joyfulchristian

I hate insomnia

You know, these horrible hours are hard enough.  Now I can't sleep. Tomorrow's going to be FUN!  I'll be so glad when Oct. 15 gets here and I can rest!

I seem to remember hearing something about some storm thingies going on down FL way. How's that turning out I wonder?

I love my new job, but our late tax season was never this hectic before. Oh well.

Four score and seven years ago ...

And in other news, President Lincoln gave a stirring speech today to commorate ...

OK, so I haven't been out of it that long, it just seems like it.  It's just one of those fun tax accountant times of the year year.  We've been working like dogs with no end in site.

On the bright side, I was recently able to get the IRS to accept an election made by one of our clients that they'd previously denied. A little letter writing and some patient phone calling and, yay!, they changed their minds.  Today that client came in to meet with our managing tax partner.  The client was so impressed that he insisted on meeting me just to tell me how thankful he was.

So, it does have it's moments. :D 

Hope everyone's having a great week.

Bush is still President isn't he? Oh good. Just making sure it's still 2006.

Wow!

... and I mean Wow!

My certitude is admittedly personal. I believe I have justification and warrant for my beliefs and that if pressed, I could attempt to provide proof and evidence for these claims. The level of “proof” I could give, though, would not provide the same level of certitude that I have. Proof is rather limited in that regard. I couldn’t prove that Joe Carter exists much less that prove that he likes the color blue, that he had a crush on Christie Cozart in the 7th grade, or that he hates referring to himself in the third person.

While I can’t prove those things beyond a shadow of a doubt, I don’t doubt them at all. Similarly, my certainty in my faith isn’t based on what I can prove to other people or even, for that matter, what I can prove to myself.

[...]

Yet while I recognize that theological certainty does not make me a special brand of saint, it also doesn’t make me some perverse freak of faith. I shouldn’t feel a need to hang my head in shame because I don’t question the existence of God. I shouldn’t be asked to dismiss the experiences I’ve had with the Lord as if there is a possibility that they are not real. I shouldn’t have to lie and say that “I understand” when people say that are not sure that there is life after death.

I also don’t expect you to be ashamed if you feel differently. I won’t dismiss your questions or your hesitations. I won’t ask you to say you understand my faith if you don’t. I’ll respect your doubts and in return all I ask is that you be merciful to those of us who are certain.

Maybe it's just me, but this post helped me put some thoughts in a whole new light.

Somebody call Professor X

"Hybrid Mutant" Found Dead.

'Nuff said.

How do I know that Eddie Rabbit didn't have 3 dogs?

If he had, he wouldn't have loved a rainy night.

I'll just be up on my roof waiting

... because it must be that time.

I'm now teaching my third class for University of Phoenix.  I just finished grading my first set of papers where everyone actually wrote the paper they were supposed to be writing.  At first I was shocked that so many people disregard the instructions and grading rubrics. (Yes, I actually give them a chart that says you'll get so many points for doing A, so many for B, etc. and people IGNORE this information.)

Now I'm shocked when they pay attention.  I got jaded fast.

What day is it any way?

Our fall tax season has hit with a vengeance. We were already going to be busy this fall, then we picked up a huge return for a publicly traded company.  From what I'm seeing, it looks like that one return is going to constitute a 10% increase in workload for our tax department. It's due in a month and we're just now getting the info! Yay! ... or something.

Any way, I haven't been saying much because I have nothing to say because I don't know what's going on in the world. I'll try to change that, but we'll see.

Have a good day!

Updated IMAO terrorist FAQ

The new and improved terrorist FAQ:

Q. The Democrats say they have a better plan to handle the terrorists.  Should we elect them?
A. What's their plan?

Q. I dunno.  You're the answering guy.
A. Well, I'll check with the Democrat FAQ...
...
No, it doesn't know the plan either.

Q. Maybe it's a secret.
A. If it were a secret that would be effective against terrorists, it would be in the New York Times by now.

Priceless.

Says who

I always enjoy reading Joe Carter's Yak Shaving Razor posts.  You never know what you'll find out there. Today's post, though, reminded me of a pet peeve.

#599 Writer's Tips -- Activate your verbs. Strong verbs create action, save words, and reveal the players.

For as long as I can remember, the language police's (I'm not including Joe in that. He just happened to catch my eye) obsession with avoiding passive verbs has driven me crazy.  Look, I understand that using too many passive verbs make it sound like the action just happens, rather than being the direct result of the players involved, but to see many people's reactions you'd think that using any passive verbs at all is a horrible sin.

Look, we have passive verbs for a reason. Sometimes they best express the author's thoughts and that's perfectly OK.

I think so Brain

... but if Salmonella and I got married, what would the children look like.¹

So I've been laid up since Tuesday morning with what the doc claims is food poisoning. I don't know about that since my wife and daughter ate the exact same thing and didn't get sick. (Besides, it was the chicken fajita strips that come pre-cooked and I definitely heated them up properly, but who knows.)  I have absolutely no idea what's going on in the world.  Tuesday evening the doc gave me a shot that made me sleep all day Wednesday and that I'm still sore from.  Today, I didn't go to work, but through the miracles of remote access web servers was able to put in an 11 hour day to help me get back on track.

What's to come the next couple of days? Probably more 11 hour days! Woo-hoo!

Hope you're work's going better. Have a good day y'all! (Scroll down. You'll find the post immediately. Sorry, I couldn't find the link on the new site.

 

¹Don't ask. If you don't get the reference, you probably don't want to know.  It's an Animaniacs thing and you wouldn't understand.

10 week minimum waiting periods

... to see a GP.  Give me some of that old-time socialized medicine!

Heh

Nothing says “I’m a serious candidate with a solid set of priorities, backed by serious and thoughtful people ” like a mob of your fans wielding papier-mache puppet heads.

I agree, and then again I don't

Jonathan Adler has an interesting post on why he chose to specialize in environmental law:

On the other hand, because environmental concerns are ubiquitous, environmental law itself can pose a serious threat to individual liberty. Today, environmental protection is probably the only intellectually respectable basis for urging policies that amount to central planning. As I see it, the stakes are enormous on both sides, making this a challenging and important field, and one that is worth far more serious attention from those who generally prefer limited government.

I agree that those who value limited government and personal liberty eschew the field of environmental law at their own peril. Like it or not, this is where the fights are being waged and if we refuse to engage in the fight we cannot be heard.

Then he says something that always irks me:

For those who are curious, I caught the trout on a fly rod using flies with pinched barbs, and all fish were returned to the river properly so as to ensure their survival. I don't fish for trout any other way.

Well I do. Of course he doesn't elaborate on why he doesn't fish any other way, but most of the people I've come across who make a big deal about catch-and-release do so because they think they're being good to the fish or because it's better for the environment.  The latter argument is kinda hard to deal with one way or the other, but the former I find to be just awful. 

It's hard to imagine something more tramatic for a fish than being hooked through the mouth, jerked around, and yanked out of the water on a line and then having the hook pulled out of the mouth.  I just can't morally justify this action unless my intent is to eat the fish.  Performing these actions purely as a means of entertainment is unfathomable to me.

Again, I have no idea what Adler's specific motives are, but his statement reminded me of something that always rubs me raw.

Huh?

I'm still working on this:

RUSSIA slammed as "unlawful" Friday sanctions by the United States against seven Russian firms including the aircraft maker Sukhoi over their dealings with Iran.

Exactly what law are we violating here?

I would make that argument

Robert Clayton:

If someone attacks you with a knife, are you only allowed to use a knife to defend yourself, or can you pull your firearm and put them down with that? No one would say that a firearm is a 'disproportionate' response to a knife.

And that is because force is only disproportionate if it is (far) in excess of what is reasonably necessary to bring the aggression to a halt. A solid case can be made that, far from being disporportionate, the Israeli response has fallen far short of what they are entitled, and perhaps even obligated (to their citizenry) to exert.

If they're not doing everything necessary to stop the attacks, they're not doing enough.

No freedom in Cuba

... until Castro's dead.

I heard on the radio in Vegas that a Cuban restaurant there is offering a free mojito to anyone who walks in and asks, "Is he dead yet?" (sorry, Vegas drinkers, but I don't remember the name of the place).

I wish it weren't so, but the people of Cuba have no chance of freedom until Castro's dead.  Given what's going on in Cuba lately, that may have happened already.

How bizarre

We're, uh, not really sure what the crime is:

Hell hath no fury like a woman scorned — especially a woman scorned in the sack.

       

Husband not living up to your … ahem … conjugal expectations? What better way to renew the spark than a 911 call and a bedroom full of embarrassed policeman?

Probably not the best way to handle that problem.

Does Israel have the right to be a "Jewish" state

David Bernstein has a very interesting post about whether Israel has the "right" to be Jewish.

My correspondent was unaware of any other countries that have an overt ethnic identity, but, judging by immigration laws, there are quite a few, and with a few exceptions (Armenia and Germany), their discriminatory immigration policies exist, unlike Israel's, without any justification resulting from persecution of that group.

For example, according to Wikipedia: "Japanese citizenship is conferred jus sanguinis, and monolingual Japanese-speaking minorities often reside in Japan for generations under permanent residency status without acquiring citizenship in their country of birth." Why does Japan have the right to exist as a Japanese state? Has this question ever been asked? Ireland: "If you are of the third or subsequent generation born abroad to an Irish citizen (in other words, one of your grandparents is an Irish citizen but none of your parents was born in Ireland), you may be entitled to become an Irish citizen" [if, as I understand it, you register properly]. Does Ireland have the right to exist as an Irish state?

I think this is an excellent point.  Read the whole thing.

That's weird

Here are a few items for you:

■ (1) In July, former peace activist Christiaan Briggs, 30 (who had gone to Iraq in 2003 to protest the impending US attack), was arrested in Islington, England, and charged with knocking a man out (leaving him in a coma) in a fight after he allegedly hit on the man’s girlfriend. (2) The British watchdog Environmental Agency, which prosecutes pollution violators, was fined the equivalent of nearly $14,000 in May for allowing toxic waste to flow from its monitoring station along the River Exe in Somerset. (3) In July, municipal officials in Provincetown, Mass., held a community meeting to air numerous complaints by heterosexuals that they are targets of hate speech by the town’s large gay and lesbian population.

■ What Goes Around, Comes Around: Colin Watson, 63, one of Britain’s most notorious illegal collectors of rare bird eggs (having been convicted six times and having had nearly his entire collection confiscated by the government), fell to his death in May from a tree he had climbed in south Yorkshire to check out a nest.

And this one's priceless:

■ In June, the Ministry of Higher Education of Saudi Arabia (home of 15 of the 19 Sept. 11 hijackers), along with the country’s civil aviation authority, jointly announced scholarships for Saudi men and women for bachelor’s and graduate-school study in the United States in such fields as “air traffic control,” “flight safety” and “other majors related to the airline transport industry.”

We'll never learn, will we?

Sue them back

Wendy McElroy has some interesting news:

What would you do if a lawyer threatened, "Give me a million dollars or my client and I will publicly brand you as a rapist and destroy your life?"

       

On July 27, the California Supreme Court expanded the range of choices possible to one man who was presented with that threat.

     

The dance phenomenon Michael Flatley of Riverdance fame can proceed not only with a lawsuit for defamation against his accuser but also with one for extortion against her lawyer.

It's a very interesting story, but it's even more interesting as potential precedent.  If lawyers can be sued for extortive tactics, isn't this better for everyone?

The Dark Knight Detective

Heath Ledger has signed to play the Joker in the next Batman movie.  I've got to admit that I have my doubts. How could anyone compare to Nicholson's Joker?

Has Arnold read the Constitution?

Via Daily Pundit:

Tony Blair yesterday sidestepped the Bush administration's refusal to act on climate change by signing what was hailed as a ground-breaking agreement with California, the world's 12th largest carbon emitter, to fight global warming.

Bill Quick is pissed for other reasons.  I'm pissed because I'm having trouble squaring it with the Constitution:

No state shall enter into any treaty, alliance, or confederation; grant letters of marque and reprisal; coin money; emit bills of credit; make anything but gold and silver coin a tender in payment of debts; pass any bill of attainder, ex post facto law, or law impairing the obligation of contracts, or grant any title of nobility.

 

No state shall, without the consent of the Congress, lay any imposts or duties on imports or exports, except what may be absolutely necessary for executing it's inspection laws: and the net produce of all duties and imposts, laid by any state on imports or exports, shall be for the use of the treasury of the United States; and all such laws shall be subject to the revision and control of the Congress.

 

No state shall, without the consent of Congress, lay any duty of tonnage, keep troops, or ships of war in time of peace, enter into any agreement or compact with another state, or with a foreign power, or engage in war, unless actually invaded, or in such imminent danger as will not admit of delay.

Umm ... Am I missing something, or this an unconstitutional breach of state authority?  If I'm reading this right, I assume the Supreme Court would invalidate this compact, but does the federal government have an recourse against a governor who signs deals like this?