Common Sense Education Bill Passes House

Members of the US House of Representatives passed a bill yesterday designed to ensure that all college students will have a grasp of the subject matter of common sense.

The measure, dubbed The Common Sense Is Altogether Far Too Uncommon Act, imposes a three credit hour general education requirement for a course in common sense on all public and private colleges that receive federal funding. Students will be permitted to test out of the requirement if they demonstrate "substantial ability" in "handling everyday life situations" and "avoiding obvious hazards." Rep. Howard P. "Buck" McKeon (R-CA), chairman of the House Committee on Education and the Workforce, said that this requirement could be met by "mak[ing] the student give correct change, tie his or her shoes, show familiarity with the concept of 'not wearing shorts when it's below freezing outside,' and avoid the consumption of raw meats."

The push for the bill comes on the heels of a widely publicized University of Nebraska study that shows a direct correlation between population density and population density.



The bill is expected to come before the Senate in early 2007. Senators are split on the bill. Sen. Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) was quoted as calling the measure "absurd." She also criticizes the bill because she deems common sense to be vague and arbitrary. "What is common sense? Who gets to decide? I certainly wasn't invited to the meeting."

Sen. Ben Nelson (D-NE), on the other hand, was in favor of the measure. "It's good for Nebraska. We've got some of the nation's foremost experts on common sense, and they'll be in great demand throughout the country."

Advocacy groups are sharply divided. Stupid-Heads of Relatively Tenuous Brain Understanding Society (SHORTBUS) has issued a statement to the effect that their group acknowledges the need for such education.

On the opposite side of the issue, Bill Pinkelton, the national president of Allies and Advocates for Idiots, the Learning Disabled, and Buffoons (ILDB) says that his organization is against the measure. "For hundreds of years the religious right and other intolerant people have tried to tell us what we can and can't do. If we make our own decisions about crossing traffic or what to do with our genitals, then who is the government to criticize us?" He then added, "Maybe you don't spit into the wind, or tug on Superman's cape, or mess around with Jim. But the ILDB's position is that we should be able to make our own choices." He also noted that his organization is discussing the possibility of a law suit with the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU). He was hesitant to mention anything about what legal theories they would pursue, but he did say that the congressional record is supported largely by "antidotal [sic] evidence."

Businesses and professionals are showing mixed reactions as well. Publishers of various self-help books, such as the popular "for Dummies" series, along with a few prominent personal injury attorneys and the producers of several reality television series, are vigorously lobbying against the bill. An anonymous emergency room doctor from Chicago commented that he will have a hard time paying back his school loans if he gets no more cases of people with "various objects lodged in their nether regions." But other prominent doctors are on the record with the position that prevention of injury is more important.

Despite all the controversy, local support is heavily in favor of the bill. An anonymous, self-identified idiot student at the University of Nebraska, Lincoln, said that he "really needs" some help in this area, but he's concerned that he "might not be able to make it to the class." We interviewed him as he was resting from his attempt to push open a door that was clearly marked with a "pull" sign.

Farmer Bob, a well-known, self-taught common sense expert from the rural Lincoln area, said, "It's about time they got those kids some sense. What good's all that book learnin' gonna do ya if ya if yer too stupid to come in outta the rain?" Bob's wife Maggie, a well-known area mom, added, "Or if you follow one of your friends when he jumps off a cliff."

Law Review Books

As I'm just about to start my last final ever in law school, in about a half hour, and I've used several review books from several companies, I'd like to let anyone who's interested know which law school review books are the best. If you're going to buy a commercial outline, you need to know which ones suit you.

E-Z Review
These are the cheapest of the review books I have used. And that's about the best I can say for them. There are often holes in the subject, and it doesn't explain anything very well. They tout themselves as a review book that acknowledges that you've taken the class. Which is fine and dandy. But if you're prepared well enough that this is all you need, then you don't need a review book at all. Your notes will be much better.

The Black Letter Series
The Black Letter Series books are excellent for the situation when you've paid pretty good attention in class, but you're still worried about your understanding of it, or if your notes aren't very good. They explain things fairly well, and they're concise. I recommend avoiding the multiple choice and true-false review questions they put in these, because they're apparently written by monkeys. There often could be more than one correct answer, and that doesn't work very well for that format of question.

Emmanuel Law Outlines
These are the big guns. If you have senioritis, and you completely check out in your classes, or if you didn't take notes worth a damn, then this, my friend, is what you need. They go in depth on all the subject matter, and give examples, both hypothetical and real cases, to flesh it all out. You could teach yourself any subject area in less than two days with one of these books geared to the right subject matter.

Yashica MAT 124: Initial Results

I just got my first batch of film back today for my new toy.







As you can see, there are streaks down the middle of all of them, probably due to something on one of the spools. There was also some color shift and some fogginess, which are probably due in part to the age of the film (it's more than a couple years old, I'm told) and partly to my inexperience in handling medium format film. There were also some light leaks, but they only showed up on the early shots, so I think it was the handling of the film, and not the camera itself. Finally, there was some double exposure, which is probably due to the parts of the camera needing some oil. So, in short, I think I've got a pretty darn good camera here, as soon as I get some fresh film and the camera cleaned up--and as soon as I learn how to handle the film when it's not in the camera.

Oh, there was one picture that I think might be worth saving in Photoshop, so I'm already excited:



It won't be a sharp image, I'll have to go with a concept on it, but it'll work nicely.

Incidentally, I've also learned my lesson about using year-old black and white film. A few pictures can turn out OK . . . most don't.

My New Toy

My new toy is a Yashica MAT 124, a medium format twin lens reflex camera--thanks to my friend who gave it to me. I'm not sure how well it works yet, but I think the light meter is broken. I'm really excited about it. Now all I need is a scanner that can do medium format negatives.

Happy Birthday . . .

. . . to the guy who said the funniest thing I've ever heard. Allow me to reproduce the conversation for you here, even though I've already posted it before.

My friend’s dog was licking his genitals (some would say he was “on vacation”). The conversation went thus:
Another Friend: “Man, I wish I could do that.”
The Birthday Boy: “I don’t know . . . that dog looks pretty mean.”

See No Evil, Hear No Evil, Speak No Evil

Over the weekend I made an interesting (and very unsettling) series of pictures. I'm not 100% happy with the Photoshop work I did, and may return to this theme some time in the future, but for now, just enjoy my results. I'm posting one now, and will post the other two later this week by editing this post.

Random Pics

Here are a few random pictures from my life from throughout the year. I hope these give a little insight into my life.



First up we have a couple pics of my wife cheating on me. :)

And here are the kids swimming, even when they're "Breaking the Law."




And here is Russell either (a) trying to get a squirrel or (b) just showing off his athletic ability. He's known to be a cocky show-off sometimes.



And finally, a picture of Mama Puss-Puss, an 18-year-old mother of many kittens, who has been with my wife since she was a kitten and my wife was 6 years old.

*Sigh* . . . Thank God

Thank God the douche didn't win.





These are all still pretty close, but they're looking to be on the positive side.


(all images taken of http://www.cnn.com)

And according to http://www.kolnkgin.com/, Initiative 423 was shot down by a strong majority. All looks well in the great state of Nebraska.

Last-Minute Election Summary

The elections are coming down to the wire, and soon we'll be seeing soda advertisements instead of political advertisements once again. And for the first time ever, I've really been paying attention to the races going on right now in Nebraska. So here's my take on all the issues, if anyone cares. Remember, the election is November 7.

Initiative 423

Initiative 423 is touted as a way to reduce government spending and, therefore, taxes. It limits state spending to its current levels, increased by 3% each year, unless voters authorize an increase.

This is absolutely ridiculous. I can't believe anyone would think this is a good idea. We might as well take all our state senators and tie their hands behind their backs. The thing is, many costs increase by more than 3% each year, like for example any health care costs. And it also constrains our government to doing what they're already doing (or less) rather than retooling everything.

The proponents of 423 run a lot of ads. They say that "special interests" are attacking the initiative. Yes, special interests, like nearly every political candidate, police and fire departments, schools, and groups for the elderly. Those sure are greedy outliers on the political spectrum.

I noticed that there are a lot more ads running in favor of this initiative than against it. I started to wonder why this would be, if the "special interests" are really the who don't want it. And then I recalled that the people who were trying to get signatures for it were the same ones who wanted signatures for a gambling initiative. "Ah," I said, "therein must lie the solution." My guess is that the same people are involved. They want to tie the legislature's hands this year, and for the next election they plan to come in on a white horse, in shining armor, with their solution to the problem: allow gambling, and the state's revenues from gambling won't be constrained by Initiative 423. Two and two together, I think.

My conclusion: vote NO on 423.

Governor: Heinemann vs. Hahn

I don't really know a lot about this. I've seen very few ads for Heinemann, and none at all for his opponent. I can't give any conclusions.

The House: 1st District

Democrat Maxine Moul (right) is vying for Republican Jim Fortenberry's (left) seat in the House of Representatives.



As far as I can tell, Moul's entire platform is that she will help veterans. And she claims that Fortenberry hasn't, although his record proves quite the opposite. He's done a fine job so far--there's no reason for a change. He's also run his campaign with grace: he hasn't run any negative ads, and has only responded to her negative ads by defending himself. On the other hand, Moul has done nothing but attack Fortenberry, so much that we have no idea what her platform is.

Character and demeanor are really all we have to go on with this race. Fortenberry seems the perfect gentleman, the kind of guy you'd want to invite to a fancy dinner party or something. Moul, on the other hand, seems like a substitute teacher who's always overly-mean to keep the kids in line. You know the one I mean. You had one just like her.

My conclusion: vote Fortenberry.

The House: 2nd District

Hey, I don't know anything about this one. They don't run any ads in this neck of the woods. Moving on . . .

The House: 3rd District

Now that Republican Dr. Tom Osborne, the former Huskers footbal coach, has decided to give up politics, the seat is open for Republican Adrian Smith (right) or his opponent, Democrat Scott Kleeb (left).



Yeah, in Nebraska it's not a good idea to identify yourself as a Democrat if you want to get elected, particularly so in the western part of the state, the third district. So Kleeb never mentions his affiliation with the Democratic party, and in fact identifies himself as an independent. Smith is very much a hardline Republican, not straying from the party line in any significant respect. It's hard to say what Kleeb will do, but I suspect he'd be fairly moderate, considering his constituency and what I would expect would be his actual political views. Kleeb doesn't say anything about his stance; he only mentions the issues he thinks are important (not how he plans to handle those issues). And although he runs a negative ad, it criticizes only Smith's ability to get laws passed.

Kleeb has a lot going for him. He's a good-looking Yale graduate. His demeanor and character seem to be good. However . . .

What this one comes down to, for me, is that Smith is a Nebraska native and UNL grad, and a state senator. Kleeb, on the other hand, has never lived in Nebraska before. He seems to have picked a place to go where he thought he could get elected, to further his career. To make up for that, Kleeb runs all kinds of ads showing him in a cowboy hat, playing rancher. I don't buy it.

My conclusion: this one is almost a toss-up, considering Smith's questionable abilities as a law-maker, but I think I'd stick with Nebraska native Smith.

State Attorney General: Bruning vs. ?????

This one confuses the hell out of me. I see at least an ad an hour or more for Jon Bruning, and I've never seen one for his opponent. I have no idea who's running against him, so I'm not going to bother finding out. Bruning does a good job. There's no reason not to vote for him, particularly since his opponent is a complete unknown to me. What I can't figure out is why he's wasting so much money on the campaign when no one's really campaigning against him.

The Senate Race

And finally, we have the most important race: the Senate race between incumbent Democrat Ben Nelson (left) and douchebag Republican Pete Ricketts (right).



The Issues:
On the issues, the two candidates aren't radically different. Nelson seems to be stronger on border security and promoting ethanol production. The latter issue is extremely important to Nebraskans. He says that he would eventually like to see Nebraska corn fields replace foreign oil fields. That sounds good to me, and it should to any environmentalist or anyone who would like to reduce our dependence on foreign oil. His web site doesn't give any position on the estate tax, so I'd be willing to guess he's in favor of it. The site mentions that he supports tax cuts for the middle class, so the estate tax is probably safe with him. Thank God. In addition, Nelson has a long-standing positive record of serving Nebraska, and he's quite able to tout his strong independent streak, crossing party lines more than anyone else in the Senate.

Ricketts, on the other hand, is all about eliminating the estate tax. You know why? Well, he has a lot of money, but so does Papa Ricketts, and Pete stands to gain a lot if the "death tax" is eliminated. He doesn't say anything about ethanol production in his ads, and he says nothing of substance about anything else.

The one area where Nelson is silent but Pete speaks is on Social Security. Ricketts wants to make voluntary programs to supplement Social Security. If you can't see how dumb that is, I feel sorry for you. Anyone that wants to save for retirement is already able to do so, through IRAs and many other avenues. The whole reason we have Social Security is because we have many people that won't invest voluntarily. Voluntary programs defeat the whole purpose of it.

Pete's ads repeatedly mention that he's pro-life and against gun control, two issues that are very important to Nebraska. What he doesn't want you to know is that Nelson is also pro-life and against gun control, and has a record (and hunting acumen) to prove it.

The Campaign:
Ricketts is a rich bastard who doesn't want you to know the truth. His early ads painted Democrats in broad strokes as a bunch of radically liberal nutbags. He never actually said Nelson's name in any of these ads, but when Nelson responded in kind with a negative ad of his own, Ricketts accused him of starting the mud-slinging. As if we're not smart enough to see right through that. In more recent ads, he's admitted that Nelson isn't exactly John Kerry or Hillary Clinton, but he wants you to vote for him because Nelson would put someone like that in charge of the Senate. Is that really your best platform, Pete? In fact, it is the strongest thing he can say in his favor.

Let's not forget all the childish, irrelevant ads that he's run. First, he ran one to the tune of "Old MacDonald", with a cartoon Nelson shooting turkeys left and right. The ad told a half-true story about how Nelson claimed that he was running a turkey farm on some of his property to get tax cuts, and the assessor wouldn't allow the cuts to apply. It also claimed that Nelson still owed back taxes and wouldn't pay them, which is an outright lie.

Then he ran an ad stating that Nelson went on a hunting trip to Africa and killed a grocery list of various animals. How is that relevant?

Now he's running an ad which pointed to campaign funds and benefits that Nelson has received from Behlen Manufacturing Company, and tried to link them to two million dollars in state government contracts that the company got. Putting aside the fact that $2mil is chump change in terms of government contracts, every politician receives campaign funds from companies, unless they're so rich that they've lost touch with the real world, like Ricketts. And it doesn't prove that there was anything shady about the contracts. In fact, it doesn't even say outright that anything was shady about the deal at all, because that would be defamation. In response, the CEO of Behlen appeared on an ad showing a picture of himself standing next to George H.W. Bush, describing himself as a lifelong Republican, and stating that Pete Ricketts is a disappointment to the whole party.

The most amusing ad he's run, to me, is one featuring Nebraska Republican Senator Chuck Hagel. Hagel makes the bizarre claim that the issues aren't important, because they can change over time. I need not respond to that ridiculous claim, because it's so obviously idiotic. He then draws the conclusion that a candidate's character and integrity are more important. He then says "I know Pete Ricketts. I trust Pete Ricketts." And if you watch the ad, you see that he can't even say it with a straight face. This ad has no impact whatsoever considering the history of Hagel and Nelson. In short, we all know they don't get along. I'm sorry Chuck, but rather than helping Pete, you've hurt yourself. I can't vote for anyone who would support nutbag Pete.

Nelson's ads, on the other hand, have focused on the issues. They tout his record and all he's done for the state. The only time he's ever run a true mud-slinging ad was when he pointed out the huge (something like $5 million) bonuses that Pete took for himself while laying off large numbers of employees. Let's forget the fact that his bonuses dwarf the government contracts that Behlen got. All his other "negative" ads have been (1) direct responses to Pete's ads or (2) completely about the issues.

The most confusing thing for me in this campaign is Pete's stance on the income tax. If you asked me a couple months ago what his stance was, I would have told you that he supports eliminating the income tax and putting into place a flat, national sales tax. I don't need to tell you how stupid that is--it helps the rich at the expense of the poor, since the rich don't need to spend their money like the poor do, and I'm sure there would be exceptions for investments in such a plan. Not only that, but it would hurt the economy. But now I'm confused.

First, Ricketts ran an ad which to me sounded like this: Nelson claimed that Ricketts doesn't endorse a national sales tax, but in fact he does so endorse one. Ricketts identifies himself as a "Reagan Republican", so Nelson did the smart thing of running an ad which quoted a Reagan administration top-dog as calling a national sales tax "a very dumb idea." Then, Ricketts ran an ad that sounded like the exact opposite of the first one: that Nelson claims Ricketts endorses a national sales tax, but he does not so endorse one and never has. OK, I'm a pretty smart person, and I'm not that easily confused, so I'd be willing to bet that this is a huge flip-flop on a major issue and an outright lie. On the other hand, it could be an intentionally deceptive ad (one of them or the other), which is just as bad. Either way, it was enough to confuse everyone in the Nelson camp.

My conclusion: vote Nelson. I would seriously question the intelligence of anyone who votes the other way.

2001 Halloween Costume