Yes, the same Brett Favre who was traded to the New York Jets YESTERDAY.

Uh, hello advertising numnuts at Best Buy: spend 15 minutes finding a new picture for your email campaign.

Are you kidding me?

This is supposed to teach his kids limits? Obama says that because he spends money on slumber parties he does not need to give birthday gifts. He lets other kids and families pay for the gifts. Sounds familiar. As Ronald Reagan would say, Democrats are always liberal when it comes to other people’s money.

Obama is a cheap scrooge when it comes to his money, but has no problem with other people spending money on his kids.

Brian Kindsvater snarfed 6 ice cream cones, including a double cone, all different flavors, in 45 minutes at the Sacramento Zoo Safari.

Earlier in the day Brian had another ice cream cone and three icees

Afterwards, he was looking happy, but a little green.

For autographs, Mr. Kindsvater can be found this next week at the local gym.

Hillary had a theme a month. Reminded me of Bill Clinton deciding policy based on poll results.

Poor understanding of basic principles. Barack knew the nomination was won by how many delegates are received - not how many large states one wins. Hillary could never overcome her conceding mass numbers of delegates decided in caucus states. Wow, she won a big state a through proportional voting and picked up an extra 10 delegates. She then threw in the towel in small caucus states and lost by huge numbers, such as 15 delegates. The overall delegate net - a loss of 5.

Huge financial deficit and poor money management by the Clinton campaign.

—

Does this implicitly conclude that Obama will be the next President instead of McCain. Yep. While the election in this closely divided red / blue country could be otherwise decided, I expect that Obama will win in a landslide. The public is very unhappy, as they were with Carter and the Democrats when they swept Ronald Reagan and numerous Republicans (McCain) into office.

Unfortunately, we don’t seem to get the best of talent for the most important position in the world, although I believe much of the problem is related to how a leader is selected. And due to the increasingly bitter divide between the parties which results in each party doing whatever it can to tear down the other party, without regard for what is best for the county. This results in amazing hypocrisies and enormous amounts of wasted time, money, and energy.

So here is a list - from Best to Worst:

Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton
George Bush (41)
Gerald Ford
George W. Bush (43)
Jimmy Carter

The list even surprised myself. Here is another list:

Superb Presidents:

Ronald Reagan

That is a short list!

Or how about productive Presidents:

Ronald Reagan
Richard Nixon
Bill Clinton

Interesting that I would put two crooks on this list: Nixon and Clinton. One who abdicated office and another who should have.

The reason is that setting aside their self-absorbed or criminal tendencies, did they have foreign and economic policies that helped the country? I think Nixon does better over time, or maybe just better what we have had in recent years. Clinton. Not that I think highly of him, but he did not go off the liberal deep end, the economy was in fine shape, and he actually had a surplus. All of which looks better and better the further we get into the current Bush presidency.

Caretaker Presidents who didn’t do much of anything:

George Bush (41)
Gerald Ford

Disasters:

George W. Bush (43)
Jimmy Carter

Bush is pushing Carter for that last slot, but Carter’s recent support of middle east terrorists reminds us of how absurd this former peanut farmer is.

The majority opinion clocks in at about 120 pages, which is going to take a long time to digest, consider, and properly evaluate. But a few items quickly jumped out:

First, the Supreme Court seems to heavily rely upon the analysis that since the legislature has recently expanded the statutory rights of domestic partners so that they are now tantamount to the rights of married couples (taxes are one notable exception), such that in substance a marriage and domestic partnership are the same, this creates a constitutional problem by not giving domestic partners full marriage rights.

There is a footnote noting that without a domestic partnership law the ruling by the court could have been different in various respects.

That analysis is significant. I predict that it will have unintended consequences in the years and decades ahead in a number of cases and situations not contemplated by the court.

It is hard to imagine that the legislature is able to overturn a voter initiative stating marriage is only between a man and woman, and create a situation where over 150 years of statutes and legal precedent are unconstitutional, by passing a new law.

Second, the court gives short thrift to an argument that the California constitution does not state that marriage is between a man and woman.

Initially, the court notes that the California constitution does not explicitly define marriage as being only between a man and a woman.

That is because some things were considered so basic and obvious that a definition was not required!

The court concedes elsewhere in its opinion that historically marriage has always been considered to only exist between a man and a woman. To assert that since a basic and universal understanding is not specifically spelled out, it thus does not exist in the constitution, is intellectually demeaning and contrary common sense.

As noted in footnote 69 (ironic for a sex-based case), the court notes California constitutional provisions used to specifically refer to a husband and a wife. Changes to the language were not intended to change the core reference point, nor was that asserted by any party.

However, the court said briefly, without authority or explanation, that over the years the legislature has affected numerous changes to the “institution of marriage” as it existed at old common law. Therefore, there really is no definition of marriage, and the “statutory” definition of a man and woman is unconstitutional.

I strongly disagree with the reasoning. While there have been legislative changes within the construct of marriage, such as clearly equating the rights of the man and the woman, the “institution of marriage” has not changed. It has always been between a man and a woman. Changing policies and laws within the construct of what marriage is considered to be is not same as changing the construct so that it has no constitutional meaning.

In my opinion, the court should have ruled that the concept of marriage is, and always has, been meant to be between a man and woman. This is true constitutionally, as reflected in the language of the original constitutional, in prior court opinions interpreting the constitution and statutes which referred to a man and woman, and in the interpretation of those drafting the constitutional terms.

Then, the court would have ruled that same sex marriage is not allowed in California unless the constitution is changed.

In my opinion, that is the better way for the issue to be resolved. For the legislature and/or the public to effect a change. Not a 1-margin vote by a court.

Also, it should not take over a 100 pages to justify a position.

On the other hand, the court’s analysis to racial issues, such as the former statutory prohibition in California against inter-racial marriage is persuasive, thought provoking, and will undoubtedly be pointed to analytically in the future. On the federal level, it took the courts to end eliminate various types of racial discrimination - discrimination that neither the legislatures nor the public majority would have ended.

Still, it seems that all too often important constitutional decisions are made by chance - the US Supreme Court comes to mind. Opinions are tightly split by just one vote. The decisive one vote depends on which political party has had the opportunity to appoint the judge. If Democrats have happened to appoint a majority of the judges the constitutional ruling swings one way. But, if by happenstance Republicans have appointed a majority of judges when the decision is to be made, the constitutional ruling swings the other way. It is so unsatisfying to see important, one-vote decisions.

It is interesting that the court tries to diminish the impact of rulings in many other courts reaching contrary decisions, noting that they were often by one-vote majorities. Ironically, this is just a one-vote decision.

In California, a majority vote by the legislature or public is insufficient to change the constitution. But it is sufficient for the court.

Finally, the mess. United States federal law clearly states that marriage is only between a man and woman, which the California Supreme Court notes. This means a same-sex marriage in California will apply one set of laws to the couple, but federal law will apply other laws. Taxes, benefits, etc., will be nothing short of a mess. While it is true that California law in many respects, such as the tax code, does not currently track federal law completely, it is close, and does not create anything near the practical mess this ruling will create for many persons.

This is obviously not a factor for a court in deciding a state constitutional issue. But a whole new cottage industry for lawyers will be created to deal with this.

It should also be noted that the court differentiated between government sanctioned marriage and religious marriage. This is interesting, especially since (I believe) most marriages involve a religious component and not simply paying a fee with the county. I always considered the marriage to commence when the couple said “I do” before a priest, further reflection indicates this is not necessarily what the government requires.

A couple can be married in the eyes of the law, but not married in their religion, and vice-versa. Can a church refuse benefits / services to a same-sex married couple that it provides to a traditional couple per its religious beliefs? Expect some interesting twists and litigation on this issue.

Naturally, my bank had switched its cards from the Visa to the Mastercard program.

So I complained to SMUD, noting their motto “The Power to Do More” and its apparent inapplicability to offering “more” payment options for its customers.

Of course that meant I started mailing in payments that SMUD had to hire someone to manually process and bank. And complained again.

What do you know? SMUD now offers both Visa and Mastercard payment options. I won’t be so bold as to assume it was just because of my complaints, but I wonder who the corporate schlub was who decided to limit options, probably in return for a good deal from Visa, that in return irritated untold numbers of customers and forced SMUD to spend money, manpower, and time manually processing checks.

At least they didn’t try to impose a “convenience” fee for online transactions. That is one of the dumber company policies I have seen elsewhere. How about offering online payments for free, so your company doesn’t have to deal with checks, banking, returned checks, etc. - and making your customers happy?

As usual, the story about “race” is about white voters not voting for Obama because he is black.

As usual, there is nothing in the story about black voters voting for Obama because he is black.

20% of whites is a story, but 95% of blacks is not?

Although the percentage for whites is a negative vote - voting against someone because of their skin color, whereas the percentage of blacks is a positive vote - voting for someone because of their skin color (there are lots of reasons to vote against Hillary, but I haven’t heard that her race is one of them) - the key point of the ABC article was “racially motivated voting.”

It doesn’t matter whether the vote is for, or against, due to race. It is still racially motivated.

Of course, it can be said that the black community is voting ‘for one of their own’ - similar to how Mitt Romney garnered virtually all of the LDS vote. That had a similar parallel, with stories about how many people were negative voting against Romney due to his religion, with the LDS vote being a given and a non-story.

But it shouldn’t be a non-story.

Is it appropriate to vote for someone because of race, religion, etc., but not appropriate to vote against someone for the same reason?

I don’t think so. If the goal is to eliminate discrimination, which is shorthand for eliminating decision-making based upon a classification deemed irrelevant and improper, then all discrimination should be eliminated. It is a two-way street, not a one-way path to further division.

While there is an argument to be made about history, trend-setting, and other similar reasons to vote for Obama, they still boil down to arguments based on his race and what it means for someone of a certain classification to be President.

And that is the rub, especially in a Presidential election where the President is supposed to represent all Americans. Not just whites and not just blacks.

Maybe a better story is that racism in American politics has been reduced, but there is still a way to go. In only two states have at least 1 in 5 white voters indicated that race plays a decision in the voting booth. While blacks are still voting as a racial block, the overall percentage of Americans factoring race into politics is lower than in previous elections.

ABC, and a herd of other “reporters” have missed that story.

California law requires employers to reimburse their employees for all work related expenses. For auto expenses, the IRS mileage rate is often conveniently used.

However, the law requires reimbursement of all expenses - not just gas. As gas prices rise, the cost of gas, plus the general cost of operating a vehicle, can exceed the amount provided by the IRS mileage rate.

Many, many employers do not know this, and are liable to look cross-eyed at an employee claiming more than the IRS mileage rate due to high gas prices, plus oil, insurance, and other expenses. But if they don’t properly pay, or retaliate against the employee, the repercussions can be severe.