Today, Peanuts would have been 18. It's hard to believe that she's been gone for two and a half years already. While not the "Mother of All Schnauzers" (that was Schatzie, my dad's schnauzer), Peanuts was their Queen. Although it may not be entirely fair to all other schnauzers that they should be compared to the greatness that was Peanuts, there is no shame in falling short of her standard of perfection. Indeed, Westley found it liberating. He knew it was an honor to be able to bask in Peanuts' glorious schnauzerness. So maybe he wasn't as much of a fool as he'd have had us believe. Well, yeah, he was but nonetheless he knew enough to appreciate Peanuts' (relatively) benevolent reign.
So Michael Vick plans to plead guilty to federal charges of dog fighting and conspiracy. What a surprise. At least now we can put an end to the deluge of "innocent until proven guilty" from the Vick apologists. And it's not "innocent until proven guilty" it's "deemed innocent in the eyes of the law until proven guilty". The court of public opinion can rule long before any judge or jury. Moreover, just because a judge or jury hasn't heard the facts doesn't mean that the accused didn't do it. When you commit a crime, you're guilty even if you're not charged, tried or convicted. It's only in the eyes of the law that you are deemed "not guilty".
In some judical systems is phrased as "not proven guilty" which acknowledges that sometimes while the prosecutor may not have proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, it doesn't mean that the accused is necessarily innocent. O.J. would fit into that category.
But with Vick, such technical legal quandries are moot. He's guilty. He may come back at some later date saying that he only pled guilty because his friends and associates were willing to frame him to cut a better deal but I don't think the public is going to buy that load. He's a scumbag and deserves whatever prison sentence he gets.
I get so sick of talk show hosts criticizing the guys who turn state's evidence. They act like the Goodfellas code is a good thing that shouldn't be violated. That's B.S. Citizens of an honest society should work with law enforcement to bring criminals to justice. Otherwise, the bad guys have the upper hand and the world is worse off because of it. Or we could just turn to vigilante justice which is always fun too!
Anywho, does this mean he should be banned from football for life? Probably not for the dogfighting charges alone. Once he serves his sentence and whatever suspension the NFL imposes, he should be allowed to pursue gainful employment even as a multi-million dollar football player. That is allowed to try. Hopefully, NFL teams will weigh the pros and cons (no pun intended) of hiring and will realize the damage to their franchise's reputation isn't worth it. Moreover, depending on the length of his sentence/suspension who knows if he'll be the same player he once was or even if he'll be a viabile player at the pro level. CFL get ready! Or maybe the Raiders would want him since they probably still won't have their 1st round QB pick this year signed by then.
Right back at you, Mike.
Popular vampire fiction writer Anne Rice has endorsed Democratic candidate for President, Hillary Clinton. Throughout the endorsement, Rice referenced her own Christian faith and strong opposition to abortion. Of course, she added the politically correct caveat that she respected the positions of those who disagree with her. Sure.Rice went on to comment that: "I am keenly aware that Christians disagree violently on what the Gospels say." Really? While there have been historical occasions of intra-faith warfare over the interpretation of the Gospel, to broadly paint the Christian faith with the brush of jihad does a disservice to those of faith how strive for change peacefully. Certainly, nothing like the Sunni vs. Shiite violence can be currently attributed to Christian scriptural conflict. Do we disagree vehemently? You bet. Violently, I don't think so. The abortion bombing cases are the work of a tiny fringe of the anti-abortion/pro-life movement. Those who claim otherwise have another agenda at work.
And much as she is horrified by abortion, she is not sure that Americans should give up the right to abortion. Huh? To proclaim the sanctity of the unborn and then defend the right to murder said unborn is pure blather. Makes my head hurt.I'm not denying Rice's faith or convictions. Maybe just her logic. I guess that I was most surprised to even hear that she was a practicing Christian. She even has Ave Maria playing as background music on her site. I expected, I dunno, voodoo or something. Or a lapsed Catholic whose books on the occult belied a vindictive abhorrence of Christianity. Apparently not. But the strength of her convictions has given way to backwards logic in this case.
So after winning his fight to be tried, Jose Padilla has been convicted of federal support of terrorism charges. Out of the frying pan and into the fire. Kudos to Padilla's legal team. Some in my office have said, "We'll it's about time after we've been feeding and housing him for all these years." Not to mention the waterboarding. At least I hope we did. We certainly should now.
"It's a test is all it is. We didn't lose a game in the standings. How do we react to that? My money is that these kids are going to bounce back just fine. It's all part of the process." ~~ Ned Yost, Milwaukee Brewers manager
"Iceberg? What iceberg?" ~~ Captain Edward John Smith, RMS Titanic
Watched parts of a trial yesterday. It was a plaintiff's attorney that I'd never seen before against an attorney against whose firm I have a number of cases. The plaintiff's attorney was awkward and seemingly ill-prepared. He didn't seem to have his questions lined up and planned on just hoping his client could give her story in narrative form. Defense counsel repeatedly objected to the narrative and the judge sustained the objections.The plaintiff's attorney did have the advantage of the fact that the defendant didn't show up for trial. Allegedly, he was unable to make it in to town from Nebraska or Kansas or Oklaholma or some such state. That always is a good thing for a plaintiff (issues of insurance coverage notwithstanding).In closing argument, the plaintiff's attorney repeatedly commented that defendant has produced no evidence. Defense counsel repeatedly objected saying that a defendant has no burden of proof and the Court sustained the objection. While I think there is some issue as to whether it is fair commentary to point out a defendant has adduced no evidence, the judge sustained the objections. Moreover, the plaintiff's attorney was so bent on pointing out the lack of defense evidence that he entirely failed to comment on the strengths of his own unrefuted case.He went on and on about defense counsel claiming there was an X-Files-type conspiracy theories between plaintiff and the plaintiff's doctors. It might have been effective if it wasn't so rambling. Maybe he could have used a tag line like: "The truth isn't out there. It was up there (pointing to the witness stand) from where my client and her doctor testified."I spoke to another plaintiff's attorney who was watching the closing arguments and he wasn't too impressed with the close. There were times where I found it downright painful to listen to what he was trying to say.But what do I know? The jury came back with a verdict for the plaintiff in the amount of $6,500 on a case with around $2,500 in medical bills. More than 2-1/2 times the bills so not bad for a "whiplash" type case. I guess I just don't know if I can be bad enough to get that good of a result.
Today, Peanuts would have been 18. It's hard to believe that she's been gone for two and a half years already. While not the "Mother of All Schnauzers" (that was Schatzie, my dad's schnauzer), Peanuts was their Queen. 
