October never looked so good

The countdown to Oct. 5 now begins.
Very sad to see Darren go, though.

The '80s rock

This Saturday, my little brother and his '80s cover band, semi-productive, will be rockin' the stage at the 9th annual Toxic Bash in Saint Clair Shores.
If you have the chance to get out there, I hear it's an awesome time. Bands play all day at several houses in an outdoor venue.
Check out these pictures from last year's Bash.
How fun does this sound?

Do you remember much about junior high?

I know. It was, like, 100 years ago, but stick with me.
If you're anything like me, you weren't one of the popular kids in school. Don't get me wrong, I wasn't a freak, Goth, nerd, jock, prep or anything else. I was just me, but that was my thing. I didn't fit in with any one clique, so I wasn't really a part of a social sub-group smaller than the 150 kids in my class.
Anyway, the point here: Remember the first time you were invited to party at a popular kid's house, and all the other popular kids were there? You walked in, and the popular kids were actually talking to you. You could feel your internal popular-ometer going into the red, and you felt like your chest was visibly pulsing.
Do you remember that fluttery, first-kiss feeling you got when -- even for a moment -- you were one of the popular kids?
If you do, than you know exactly what I'm feeling right now. I blogged a couple days ago about Nickerblog, and I got an e-mail from Shane Nickerson yesterday.
I have spent the last couple of hours reading several blogs, including Nickerblog, and I bumped into Wil Wheaton's Web site. The same friend that turned me onto Nickerblog gave me the lead on Wil's site, but I had to see it for myself.
For those of you doing the same thing I did -- "Wil Wheaton... Why do I know that name?" -- let me tell you, you know it for a good reason.
Wil was Gordie Lachance in Rob Reiner's 1986 film, Stand by Me with River Phoenix, Corey Feldman, Jerry O'Connell, Kiefer Sutherland, John Cusack and Richard Dreyfuss.

"I am acting my age. I'm in the prime of my youth and I'll only be young once."

"Yeah, but you're gonna be stupid for the rest of your life."

That is one of my all-time favorite movies. In fact, every time I pass a strange dog and it barks at me, I still say aloud, "Chopper, sic balls!"
This is a junior-high-party-with-the-popular-kids-moment.
I wonder if any of the guys in the movie have kept in touch (with the obvious exception of River Phoenix)?

And Bush said...

Let there be a man to replace a woman.
John Roberts is making some ground in his quest for Senate confirmation as a U. S. Supreme court nominee, because a nonactivist judge is a good thing.
Who wants a justice who is going to use his or her moral and legal opinions to create law rather than to interpret the laws written by the actual law makers?
Of course, the hard questions including abortion and tendency to overturn court precedent are coming later from Senate democrats.
Although several potential appointees have been floated in the media to replace recently retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor -- Attorney General Alberto Gonzales to please the Hispanic voters, or Judge Edith Jones of Texas to replace a woman with a woman -- there was some degree of surprise when Bush appointed Roberts.
In all fairness to Pres. Bush, many on the Hill are confident he is saving his "appointment in the name of diversity" for when Chief Justice William Rehnquist finally retires (or dies).
While Roberts basically looks like a shoe-in to most, legal experts have said he "is a reliable conservative who can be counted on to undermine if not immediately overturn liberal landmarks like abortion rights and affirmative action."
According to law.com, Friends of Roberts said his true character can be found in his professional history, including clerking for Rehnquist, membership in the Federalist Society, laboring in the Ronald Reagan White House counsel's office and at the Justice Department into the Bush years, working with Kenneth Starr among others, and even his lunchtime conversations at Hogan & Hartson.

"He is as conservative as you can get," one friend puts it.
In short, Roberts may combine the stealth appeal of Souter with the unwavering ideology of Scalia and Thomas.
law.com

I'm sure that won't send up a few HUGE RED FLAGS with blue Senators.
Bush may have his conservative appointment for now, but he is basically a conservative replacing a conservative.
While that is no big hit to democrats, if they give Bush this appointment, you can bet they will fight tooth and nail to get a liberal -- or even moderate -- appointment to replace Rehnquist.
As a masculine voice once proclaimed in the En Vogue song "My Lovin":
"And now, it's time for the break down."
If you have an opinion about Roberts -- or any federal or state issue, for that matter -- I challenge you to contact your local representatives and let them know how you expect them to vote or act. After all, it is your voice they have been elected to represent, isn't it?
Here are a couple of links to help you find your reps, but there are plenty of others out there, which you can find with simple Internet searches.
Michigan House of Representatives
Michigan Senate
United States House of Representatives
United States Senate

The student becomes the teacher

After just a day on my blog roll, Dana has already introduced me to a sweet blog:
Nickerblog
Check it out. Dana gave me some great Hollywood rundown on the Shane Nickerson guy, but I've forgotten all the good parts.
What I do know is that he is a great writer, and his stuff is easy to read.

New Kid on the Blog

We here at The Script would like to welcome Dana Carter... er, Dana Jacob... uh, Dana Something-or-other to the blogger fold.
Be sure to check out her blog, The Newlyweds, as she chronicles her adventures with her new hubby, Scott.

On the edge of my seat

Pres. Bush is expected to announce his appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court vacated by retired Justice Sandra Day O'Connor.
Will he appoint a man or a woman? A conservative or a moderate? A thinking human being or a mindless puppet of the administration?
It's almost too good to wait!

Bittersweet (almost) finale

I'm happy I may get my hockey back in a few weeks.
I'm more than a little disappointed that it cost the NHL a season. There's no way to measure the damage the league and players association have done to their fan base.
Obviously, given the details of the proposed contract, the players aren't going to be completely happy.

"I don't think the deal that we're going to get would have been ratified last summer. But I just think we've been worn down to the point where at this stage the deal would really have to be incredibly bad for the guys not to vote it in. At least that's the sense I'm getting." Sean Burke, NHL goaltender

There are also some possible rule changes in the works. Other than the shootout idea, none of them seem appealing.

Television changed my life

Well, not exactly. But I finally caught an episode of "30 Days" on FX, the show by the Morgan Spurlock guy that did "Supersize Me."
The episode, "Straight man in a gay world," spurred some really interesting conversation among the adults in the Shrips household -- read as, my wife and me.
Being a life-long, God-fearing Christian from the Midwest herself, my wife has struggled with the whole debate about homosexuality as a chosen lifestyle versus an inborn trait.
Myself, I guess I'm what some conservatives would call a liberal puke, although I don't think it's that clear. I have learned the Bible says homosexuality is a sin, but the Bible also teaches us to love our neighbors.
So I guess here's where it all makes sense to me: If homosexuality is a sin, then it is no greater sin than any other in God's eyes. It is not my place to judge other's behavior. That responsibility is reserved by God alone, for God alone.
I respect the decisions, lifestyles, habits and behaviors of other people as just those; their decisions. They are people, regardless of their sexual orientation, and they deserve the same treatment as everyone else.
They are the not scourge of the earth. They are not diseased, demented people. They are my people, and they are no different than you and me.

Vacation rules!

So, today is the last official day of my vacation, and the last two days have been awesome!
Yesterday, the boys and I spent the afternoon basking in the sun (with the help of Coppertone Kids SPF 40) and lounging in the pool at Papa and Nana's house (my dad and stepmom, for those of you keeping score at home).
Michael finally jumped off the diving board, and he loved it. Of course Anthony jumped off the board. He certainly is the more fearless of the two. Either way, it was fun to watch them play.
Today, the boys took their first trip to "the big lake," AKA Lake Michigan, with Grandma Kane (again, for those of you at home, that's my mom).
What a blast. All the hot sand, the beautiful blue water and the sunscreen. Sand castles were the hit of the day, but I have to be the proud dad and brag on my two boys walking chest-deep into the rather chilly lake and swimming -- actually swimming -- all the way back to shore.
I had forgotten how much fun the beaches in South Haven can be. (This picture was taken by Dick, Phyllis and Ginger, and is posted on their Web site.)
What a great vacation.

da bomb

More terrorist attacks yesterday, this time in London, have killed more than 50 people and injured more than 700.
Check this BBC report for details.
I admit I'm a little late on this one. Blame vacation. There is no CNN at the beach.
While the attacks caused a hiccup in London's public transportation system, it's more disturbing to read they upset the British economy, and to a much lesser extent, the greater European and Asian economies.
In the U.S., concerns for mass transit security are even bigger, and the London attacks will certainly give the Bush administration leverage to justify its war in Iraq and on terror.
For now, though, it appears Pres. Bush is firmly standing at the side of British Prime Minister Tony Blair.

Hibernation

I have been trying to change my sleep schedule for the past couple of weeks, but it has not worked.
Any suggestions?

Vacation interrupted

I am on vacation this week. I planned on relaxing and finishing some little projects around the house, hanging out with my boys, maybe catching a round of golf with my dad.
What I have discovered is an irresistible urge to blog. I am reading a lot of news and finding it hard not to pass along my thoughts to you, my loyal readers.
The battle over the U.S. Supreme Court appointment is just beginning, but already there is conflict within the GOP.
Republicans can't seem to agree on who will be conservative enough, and according to a New York Times report online today, there is a movement afoot to calm conservatives and keep them focused on the language they use when talking about possible candidates.
According to the report, Republican leaders are faced with the daunting task of rallying social conservatives behind a nominee who must be characterized as moderate to win Senate confirmation.
Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of the report is the apparent reluctance from several Christian conservatives to support the nomination of Attorney General Alberto Gonzales.
They claim it is because of his positions on abortion and affirmative action.
My concern is the Christian right is against supporting a minority. If Pres. Bush supported Gonzales enough to appoint him as A.G., he must be relatively conservative, certainly more so than moderate.
Obviously, a Hispanic is going to have more liberal views on affirmative action than white Christian conservatives.
A column in The Dallas Morning News today has good summary of the discord a Gonzales nomination would create.

Pres. Bush wows audiences with address

Pres. Bush's stance on Iraq two years ago:
The war ahead of us in Iraq is dangerous and difficult, but Americans must continue to have faith that democracy and freedom will perservere.
Bush's stance on Iraq Tuesday:
Americans must have faith that democracy and freedom will perservere in a dangerous and difficult war in Iraq.
So what's changed in two years? What has been accomplished under the President who swore there were weapons of mass destruction in Iraq and a connection between Saddam Hussein and Osama bin Laden?
Here are some of my thought on the President's address from June 28.
Bush is still linking the Sept. 11, 2001 terrorist attacks, vis-a-vis the war on terror, even though there are no clear links to terrorism in Iraq. Iraqi insurgents are not fighting America, they are fighting what they perceive to be American occupation of their homeland and what they think is the United States' attempt to change their culture and society.
Bush said, "Our mission is Iraq is clear." To whom, Mr. President? Who asked you to help Iraq build a free nation? From whom did the request come to advance freedom in the Middle East? While these certainly seem like great ideological concepts, the President is acting as if he has a mandate from the Iraqi people, which he clearly does not.
"Some wonder whether Iraq is a central front in the war on terror. Among the terrorists, there is no debate. Hear the words of Osama Bin Laden: "This Third World War is raging" in Iraq. "The whole world is watching this war." He says it will end in "victory and glory, or misery and humiliation.""
Now Bush is quoting bin Laden? That's more than a little scary. The leader of the strongest nation in the world is using the words of a genocidal maniac to make his case with the American people. That can't be a good thing. Shouldn't the merits of the American President's case stand on their own?
There are some things we have to give Bush credit for; making a sovereign people of Iraqis after the rule of Hussein, successful free elections and the unsuccessful attempts of insurgents to incite a civil war.
It is true that Iraq is building a strong police force, but that force is riddled with men who are opposed to America and the work we are doing there. They are enlisting not because it's a noble cause, but because it is the best-paying work in Iraq.
Bush said, "As Iraqis stand up, we will stand down." The fact that Bush will not give a timeline for the withdrawal of American troops from Iraq has angered many people, but I agree with his reasoning. By creating deadlines and benchmarks for Iraqi accomplishments and ultimately the withdrawal of U.S. troops, insurgent attackers would have a better idea of when and where to strike to interrupt the work being done by Iraq and allied forces.

"We will stay in Iraq as long as we are needed, and not a day longer."
Pres. George W. Bush

The participation of Sunni Arabs in the democratization process is key. A culture that has intertwined government and religion for centuries should not be expected to suddenly separate church and state in a few years. And, if Iraq's new government is going to be successful, they will need every culture in the country to be on board, which requires the significant Sunni population to buy in.
Bush is still insisting his plan is the right plan. There is no real "plan" for the American people to evaluate, but we can look at the broad goals Bush has laid out:
- Creation of a stable democratic government in Iraq.
- Completion of a constitution as the legislative base for that government.
- Create a national Iraqi police force to help secure freedom for Iraqis.
- Defeat terrorist factions and help build a network of allies in the Middle East to fight terrorism on a regional and global scale.
Certainly Bush's intentions are noble, but it is still unclear if they will pan out in the end. American men and women are losing their lives fighting a war the American people are quickly losing faith in.
While we are free to disagree with our government, there are still troops overseas fighting for our freedom. Our national celebration of independence in the United States is upon us, and what better time to reach out to those troops and their families to show our support for them.
Take a minute to visit America Supports You and see how you can help support our men and women overseas. It would mean a lot to many people.

Thanks for the comments

I appreciate all of your feedback. It's nice to know you are reading The Script.
I do have one favor to ask, however. Please identify yourself in some way. Anonymous comments are kind of like "unnamed sources." While they make for interesting reading, credible journalists do not use them for anything more than entertainment.
Please put your name on your comments.
Thank you.
Management

High ground on the High Court?

Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement yesterday. Recapping her career would be kind of wordy, so I will just thank her for her 24 years of service to the American people.
But, of course, Democrats and Republicans are already bracing for a confirmation battle over Pres. G. W. Bush's appointment.
Democrats are asking for a moderate justice, the GOP is expecting a conservative justice, and Bush is being appropriately vague about his intentions.
In a Voice of America report, Bush was quoted: "I have directed my staff, in cooperation with the Department of Justice, to compile information and recommend for my review, potential nominees who meet a high standard of legal ability, judgment and integrity, and who will faithfully interpret the Constitution and the laws of our country."
O'Connor may have been a Republican, but changes in the country's political climate, as well as a shift to the right on the Supreme Court has given led many to think of O'Connor as a moderate.
O'Connor has a history of being the swing vote on many issues, and her record indicates she has sided with business, and several lobbies are poised to work for a favorable appointment.
Here's my two cents. The judicial branch of our government was designed to be the law-enforcement branch, and was not given the law-making powers of the legislative branch or the power to carry out policy like the executive branch.
Over the course of the last 200 years -- specifically the last 75 years -- the Supreme Court has positioned itself as a law-making body through interpretation of law. By limiting or expanding the scope of legislation, Supreme Court justices, in effect, have been able to make law.
Through famous cases like Roe v. Wade and Brown v. Board of Education, the Court has potentially changed the meaning of laws and their application in certain cases.
Senators may argue over whether a conservative, moderate or liberal justice is an appropriate replacement for O'Connor, but they are arguing because they are perpetuating the law-making power the Supreme Court has created for itself against the principles spelled out in the U.S. Constitution.
The appropriate replacement is a justice who will honestly and faithfully interpret the laws as written, not as presented by lawyers with agendas and clients to serve.