cause constituency expects 'em to. democrats know they ain't gonna have to fight save for on tv and in newspapers. is a stoopid issue. is spectacle. use tragedy as spectacle is vulgar, but such is gun control debate in the US. HA! Good Fun!

save during wartime, the Elected fed government tends to look like a cage filled with p00p throwing monkeys, and as a libertarian, gd is no doubt more suspicious o' the government when it is actual working efficient. ineffectual fed is the bestest protection o' individual state rights. we look at such silliness as is going on in washington and often forget the fed is working as designed. you got an unpopular President who is unable to create meaningful support in Congress. lack o' a President with Congressional and public support almost guarantees the legislative branch will fail to pass laws with genuine national impact. the courts, largely unconcerned by politics and instead dedicated to the legal philosophies, further act to prevent sweeping unilateral changes. the career bureaucrats, also insulated from the fecal flinging primates by practical concerns rather than Constitutional protections, roll their eyes at the silliness and go on with business as usual to the best o' their ability. this is exact how is 'posed to work. HA! Good Fun!

... you are a cruel man. "would you like to touch my monkey?" HA! Good Fun!

as usual, the simpsons did it better. what could go wrong with a room full of sycophants and toadies? sadly, gonna need wait 3.5 years before our mr. burns gets kicked out of his big house. HA! Good Fun!

BREAKING NEWS: U.S. appeals court rules against Trump’s revised travel ban. Details to come. HA! Good Fun! ps islamophobia is a flavor of bigotry. it does not require a religious origin. can accuse an atheist of islamophobia, yes? nothing inherent religious 'bout the bigotry. flawed syllogism.

. and actually, the first amendment very much protects your right to be associated with the kkk. is some situations where the Court has decided strict scrutiny test is met when police keep records o' associations with various gangs AND fringe christian groups, but is same level of protection. christianity don't get a free pass. for the purposes o' the Constitution, christianity is no more special than the kkk. HA! Good Fun! The 1st Amend protects the freedom to associate. It does not shield from criticism for associations. No one can stop Mr. Smith from joining the Klan. But we can sure rake him over the coals for it. Or they could kiss his butt and fall all over themselves explaining it away like they did for a certain Senator I remember. similarly, we can rake mr. smith over the coals for arguably bigoted statements, regardless o' whether or not he uses christianity as his defense. bernie did not ask 'bout religion. again, review the video. mr. vought used religion as the only explanation for his comments w/o actual explanation or illumination. take the same exact situation but replace with mr. smith. have mr. smith make the exact same statement. mr smith notes the deficiency of muslim faith. mr. smith observes the problem w/the islamic faith is Not simple one o' deficient theology and that muslims is "condemned." mr. smith defends his actions and words, as do many kkk members, by invoking christianity. simple invoke religion should have senators falling over themselves in an effort to kiss mr. smith's butt? change situation. political appointee mr. asfour makes comments which suggest women is a deficient gender and as such require the protection of men. bernie questions mr. asfour 'bout statements. mr. asfour observes how women is 'posed to be treated with "dignity and respect." when bernie asks what mr. asfour meant 'bout the deficiency o' the feminine gender, all mr. asfour will respond with is a declaration o' his islamic faith. can keep this up all day. religion is not quite the sacred cow gd believes it to be. we frequent question Prospective public officials 'bout specific religious beliefs which might make them unfit to do their jobs. invoke catholicism, judaism, branch davidianism, or satanism as an explanation for any questionable behavior or action does not have those with questioners necessarily falling over themselves. sure, Congressmen do often fall over themselves when christianity is invoked, but reason is 'cause most voters is christian. the logical gymnastics is political rather than Constitutional. is some logic gymnastics being performed here as well. not wanna see folks fall over themselves for christianity when they clear would not do so for other belief systems. HA! Good Fun!

I didn't say it would be ok to ask the judges about their religion. I said it would be ok to ask them if their personal opinions, however they came by them, could be checked if their responsibilities required them to rule in a contrary way. For example, suppose you had chosen to be a prosecutor but were opposed to capital punishment. It would be fair for a DA to ask if you could set that aside and pursue the DP for defendants when appropriate because California has the DP. If you were opposed to the DP because of your religious back ground or for any other reason makes no difference. Being Catholic should be a non-issue even if that is the reason why you oppose the DP. It should not even come up in the context of a job interview. In Mr. Smith's case under the same circumstances if he posted his words in a KKK publication then yes I would still say "so what, it's a non-issue". The practice of Mr. Smith's religion is his own affair as long as he does no harm to anyone else. Of course his association with the Klan in the first place is wide open for question. No anti-discrimination law I've ever heard of protects people from the consequences of freely associating with groups like the Klan, or Aryan Nation, or whatever. I suspect I'm doing a poor job getting the ideas in my head onto the screen today. To me this just makes sense. bernie didn't actual ask 'bout mr. vought's religion. review the video. 'course is a silly distinction, 'cause just as the hypothetical catholic judge is facing a moral dilemma regarding abortion in large part 'cause o' his religion, so too is mr. vought's views regarding muslims having, 'ccording to his own admission, religious origins. and actually, the first amendment very much protects your right to be associated with the kkk. is some situations where the Court has decided strict scrutiny test is met when police keep records o' associations with various gangs AND fringe christian groups, but is same level of protection. christianity don't get a free pass. for the purposes o' the Constitution, christianity is no more special than the kkk. HA! Good Fun!

the list is specific 'bout happiness of students. shouldn't surprise. 4 years o' extreme brutal physical and mental challenge and the annapolis "dorms" kinda suck. the service academies demand a great deal. am suspecting if the list went to 30, west point would show sooner rather than later. keep in mind there is a list for students who love their university and a separate list for happiest students. appreciation for the school is not same as student happiness. HA! Good Fun!

you aren't being reasonable. same as those prospective judges you see no issue with confronting 'bout religion, is it less reasonable to ask the public figures you mention 'bove what they meant by asking them questions? bernie asked mr. vought questions and mr. vought had a chance to clarify his meaning o' "condemned." mr. vought chose not to do so. be honest. have same quote made by mr. smith, a prospective appointee with a kkk affiliation. would you be rushing to defend? got equal valid Constitutional protections o freedom o' expression and association. HA! Good Fun!

https://www.princetonreview.com/college-rankings?rankings=least-happy-students ok, first, this is a list of the schools with the least happy students, and the list only involves those unhappy students at the "best" 381 north american universities. ... am curious relieved berkeley is on the list. likely is an antiquated pov, but we always felt there should be some pain involved in getting a meaningful degree from a decent university. should feel like being a cowled wizard trying to take down irenicus. HA! Good Fun!

so, just 'bout every position? after same-sex marriages were made legal nationally, a woman whose job it were to provide marriage licenses refused to do so... on religious freedom basis. christian. is many religions, including christianity, which appear to condone or even demand otherwise illegal misogyny and/or bigotry. like it or not, the bible is filled with wackiness if folks read everything literal, and deciding what to read literal as 'posed to metaphor seems to be subjective art rather than science. would be different if were klu klux klan or crips membership which were being questioned? why? such memberships is similar constitutional protected. same Amendment in fact. have an appointee need explain away seeming bigotry or religious intolerance. tell us instead his views were first amendment protected KKK views, but while he nevertheless saw blacks and jews as "deficient," he would nevertheless treat such peoples with "dignity and respect." is different 'cause those groups is not religious? is different 'cause gd sees those groups as bad, but christianity as good? once again, mr. vought espoused a belief which arguable demanded for secular condemnation of muslims as he specific distinguished from theology. coulda' easily clarified. didn't wanna clarify. btw, am not suggesting bernie were right. am not offering our own pov. am suggesting that gd position, whether he will admit or not, appears to be on shaky logical ground. HA! Good Fun!

*shrug* sounds as if your hard opposition to the kinda religious questioning directed at mr. vought is getting a bit fuzzier. unlike a judge, many a high-level member o' the executive is gonna be applying fed law and rules on a daily basis, often w/o the benefit o' a law school education and clear precedent to guide decisions. the impact religion could have on day-to-day decisions o' mr. vought would be significant but it would be far more difficult to predict such points o' conflict than with a judge. difficulty to anticipate makes questioning less or more appropriate? also, once again, in the quoted material mr. vought noted that muslims "do not simply have a deficient theology," immediate before he went on to explain how all non-christians were condemned. like it or not, and regardless o' gd's christian reading o' the material, mr. vought created an ambiguity. unlike gd, mr. vought did not choose to be as forthright in his clarification. am understanding why mr. vought didn't wanna explain how in his estimation all non-christians were doomed to burn in hell. as an aside, we did chuckle when mr. vought defended self by saying all peoples is worthy o' "dignity and respect." many hunters use same turn o' phrase to explain what kinda treatment game deserves. phrase don't mean anything w/o context, and mr. vought clear didn't wish to offer more... not that he need have done so. HA! Good Fun! ps mr. vought does have a law degree.

am preferring to watch rather than participate for the moment, but please observe your reading is based on assumption rather than what mr. vought said. listen again to the actual quote. mr. vought specific distinguished the condemnation of non christians from their "deficient theology." gd understanding is likely how mr. vought meant, but he did make ambiguous by removing taking theology outta the equation. question: is it appropriate to ask a devout catholic judge, who has public spoken 'bout immorality o' abortion, how she would have applied roe v. wade to specific past abortion cases? HA! Good Fun! In the parlance of christian thought "condemned" only has one meaning. The meaning I described. As to the question you posed it would be completely appropriate to ask said judge. Because unless she was on or a candidate for or on the Supreme Court the precedents are pretty clear. It would be a gage not of her religious ideals so much as a gage on how much she is willing to buck precedent, challenge the status quo, and risk successful appeals. you see only one meaning, but a strict denotative reading doesn't support such. vought himself distinguished from theology in his quote, so why should only the christian understanding be applied, particular by a jewish senator? clear folks in this thread alone were confused as to meaning and scope of "condemned." as to judges it would seems you see as wholly appropriate to question the impact religion would have on the fitness of an appointee to do their job. HA! Good Fun!

am preferring to watch rather than participate for the moment, but please observe your reading is based on assumption rather than what mr. vought said. listen again to the actual quote. mr. vought specific distinguished the condemnation of non christians from their "deficient theology." gd understanding is likely how mr. vought meant, but he did make ambiguous by removing taking theology outta the equation. question: is it appropriate to ask a devout catholic judge, who has public spoken 'bout immorality o' abortion, how she would have applied roe v. wade to specific past abortion cases? HA! Good Fun!

shortly thereafter, ms. huckabee apologized and blamed the tweet on her 3-year-old. not to sound ungracious, but by now am thinking there is no excuse for leaving your phone where the president might find it. HA! Good Fun!

am thinking we mighta' mentioned how we were raised by our grandparents, yes? little odd in retrospect. visited our father and mother one summer in chicago, shortly before moving in with them for high school education. with birthday money we bought two comics and an action figure. comics were black panther and power man. action figure were falcon w/redwing. our father seemed a bit perplexed by our choices, though he didn't actual comment. as an aside, are those shiny nipples on the black panther suit? could be an optical illusion. didn't recall marvel doing a schumacher on the black panther suit. HA! Good Fun!

particular bad news for the wh regarding the russia probe by special counsel mueller-- michael dreeben has been enlisted to aid in the investigation on a part-time basis. dreeben is The Guy regarding questions of criminal law. think of as being similar to doctors. you don't consult the country's leading oncologist 'cause all tests were negative for cancer. is kinda early in the process, but is possible the comey revelations necessitated consultation. HA! Good Fun!

many o' the original d&d icons fell on hard times in the 90s and beyond. david trampier being a widely publicized case. feels wrong to shrug of as the human condition. c'est la vie? no. just no.

gonna ignore the dozens o' other sources which is confident comey didn't do anything wrong by, as a private citizen, making non-classified info available to the public? *shrug* is no prez privilege preventing release. heck president never claimed privilege and 'cause he spoke public 'bout the meetings in question, chances o' such privilege being invoked after the fact is nonexistent. is kinda funny, but the fact comey let trump know he weren't being investigated likely helps comey regarding the memos. comey made clear the memos were his personal impressions o' non classified info which he felt compelled to craft 'cause o' personal (and ultimate validated) fear o' future underhandedness by the wh. if comey went home and wrote same memos in a personal diary there would be absolute no chance o' any kinda argument that his impressions o' meetings would be property o' the fbi. private citizen releases personal impressions o' non classified info. is not anything akin to endemic wh leaks problem where current members o' the executive is leaking info. if any wh staff member gets fired tomorrow and decides to write a tell-all book, the first amendment will protect such scribblings save for classified info. wouldn't be leaks at such a point 'cause is private citizens. duh. if trump's lawyers and serial defenders is reduced to distinguishing the memos as fbi property v. comey personal reflections, then they is in trouble. is more flimflammery. humorous part is IF comey were actual investigating trump for criminal, then the memos would strong arguable be part o' the ongoing investigation o' the president. would be difficulties release such memos to public. but again, no investigation... not that comey ever claimed he were investigating the president. is all red herring nonsense anyway. the meetings were inappropriate. the demand for loyalty were inappropriate. the attempt to get the fbi director to drop an investigation were wholly inappropriate. 'stead wanna argue over whether personal recollections written on a fbi laptop constitute fbi property? wod special prosecutor query makes him sound a bit like mccain. HA! Good Fun!