One down, 16 to go

Posted on July 14, 2005 by The Night Writer

I had 10 years of single life back in the day, in which time I managed to cook (not just heat), shop for groceries, do my laundry and ironing, not be startled by the sound of the vacuum and even clean the bathroom (admittedly usually only when it was time to move). I even weaned a couple of housemates off of SpaghettiOs, showing them it was scarcely any more work to make real spaghetti than to heat that glop. Therefore life on my own (or life on my own with an almost 17-year-old) shouldn’t be too tough (see yesterday’s post “And They’re Off”), especially since I still do the laundry and I’m responsible for my own ironing.

Day one of my single-life interlude and I come downstairs thinking about being able to brush my teeth without having to bob in and out of the bathroom between my wife’s ministrations of makeup and hairspray. Great – just eat, brush and go. But then the guinea pig starts squealing; he’s used to being fed at least an hour earlier than when I made my appearance. Out to the yard for dandelions to mix in with Timothy hay and some green beans. When I come back in the bird is cursing again and the cat keeps trying to lie down in front of my feet. My daughter’s voice comes down the stairs, “Daddykins – I’m running late. Can you make me one of your egg sandwiches?” Why sure, missy. I can bring home the bacon, fry it up in the pan … I’ve got this under control.

Oh wait, food. That reminds me…dinner! You see, the secret is you’ve got to have a plan. If I don’t figure out now what we’re doing for dinner tonight then it’s likely to be dandelion greens for the pig and us. I look in the freezer where we’ve been squirelling away extra portions from our dinners the last few weeks. I pull out a couple of foil-wrapped bricks, cryptically labelled “Italian baked dish.” I figure we must have liked it or it wouldn’t have gone into the freezer, so I move the bricks to the refrigerator and efficiently take out the eggs and cheese for the breakfast sandwich, nearly tripping over the cat again when I turn around. When it is all said and done, somehow or another I end up leaving the house 15 minutes later than usual.

This evening I came home earlier than normal and lovingly tossed the Italian baked dish bricks into the oven. My daughter arrived, claiming to be so famished that she is about to pass out. Mr. Henri is once again there in a pinch. “Hauh, hauh, zit down, din-nehr iz about to be served.” I pull the bricks out of the oven and unwrap them. Oh, I remember this stuff; it is good. Not quite warmed through yet, but that’s why God gave us microwaves. But when I set the now-steaming portions down on the island I realize that I have not provided a vegetable. Oh well. “Take your vitamins,” I say, pointing to her pills. I reach into the refrigerator for a couple of bottles of water and twist off the tops. “Here is a refreshing beverage. You might want to let that breathe a little before you drink it.”

Later, as we’re finishing up, I ask her what she’d like to have for dinner tomorrow night. “Dad,” she says, “tomorrow night is my open house, remember?” Oh, the open house for the new building her school has just moved into. Right. “Um,” I say, “is there going to be food?”

“Uh-huh.”

Yessss! I can do this. Just 16 more days to go.

bookmark to:

Add 'One down, 16 to go' to Stumble Upon

Add 'One down, 16 to go' to Google Bookmarks

Add 'One down, 16 to go' to Social Bookmarking Reloaded

American History Quiz

Posted on July 12, 2005 by The Night Writer

Here’s another easy American History question that was somehow left off of Keegan’s trivia quiz last Thursday (in which the Night Writer, Tiger Lilly, Policy Guy and Water Cooler Wisdom team was 25 for 25 in the main quiz and 2/3 in the tie-breaker).

Who made the following statement on October 8, 2002?

“In the four years since the inspectors left, intelligence reports show that Saddam Hussein has worked to rebuild his chemical and biological weapons stock, his missile delivery capability, and his nuclear program. He has also given aid, comfort, and sanctuary to terrorists, including Al Qaeda members, though there is apparently no evidence of his involvement in the terrible events of September 11, 2001. It is clear, however, that if left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will continue to increase his capacity to wage biological and chemical warfare, and will keep trying to develop nuclear weapons. Should he succeed in that endeavor, he could alter the political and security landscape of the Middle East, which as we know all too well affects American security.”

A: George W. Bush
B: Kofi Annan
C: Hillary Clinton
D: Alfred E. Newman

(Click to show answer:)

This is one of the interesting tidbits you’ll find over at John Hawkins’ post “Debunking 8 Anti-War Myths About The Conflict In Iraq”. The post includes the facts and history behind commonly accepted and unchallenged statements such as: 1) George Bush Lied About Weapons of Mass Destruction in Iraq; 2) A study released in March of 2003 by a British medical journal, the Lancet, showed that 100,000 civilians had been killed as a result of the US invasion; 3) The Bush Administration claimed Iraq was responsible for 9/11; 4) The war in Iraq was actually planned by people like Dick Cheney, Donald Rumsfeld, and Paul Wolfowitz back in 1998 at a think tank called the Project for the New American Century; 5) The war on terror has nothing to do with Iraq; 6) Saddam Hussein had no ties to terrorism; 7) Saddam Hussein had no ties to Al-Qaeda, and; 8) The Downing Street Memo proves Bush lied to the American people about the war.

Check them out. (HT: Mitch Berg at Shot in the Dark.)

bookmark to:

Add 'American History Quiz' to Del.icio.us

Add 'American History Quiz' to Stumble Upon

Add 'American History Quiz' to Google Bookmarks

Add 'American History Quiz' to Barrapunto

Add 'American History Quiz' to Social Bookmarking Reloaded

And they’re off…

Posted on July 12, 2005 by The Night Writer

The day came upon us at last. I took Night Visions and Patience to the airport early this a.m. to begin winging their way toward a distant and mysterious land where they will be ministering to abandoned children. There will be but mere hours left in this month before I see them again.

There is little concern for their physical safety, but they will be operating under conditions that are environmentally and politically…problematic. For those and other reasons I will be general in describing where they’re going and what they’ll be doing (even after they return) because there is much good work that is at risk. It will be a life-changing experience for both of them, and perhaps for many others as well.

It may even be life-changing for me. It will certainly be routine-busting. I’ll get a taste of single-parenthood and my own cooking, and will have occasion, I’m sure, to wonder what happened to the mysterious elves that pick up after me (I hope my wife didn’t take them with her).

It’s not an easy thing to send them off, though it may appear to some as if I do so lightly. We’re a very close family and appreciate what we have…and at times I perhaps guard it too jealously as if I were the only defense, forgetting the limits of my powers. My wife and I, however, consider ourselves stewards of all that we have received from God, including (especially) our children, knowing that while they may be ours, they are indeed meant for others. And so have they been raised.

This trip has been on Patience’s heart for three years since she first heard the first-hand accounts from a friend of ours of this foreign land and of the children being lost. She knew, one day, she would go. When the door opened unexpectedly this year her path was clear, her resolve was strong and her age irrelevant. Her mother, too, felt the undeniable tug. Certainly suffering is everywhere and confronting it doesn’t require a passport and innoculations, but for this particular time and for this particular place, this is where they know they are to be. I had every right and every instinct to go with them, but not the release, so now I am where I need to be.

Let’s see what happens.

bookmark to:

Add 'And they’re off…' to Google Bookmarks

Add 'And they’re off…' to Social Bookmarking Reloaded

Originalism sin

Posted on July 11, 2005 by The Night Writer

Any Supreme Court nominee who’s more interested in what the Constitution actually says rather than what it might have said if the framers had been more enlightened is sure to draw a lot of fire from certain Senators…from both parties. This view of the Constitution, referred to as “originalism” or “constitutionalism” – and often in the same tone of voice as one might refer to the Flat Earth Theory – was the hallmark of Justice Robert Bork.

Judge Bork and the tempestous circus surrounding his failed confirmation in 1987 will be mentioned frequently in the coming weeks. As such, it is interesting to read his opening statement to the Senate Judiciary Committee during his confirmation hearing to see just what Senators Kennedy, Specter and others “saved” our Republic from (resulting in Justice Anthony Kennedy and his more global view of legal interpretation).

Here’s an excerpt (HT: Amy Ridenour’s National Center Blog):

“If a judge abandons intention as his guide, there is no law available to him and he begins to legislate a social agenda for the American people. That goes well beyond his legitimate power.”

(You really ought to click here to read the relatively short statement.)

The judge’s authority derives entirely from the fact that he is applying the law and not his personal values. That is why the American public accepts the decisions of its courts, accepts even decisions that nullify the laws a majority of the electorate or of their representatives voted for.

The judge, to deserve that trust and that authority, must be every bit as governed by law as is the Congress, the President, the state governors and legislatures, and the American people. No one, including a judge, can be above the law. Only in that way will justice be done and the freedom of Americans assured.

How should a judge go about finding the law? The only legitimate way, in my opinion, is by attempting to discern what those who made the law intended. The intentions of the lawmakers govern whether the lawmakers are the Congress of the United States enacting a statute or whether they are those who ratified our Constitution and its various amendments.

Where the words are precise and the facts simple, that is a relatively easy task. Where the words are general, as is the case with some of the most profound protections of our liberties-in the Bill of Rights and in the Civil War Amendments-the task is far more complex. It is to find the principle or value that was intended to be protected and to see that it is protected.

As I wrote in an opinion for our court, the judge’s responsibility “is to discern how the Framers’ values, defined in the context of the world they knew, apply in the world we know.”

If a judge abandons intention as his guide, there is no law available to him and he begins to legislate a social agenda for the American people. That goes well beyond his legitimate power.

He or she then diminishes liberty instead of enhancing it. That is why I agree with Judge Learned Hand, one of the great jurists in our history, when he wrote that the judge’s “authority and his immunity depend upon the assumption that he speaks with the mouths of others: The momentum of his utterances must be greater than any which his personal reputation and character can command if it is to do the work assigned to it-if it is to stand against the passionate resentments arising out of the interests he must frustrate.”

To state that another way, the judge must speak with the authority of the past to the present.

The past, however, includes not only the intentions of those who first made the law, it also includes those past judges who interpreted it and applied it in prior cases. That is why a judge must have great respect for precedence. It is one thing as a legal theorist to criticize the reasoning of a prior decision, even to criticize it severely, as I have done. It is another and more serious thing altogether for a judge to ignore or overturn a prior decision. That requires much careful thought.

Times come, of course, when even a venerable precedent can and should be overruled. The primary example of a proper overruling is Brown against the Board of Education, the case which outlawed racial segregation accomplished by government action. Brown overturned the rule of separate but equal laid down 58 years before in Plessy against Ferguson. Yet Brown, delivered with the authority of a unanimous Court, was clearly correct and represents perhaps the greatest moral achievement of our constitutional law.

Nevertheless, overruling should be done sparingly and cautiously. Respect for precedent is a part of the great tradition of our law, just as is fidelity to the intent of those who ratified the Constitution and enacted our statutes. That does not mean that constitutional law is static. It will evolve as judges modify doctrine to meet new circumstances and new technologies. Thus, today we apply the First Amendment’s guarantee of the freedom of the press to radio and television, and we apply to electronic surveillance the Fourth Amendment’s guarantee of privacy for the individual against unreasonable searches of his or her home.

I can put the matter no better than I did in an opinion on my present court. Speaking of the judge’s duty, I wrote:

“The important thing, the ultimate consideration, is the constitutional freedom that is given into our keeping. A judge who refuses to see new threats to an established constitutional value and hence provides a crabbed interpretation that robs a provision of its full, fair and reasonable meaning, fails in his judicial duty. That duty, I repeat, is to ensure that the powers and freedoms the Framers specified are made effective in today’s circumstances.”

But I should add to that passage that when a judge goes beyond this and reads entirely new values into the Constitution, values the Framers and the ratifiers did not put there, he deprives the people of their liberty. That liberty, which the Constitution clearly envisions, is the liberty of the people to set their own social agenda through the processes of democracy.

Conservative judges frustrated that process in the mid-1930s by using the concept they had invented, the Fourteenth Amendment’s supposed guarantee of a liberty of contract, to strike down laws designed to protect workers and labor unions. That was wrong then and it would be wrong now.

My philosophy of judging, Mr. Chairman, as you pointed out, is neither liberal nor conservative. It is simply a philosophy of judging which gives the Constitution a full and fair interpretation but, where the Constitution is silent, leaves the policy struggles to the Congress, the President, the legislatures and executives of the 50 states, and to the American people.

I welcome this opportunity to come before the Committee and answer whatever questions the members may have. I am quite willing to discuss with you my judicial philosophy and the approach I take to deciding cases. I cannot, of course, commit myself as to how I might vote on any particular case and I know you would not wish me to do that.

(hide)

bookmark to:

Add 'Originalism sin' to Google Bookmarks

Add 'Originalism sin' to Social Bookmarking Reloaded

Inconceivable!

Posted on July 8, 2005 by The Night Writer

One of the many great lines from the movie The Princess Bride is when Inego Montoya says to the nefarious plotter, Venzini: “You keep using that word. I don’t think it means what you think it means.”

There are those today who also seem to have a lack of comprehension (but not confidence) over the meaning of certain words. You know, complex, multi-syllable words such as:

Gulag.
Torture.
Moderate.

Or, how about this one: theocracy.

There are those in this country who are ever-alert to defend against any signs of encroaching theocracy and who quite visibly stand fast against any appeasement with their perceived enemy.

Unless it’s Islamic theocracy, that is.

Not that there aren’t many who see equivalence between the militant Islamists with their law of Sharia and those who think it’s a fine idea to display the Ten Commandments on public property. It’s just that I’m wondering how many of these people are also quick to attribute the terrorist attacks (HT: Questions and Answers)as natural and even justifiable reactions to U.S. and/or Western provocations.

I mean, based on that logic, wouldn’t it be true that the militancy of the incipient American theocracy is simply a reaction to the secularists mucking about? Shouldn’t Ted Kennedy and friends be talking about setting an “exit date” for their withdrawal from society to spare everyone from this moral quagmire?

“It’s not the same thing!” they might cry, and of course they’d be right. The militant Christians aren’t blowing people up or executing envoys from other countries. Then again, “perspective” is another word they might want to look up.

(Speaking of proper usage of words, Captain Ed linked an excellent post from Dafydd on why the word “Islamofascist” is incorrect.)

bookmark to:

Add 'Inconceivable!' to Google Bookmarks

Add 'Inconceivable!' to Social Bookmarking Reloaded

Red, White and Blue, too

Posted on July 7, 2005 by The Night Writer

bookmark to:

Add 'Red, White and Blue, too' to Del.icio.us

Add 'Red, White and Blue, too' to reddit

Add 'Red, White and Blue, too' to Stumble Upon

Add 'Red, White and Blue, too' to Google Bookmarks

Add 'Red, White and Blue, too' to FaceBook

Add 'Red, White and Blue, too' to Barrapunto

Add 'Red, White and Blue, too' to MySpace

Add 'Red, White and Blue, too' to Twitter

Add 'Red, White and Blue, too' to Social Bookmarking Reloaded

We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?

Posted on July 6, 2005 by The Night Writer

Jay Rosen is reading about and hearing from all the activists gearing up to spend big money on the upcoming battle over Supreme Court nominees and doesn’t know what it is good for.

In the last election, 121 million votes were cast, and each one of those people could (in theory) be influenced by a media campaign. On the coming nomination, 100 United States Senators vote. Can they be influenced in the same way? The press is saying: yeah, they can. But it cannot be so.

It’s a good point in so far as groups on both sides pouring money into television commercials and other events should have little direct effect on the votes of 100 senators. Of course, it’s not about influencing voters but about rallying the faithful. This is going to be the Super Bowl of politics this year and what’s a big game without cheerleaders and rowdy fans to inspire their team and intimidate the opposition? The back-and-forth is merely the political version of the old “We’ve got spirit, yes we do, we’ve got spirit how ’bout you?” chant. Even though the Dems and their fanatics will – like the old AFL in the pre-merger Super Bowls – be trying to show they’re relevant, they have to feel encouraged that some Republicans have shown themselves to be easily intimidated.

Therefore the orchestrated cheering has already begun, and from the Left I hear chestnuts such as:

Here we go, Moonbats, here we go!

Babies don’t vote! Babies don’t vote!

2-4-6-8 – who’s character do we assassinate?

Filibuster! Filibuster! Don’t invoke cloture! We’ve got war, for the culture!

Ree, ree, ree, attack the nominee!
Ras, ras, ras, our thumb is in our …

Even though President Bush has suggested that we all play nice, I wouldn’t mind some New York-style hazing, ala the Daryl Strawberry era, when Chuck Schumer gets up to flap his gums. Can’t you just hear the crowd sing-songing, “Schooo-merrr! Schooo-merrr!” Or how about these cheers and chants from the Right:

Hey-hey, ho-ho, reconstructionists got to go!

Teddy, Teddy, he’s all wet!

Elections have consequences! Elections have consequences!

Give me another S! Give me another C! Give me another A! Give me another L! Give me another I! Give me another A! What’s that spell!

And could it be any sweeter when it’s all over than for the Righties to taunt the Left with “Here comes the judge! Here comes the judge!”?

Of course, the insiders refer to all of this as “activating the base,” which really means “getting the base to cough up even more money.” After all, what’s a Super Bowl without commercials?

bookmark to:

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to Del.icio.us

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to digg

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to reddit

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to Stumble Upon

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to Google Bookmarks

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to Ask

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to FaceBook

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to Barrapunto

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to MySpace

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to Twitter

Add 'We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?' to Social Bookmarking Reloaded

Flippin’ bird

Posted on July 5, 2005 by The Night Writer

I love dogs. I think they make great pets. They are affectionate, responsive and great company. They are also fun to name and they come when you call them.

So do I have a dog? No I do not.

For some reason my household of one wife and two daughters has steadfastly resisted my importing a gregarious, interactive canine while embracing a variety of animals whose common trait has been that names are useless affectations since they don’t respond to their use. We’ve had two cats, a hamster, a guinea pig and, for a brief time, a rabbit. The latest addition is a parakeet, which I’ve learned is more accurately called a budgie. Each has come to us after being abandoned or as a product of a broken home, yet none have shown any appreciation for being delivered from a roadkill fate or a career in cosmetic testing. In fact, on more than one occasion, the remaining cat has even tried to kill me by running between my legs while I’m carrying 40-pound bags of water softener salt down the stairs.

(Full disclosure: some of these pets are no longer with us. One cat, the hamster and the rabbit have passed on to what Raymond Chandler would call – especially in the case of the cat – “The Big Sleep.”)

There once was a time where whenever I’d get home I’d be greeted by the squawks and squeals of my little girls honoring my return. Now I get squawks from the budgie who seems perpetually offended by my presence and squeals from the guinea pig who has associated the sound of the door opening from the garage with delivery of another load of dandelion greens and stems for his buffet. (For a funny flash file on the eating and dancing habits of guinea pigs, go here.)

I don’t understand what is up with the budgie; I thought we were going to be pals. My sister-in-law found her outside her shop following the big wind storm a couple of weeks ago and brought her home. My youngest then adopted her and we found a large, lovely cage at a garage sale for just $5. My daughter filled the cage with bird toys and feed. While she was on 24-hour probation his first day with us she was friendly as all get-out and liked having her head and neck scratched. Now the mere appearance of a finger near her cage drives her around the bend. She can also be sitting on her perch singing away as happy as a clam (if a clam could sing, that is) and in mid-note suddenly launch into a sputtering, head-bobbing Donald Duck-type diatribe that I assume represents budgie cursing. (A budgie with Tourette’s Syndrome?)

I did some on-line studying about budgies and discovered that they can be excellent mimics. I thought the budgie might find it appropriate to repeat one of my favorite Monty Python lines, so I parked myself beside her cage and started repeating – in my best, feminine, John Cleese voice – “I just spent four hours burying the cat.”

No reaction. I thought perhaps he needed more context, so I recited the opening lines from that Python sketch:

Mrs. Conclusion: Hello, Mrs. Premise.
Mrs. Premise: Hello, Mrs. Conclusion.
Mrs. Conclusion: Busy Day?
Mrs. Premise: Busy? I just spent four hours burying the cat.
Mrs. Conclusion: Four hours to bury a cat?
Mrs. Premise: Yes – it wouldn’t keep still.
Mrs. Conclusion: Oh – it wasn’t dead, then?
Mrs. Premise: No, no – but it’s not at all well, so as we were going away for a fortnight we wanted to be on the safe side.
Mrs. Conclusion: Quite right – you don’t want to come back from Sorrento to a dead cat. It’d be so anticlimactic. Yes, kill it now, that’s what I say.

I didn’t even get so much as a, “You’re a loony” in response. Looking back, even though I was frustrated, it probably wasn’t a good idea to continue with the rest of the sketch:

Mrs. Conclusion: We’re going to have to have our budgie put down.
Mrs. Premise: Really? Is it very old?
Mrs. Conclusion: No. We just don’t like it. We’re going to take it to the vet tomorrow.
Mrs. Premise: Tell me, how do they put budgies down then?
Mrs. Conclusion: Well it’s funny you should ask that, but I’ve just been reading a great big book about how to put your budgie down, and apparently you can either hit it with the book, or, you can shoot them just there above the beak.
Mrs. Premise: Just there!
Mrs. Conclusion: Yes.
Mrs. Premise: Well well well. ‘Course, Mrs. Essence flushed hers down the loo.
Mrs. Conclusion: Ohh! No! You shouldn’t do that — no that’s dangerous. Yes, they breed in the sewers, and eventually you get evil-smelling flocks of huge soiled budgies flying out of people’s lavatories infringing on their personal freedom.”

(Note to self: no flushing Supreme Court justices down the loo.) The bird squinted at me, then sidled to the other side of her perch, turned her head away, stretched out one leg and squirted out some processed bird kibble.

“Oh-ho!” I said. “Well let me just tell you something else I’ve learned. It says here that budgie is the short name for budgerigar and budgerigar is a word used by the Australian Aborigines. Do you want to know what it means? Huh, do you? It means ‘good to eat.'”

Come to think of it, right about then is when the whole Donald Duck business with her began.

bookmark to:

Add 'Flippin’ bird' to Social Bookmarking Reloaded

Of hidden standards and agendas

Posted on July 4, 2005 by The Night Writer

Two of the most recent Supreme Court decisions appear to be on unrelated subjects but I think there is a common theme. In going halfsies on the two Ten Commandment cases before them the court essentially said that displaying the Ten Commandments in or around government buildings was okay as long as they could be considered as historical artifacts and not as something the government says you should live by.

And in their emminent domain-related Kelo decision the court said the same thing about the U.S. Constitution.

There has been a lot of great writing on other blogs about these decisions already, especially on Kelo, and I don’t have much to add in terms of ramifications and analyses. I do have a couple of observations on what I see as the underlying issue before us, however. (If you want ramifications and analyses, I especially liked these postings from Sprucegoose and from Craig Westover.)

Both the Constitution and the Ten Commandments have similar objectives: both set out how we should relate to one another, while the Commandments described how we should relate to God and the Constitution laid out how our government should relate to us. Part of the idea was that following the principles in each would result in a happier, more peaceful and more prosperous life, and that by putting these principles in writing we could hope to avoid large scale abuses of individuals tring to shade these for their own advantage.

Aside from prohibitions on killing, stealing, perjury and the occasional Sunday blue law that may be in effect in some areas, there aren’t a lot of laws on the books enforcing the Commandments. That’s not to say that putting some teeth into the “honoring your father and mother” line wouldn’t be generally beneficial to society. Enforcing that part about “not coveting” however would probably cripple the economy. Still, their presence in the public square and in our awareness established that – however unattainable – there is a standard of right and wrong to aspire that goes beyone legal and illegal. In my opinion, those who find the Commandments offensive are offended more by the suggestion that there should be such a standard of behavior (other than their own) than by the mention of God.

The Constitution, on the other hand, has given birth to thousands of laws, each supposedly adhering to its standard to provide fair play in a world that becomes increasingly ingenious about playing unfairly.

Both the Commandments and the Constitution ultimately depend on an understanding that justice is available, consistent and to be expected. In their recent decisions the Supreme Court has chosen to hide one standard from sight while ignoring the other.

bookmark to:

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to Del.icio.us

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to digg

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to reddit

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to Stumble Upon

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to Google Bookmarks

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to Ask

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to FaceBook

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to Barrapunto

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to MySpace

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to Twitter

Add 'Of hidden standards and agendas' to Social Bookmarking Reloaded

Book burning

Posted on June 30, 2005 by The Night Writer

I was beginning to think that Feet to the Fire would rather walk barefoot over hot coals than respond to my book meme tag, but it turns out he just has a lot of books to consider. Hotfoot it over to his blog to see which of the thousands he chose to single out.

It looks like we shared some common interests in our hardly mis-spent youths, and I’ve read several of the specific books he mentions. In addition, the “Rich Dad, Poor Dad” book was one I had my daughters read as part of their home education.

Go see for yourself, but bring your own marshmallows.

bookmark to:

thenightwriterblog.com

Illuminating fun, faith, family and foolishness.

Author Archives: The Night Writer

One down, 16 to go

American History Quiz

And they’re off…

Originalism sin

Inconceivable!

Red, White and Blue, too

We’ve got spirit, how ’bout you?

Flippin’ bird

Of hidden standards and agendas

Book burning