Search History:

The records of AOL customer No. 16006693

-via Slate.com


Who IS this???  I hope it's not a neighbor of mine.

powered by performancing firefox

Celebrate Your Freedom to Read

Saw this on Lifehacker.com, this morning, and now am obligated to spread the word: It's Banned Books Week all this week (Sept. 23rd - 30th), so go read the things other people don't want you reading.

Top 10 Super Foods for Health, Eating Well and Nutrition : Get Healthy : Food Network: "A hectic lifestyle makes it easy to skip a meal or just grab less-than-nutritious food on the run. But a busy day doesn’t have to stand in the way of great health. A multivitamin is great insurance for days when you do miss a meal or two, but real food should always be your primary source of nutrients. Keep these 10 foods on hand at all times, and you'll be able to whip up a delicious meal or snack that will keep your energy up and your immune system strong."

AIM bot creates "fight combos" to spread

Yuck! Because this bot/virus/malware program installs itself in several different layers, it's going to be really, really hard to remove! And if you're using AIM on a company-provided PC, this sounds like an excellent avenue to vent your company's private data to the people you LEAST want to have it! I don't mention private data just because it goes w/o saying (until I say it, I guess) that's always at risk with something like this.

No, not the "Eavesdropping" headline, head-spinner as that issue may be, but why are they writing and debating and voting for a law legalizing torture that is already constitutionally prohibited, and that they can't put into practice??? Sure, I understand it's an election year and the Rebulicans would rather appear to be jingoistic suicide-legislators who don't give a damn about how our soldiers and neighbors and friends are treated when captured by the enemy, than to appear "Soft on Terror", but is that really what this is all about? Could they really be thinking that when our soldiers are captured and gleefully tortured, that they'll be able to capitalize on their neighbor's painful deaths to do something, they don't know what yet but it's bound to be useful, due to Americans' outrage and brutally short memories as to who authorized the treatment of prisoners that way?

You'd think that professional legislators would at least have a PostIt with them outlining the US Constitution, which provides them the power to legislate and the rules on what they can legislate. Take, for instance, the following clause from Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution appears to elevate "all Treaties" to its own level, here, doesn't it? It seems pretty plain, to me. I don't think this is a complex issue.

No, not the "Eavesdropping" headline, head-spinner as that issue may be, but why are they writing and debating and voting for a law legalizing torture that is already constitutionally prohibited, and that they can't put into practice??? Sure, I understand it's an election year and the Rebulicans would rather appear to be jingoistic suicide-legislators who don't give a damn about how our soldiers and neighbors and friends are treated when captured by the enemy, than to appear "Soft on Terror", but is that really what this is all about? Could they really be thinking that when our soldiers are captured and gleefully tortured, that they'll be able to capitalize on their neighbor's painful deaths to do something, they don't know what yet but it's bound to be useful, due to Americans' outrage and brutally short memories as to who authorized the treatment of prisoners that way?

You'd think that professional legislators would at least have a PostIt with them outlining the US Constitution, which provides them the power to legislate and the rules on what they can legislate. Take, for instance, the following clause from Article VI:

This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in
Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the
Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the
Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or
Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.

The Constitution appears to elevate "all Treaties" to its own level, here, doesn't it? It seems pretty plain, to me. I don't think this is a complex issue.

Of course I slept terribly the night before the 1st day of my new job.  It was 100% excitement, tho, not a bit of apprehension.  I tried working myself up into a nervous twitter, but just couldn't do it; I just felt like a twit, instead. 

Huh huh.  I crack me up, sometimes!

so, you might remember that I've got a 90 minute commute, each way, which means I had just pulled on to St. Helens Rd. As the sun was coming up over the Columbia River Slough, and apart from my wife, was the most beautiful scene to touch my eyes in years.  Unbelievably beautiful.




-Charlie