California's Supreme Court today struck down yet another of California's Initiatively-based Laws, and a related preceding Legislative law. These laws, restricting the definition of "marriage" to apply strictly to monogamous heterosexual (or, "inter-sexual") couples,  were judged to be unconstitutional.

Unconstitutional? Yup:


One wonders, if one is like me, why the state needed a voter-approved law defining "marriage" in 2000, if there was already a law on the books from 1977. One would wonder, but be a little under-motivated to look into it just now.Journalism is now all about one's point-of-view. Are they laws defining marriage to support the concept of inter-sexual marriage as unique and worth preserving, or are they laws "against same-sex marriage?"

Note that (1) by "our state," the justices meant "four of us," and (2) note that, in our state homosexuals can already have loving, long-term committed relationships and care for and raise children. I work with some who do all those things.

We all must come to understand this idea — must, or we will soon be dismissed as Puritanical (look up the Puritans someday) and intractably dim: There is nothing special about the relationship formed between a man and a woman who make a firm commitment to be faithful to one another for life, and to have children with each other.

Nothing at all. Nothing unique; nothing to be preserved or encouraged.

All loves are the same, if we are to think Progressively. As long as one's love is based in lovely love that is all that matters:

"Essentially, this boils down to love. We love each other. We now have equal rights under the law," declared a jubilant Robin Tyler, a plaintiff in the case along with her partner. ...

***

In other news, I note that the California Supreme Court will soon decide on some related cases in the coming weeks, which may strengthen their decision's impact:

(1)     In The State of California Vs. Glassman, the Court is expected to rule that all California laws treating "gastro-intestinal tracts" and "reproductive organs" as essentially different in character and function are unconstitutional. In addition to legislation, the Court may extend their decision to apply also to any biological laws discriminating between the two systems. The over-under in Vegas is currently 4-3, as in the decision released today.

(2)     In Willis Vs. Clark, the Court will entertain arguments as to whether the system of Mutation and Natural Selection is unconstitutional owing to "the inevitable foundation of discrimination" underlying the system.

(3)     Come June, in Zachary Vs. All, the Court will deliberate over whether or not the definition of "African American" should be enlarged to include any person or persons "originating in the Olduvai Gorge" area of Africa. This could have significant impacts on everything from the next Presidential election to the history of jazz.

(4)     The Court looks forward, in Plessy Vs. Greenpeace, to taking up the matter of the treatment of threatened and endangered species in the state. Essentially, the central argument is rumored to be  that specialized laws protecting and preserving some kinds of animals and plants are necessarily discriminatory and therefore deny such care to other, non-threatened species. Unconstitutional? You betcha, hope the plaintiffs.

(5)     Finally, Chief Justice George notes that "we'll finally get a crack at [those pesky] Separation clauses" and determine if certain or even all laws outlined in all major religions, proscribing licentiousness, drunkenness, selfishness, pride, and other sorts "life-affirming" behaviors and attitudes, are discriminatory in any way against such behaviors, and hence — you guessed it — unconstitutional.

Stay tuned! It looks like it's going to be a banner year for those on both sides of the "discrimination" argument!

        

  

        

via The Codger, through Michelle Malkin, comes an entertaining little math problem that is actually solvable.

All you have to know is that a positive integer is a counting number, like 1, 2 or 3, etc.

My time, given a pen and scratch paper, was 23-24 seconds.

        

Okay; so the Big 47 rolls around to remind me passingly of my mortaliticiousness... a few days later, I will subconsciously try to deny said mortality by sliding into second base during a pick-up sandlot game with my high school varsity kids.

Hah! I can still slide properly, even after 30-plus years of not sliding. I got dirt on my leggings, and my knee is still in place. Take that, O Death!

Still and all, it is always proper to conduct a fearless self-inventory every now and again — it's like Quality Control for the soul.

Make a list of improvements, like a list of debts, and attack the big ones first.

So, okay, again — I guess I'll use the Old Standard, the 10 Commandments, as a starting-off point. I'm generally considered a fine, hail-well-met kind of guy.

Lessee, here... er... #1. Ah; here it is:


...

Uh, oh.

...

On the plus side, at least I don't have to look too hard for ways to improve myself!

        

Got away to L.A. — ditched, really — with Dr. Bob to see a coupla films in a double-feature of our own design: Iron Man (two thumbs up) and The Forbidden Kingdom (two thumbs up, if you have an affection for chop-socky movies from the 60's-80's).

The upshot? This "LITTLE SCENE"* from the wonderful RadioLab podcast — required listening for Cogito:



** UPDATE **

RATS! The link doesn't work; the audio is available at the very end of the "Pop Music" episode of RadioLab...

In the Meantime? We should have a YouTube GRUDGEMATCH!!!1!:



and then there's


* "You want a Little Scene?! Here's a LITTLE SCENE!" — Larry "Seymour" Vincent

        

One hundred years ago, on this date in 1908, baseball's unofficial anthem "Take Me Out to the Ballgame" premiered. It instantly became one of the biggest sellers of that year, in both sheet music and on piano rolls.

One thing I never knew: The song as we know it today is merely the chorus of a two-stanza song. Imagine that. Here are the original lyrics, and here's a recording of a guy singing it on an Edison phonograph cylinder.

Here are the Detroit Tigers in 1908:





Oh yeah, and it's Wrymouth's birthday today. Happy Day, my brother!

        

Dr. B., over at Stravaigin Aboot, has finished up an epic three-part post ( part 1, part 2, part 3) on our Best Day in England (Tuesday).  It's nice to have her post, because I can link to them from here and call it fresh material.

Tuesday included the Legal bits of Fleet Street, then turned into the first leg of our informal "Church Crawl" through London and Scotland, THEN turned into a Night At The Opera, THEN late night Indian food.

The Best Day Ever.

Her writing is zippy, and all the pictures enlarge when you click on them, allowing one to peruse the details. Check it out!

        

Quite a few years ago, I received a very thoughtful Christmas gift from Dr. Bob and Wrymouth consisting of about a half dozen mysteries by Dennis Lehane.  I read them all, and loved them. As a result, Lehane is my co-favorite crime writer, joining Michael Connelly and Carl Hiaasen in that rarefied circle.

This movie is based on his fourth novel, which I am going to have to read again. Despite my inability to remember the intricacies of the plot, the adaptation by Ben Affleck is spot on as far as tenor and tone: The opening montage of Dorchester, the casting, direction, plot, everything was right on. The story line is difficult, centering as it does around the kidnapping and possible abuse of a four-year-old girl. Yet Affleck skillfully interplays a combination of moral certitude and moral ambiguity in the characters that is fascinating to watch. 

I'm a big Coen Brothers fan, and liked 'No Country for Old Men' quite a bit; but this movie is the better picture.

My only quibble - I'm glad I saw it on DVD because I had to stop and rewind many times because I couldn't understand the Baastin accents the first time around.   

        

Via geeeeZ!; an old chestnut...<< MORE >>

Now, where did I put those chicken stem cells? I think I'm keeping them in that carton of eggs in the fridge ...<< MORE >>