There is an interesting article from the New Yorker in the news section that was linked to by Artappraiser. For the purposes of this rant I will only refer to the introduction and not the document the article presents.

Most people in this country have taken a side in the controversy surrounding the arguably "legal" shooting of Trevon Martin. Everyone I have read here believes that his killing was an appalling injustice, and if the killers actions are protected by law then it is bad law which should be changed. Significantly, we are all speaking out, all venting our outrage, all feeling righteous in our conviction that this is the sort of wrong towards a specific human being which is brought about by the feelings of some, too many, against a class of human beings. The Americans who justify such action are heartless, twisted, racists. So, most everyone here can comfortably blame the other side in our national politics for their attitudes that created the situation which ended in tragic death of a human being who had as much right to walk the planet eating skittles as do any of us. We can blame the other political side because we see the error in their thinking, in their attitudes, and in their solutions. We know better, and we wouldn't allow those things if it was up to us, if it was in our ability to stop or prevent them. Yes, but we, we must speak up, we must demonstrate our outrage. There are lives in the balance. We must make our conscience a comfortable place to rest.

If I were a member of the Supreme Court I'd be a bit embarrassed at how easy it is to predict Supreme Court rulings knowing only a few elementary political facts.

I expect a 5-4 ruling and I expect it to break down along political lines. It shows me this, the Supreme Court is only there to support certain ideology, making this less about the Constitution and more about what it is to hold power for more than 30 years.  This, whether the members of the court care or not this is the problem. They've become, based on Bush v. Gore merely an arbiter that always errs on the side of promoting the political ideology of one side or another. Imagine if  Brown v. Board of Education, Bolling v. Sharpe, Cooper v. Aaron, Gomillion v. Lightfoot, Griffin v. County School Board, Green v. School Board of New Kent County, Lucy v. Adams, Loving v. Virginia had been left for this court to decide, shit, we be where South Africa was in the 1980's in terms of civil rights. We'd be the largest segregated nation on earth!

Well, let's get past the rant, let's talk about Anthony Kennedy.

Just as the Democrats dodged a bullet when John Edwards' primary fortunes went south, soon followed by his reputation for probity, so too did the French Socialist Party, (hopefully to be the party of the new president after Francois Hollande opens a can of run-off whup-fesses on Nicolas Sarkozy), when Strauss-Kahn availed himself of something from the in-room hospitality bar at Sofitel.

Had his career not cratered here in New York, he would have been just about to enter the lists against Sarkozy (who may have outsmarted himself, if indeed, he was the author of DSK's ensnarement in the attempted rape contretemps) when his frolic at a bunch of run-of-the-mill orgies in Lille resulted in the current charges that he did more than wave his flagpole, but actually flew the pimp flag itself.

I have two sons, they are 25 and 21. They are not black. They are tall, 6'3 and 6'4, dirty blond hair, one has a crew cut, one's hair a tiny bit longer, one with hazel eyes and one with sea green eyes.

Last year I arrived home from my yearly trip to Manila. I went alone in 2011 and spent time with my parents. I arrived home February 21, 2011. The next day I was beat, jet lag, everything that goes with the trip home. I asked my son, who was 20 at that time, if I gave him a list and some money would he do some shopping for me, I was much too tired to be driving to the store let alone trying to shop. As usual, as he is a sweet boy err ummm man he said, sure mom.

He brought home the 2 gallons of organic milk, jazz apples, veggies and salad. It was a small list, not much. He got home, and he I said thanks and he went back to the basement.

I recently spent some time driving across a good portion of this fine country and as one might expect I saw a number of maneuvers on our nation's highways that would lead one to conclude we are a nation of idiots.  Or at least a nation that has a good number of idiots.  Actually I would have more choice words for these folks.  And one of the most glaring examples I experienced occurred on I-15 between Salt Lake and Provo, which is currently under serious construction.

Like most of these incidents of idiocy, the I-15 idiocy revolved around a group of cars wanting to go faster than another group of cars.  The latter group, of which I belong, is usually attempting to drive at or near the speed limit, whereas the former group is seeking to move down the road at speeds 10, 15 or 20 miles per hour faster than the posted limit.

A coffin shop in Macau

Media Matters informs that Limbaugh's radio show has lost 98 advertisers over the last few weeks.

Limbaugh insists that he has thousands of advertisers who request some advertising during his show hoping to reach his premium audiences.

And some of these new advertisers specifically focus on certain listeners that relate to the subject Limbaugh has been referring to prior to the ad breaks:

"Those aren't the words I would have used."

Wait, what? Yes that was Romney's response to a reporter when asked about the Limbaugh controversy. Really Mitt? I say those are Weasel Words!  Mitt don't you understand that saying that is worse than not saying anything at all! Dude seriously. Basically Mitt, you seem to be saying that you fundamentally agree with Rush, Inevitable Mitt is an inevitably weak candidate.