Bill's Notes

I had a good day and a good evening. So why am I thinking about loss? I dunno. Probably not grateful enough. There. Gratitude. That's the difference. Gratitude improves the mood. There is much for which to be grateful. Thanks, God, for everything and everyone in my life. I'm sorry for complaining so much about existence, when you know the alternative would be nonexistence. And nonexistence would just be silly. I have no idea where I was going with this.

I'm a little punchy. But a good day. Hope you all have a good weekend. I'm not promising dog pictures, but I'll try.

I blogged quite a big on the gay "marriage" issue. One reason I've stopped was: (1) fatique,and (2) it wasn't doing any good. I was equally displeased with the methods being employed.

Anyway, my readers here know that I'm a bit outspoken on the subject ... although I've tried to express with nuance and sophistication :), my argument boils down to "you got to be effing kidding me." No need to harp on that argument.

Another thing that happened as a result of this discussion is I've collected two frequent commenters who are pro-gay "marriage", and I believe, gay. Now, being the readership whore good blog host that I am, I don't want to offend my guests on this blog because they are, after all, welcome here.

So anyway, one of them has prodded me with the gay marriage issue with this story.

[By the way I am on a serious deadline crunch and I really have to get back to work. I've already written three stories today and I have to write four more. So I have to make this brief.]

My initial reaction: 'Bout time. And this is one occasion where I like the method better than the cause. I've thought it long past time to rein in the judicial system, which has been out of control for about 40 years. The Commerce Clause was severely dilated and, after fertilization from a variety of leftist causes, given birth to a massively expanded federal government. [Yes, I am being a smartass when I strain metaphors like that.]

Anyway, I'd love to see Congress limit the federal judiciary's jurisdiction on most social issues. Most things that we can call "value judgments" -- that is, a tough call where there is likely to be persistent disagreement among people with differing values -- out to be settled in the legislature.

[Note: You need to differentiate legitimate discrimination issues from your value judgment claim -- good luck. Response: Not before deadline, I'm not. I have about another 20 seconds to put on this entry.]

Applying the idea of limiting jurisdiction to SS'M', I don't know. I know I never bought the state rights issue from the pro-gay "marriage" crowd. If you're married in one state, you're married in every state.

I also don't like side effects solutions very much. That is, if we're gonna resolve a problem, let's resolve a problem. We don't need to pretend we're doing something else. That's why I was against federal rules limiting what doctors can counsel their patients about on abortion. Hey, if we're gonna deal with abortion, let's deal with abortion. Let's not interfere with doctors or limit their practices and speech.

Anyway, that's longer than 20 seconds, and I gotta go, but my quick take. Jurisdiction limitation, good; is gay "marriage" a federal question -- I don't know.

I got a co-worker staying in my apartment, temporarily. He's moved up from Alabama and needs a place until he finds his own, or until he can take over mine when I buy my house (another three weeks).

Problem: 'Bama Dude doesn't lock the doors at night. This morning, the door was not only unlocked, but was open when I went to leave this morning. Clearly, the door had been open all night.

Not cool. My plan of action is to explain the seriousness of this in the Northeast, and that since it's my stuff in the apartment, it's my stuff at risk. Plus, I don't like the idea of anyone being able to come in an night and murder me in my sleep. Then tell him if he does it again he's gone.

What do y'all think?

Chris pointed out that I should've posted dog pictures when I wrote this post.

Next time, I'll try to get some.

You oughta see the greyhound. He looks like the alien from the Alien movies. Except he's a really wimpy alien. With a sensitive stomach. And a tendency to nap so long that the cat calls him lazy.

What is the difference between anomie and ennui? Do we really need two words?

Michelle Malkin's starting a blog was a brilliant move. And so has been her execution of it.

Malkin has not presumed herself above other bloggers because she's a professional, nationally known journalist. She has instead chosen to engage the blogosphere as is, engaging in dialogue with regular bloggers as well as linking to them. And she's managed to do so while maintaining her professional demeanor.

The implications of this are fascinating, if a little obvious. Now, being a journalist is just a matter of starting a blog and then doing reporting. Other journalists will pay attention if they trust your reporting, and send you traffic.

We had a discussion a while back at Dean's World, where Dean asked, "What's a journalist?" He insisted he was a journalist based on the work he did on his Web site.

I disagreed, and said journalists are people who can get press credentials. It seemed the best way to cut through a potential philosophical debate about journalistic professionalism, readership, story quality and the like.
Now, with bloggers getting press credentials at the political conventions, we're seeing a massive democratization and meritocratization of the journalism industry. Bloggers are now journalists! They get to eat free in the press room.

You can call it a paradigm shift if you like, but that's so, I don't know, 1990s. Still, it's a paradigm shift.

And Michelle Malkin gets it. We're seeing temporary alliances on the blogosphere to track down stories ... much as a group of reporters would collaborate on a story in a newsroom. But now the newsroom is in cyberspace, and the reporters don't know each other.

[As an aside, this also proves my theory from back in the day that any person who is literate and capable of using a phone can be a journalist ... you don't need a degree, or two, to do it. You just need to be able to ask questions and remember the answers.]

Despite the paradigm shift, the oldest rule of journalism still applies: Credibility matters. You can be funny and irreverent, but at the end of the day, if you're going to matter on the blogosphere, your readers have to trust your work.

Michelle Malkin shows a deft touch while making an compelling point about the terrorist "dry runs" some passengers are reporting"

Bottom line: I will not be lulled by the fashionable apathy of the blind. And I will not be cowed by the politically correct protestations of the dumb.

Check it out.

The google searcher for "whores in iceland" will find no help here. And I can't imagine how you found your way to IndustrialBlog. But good luck. I think.