Pray for this man:

Houston Museum of Fine Arts

http://www.mfah.org/

Click the link directly above to see the museum's web site.

They have free admission on Thursdays and also later hours.   We stopped by today & it seemed quite different from the last time I was there which was several years back.  There are two separate buildings and one of them houses displays of Japanese, Korean, Chinese, and also Native American Art as well as some others that I can't remember right now.  They had a very nice persian rug in one room.  Across the street was a building that had Roman statues and also an ornately decorated coffin for a Roman general.   That is also the building with the paintings.   They really do have some good stuff over there and I would highly recommend a visit if you haven't been lately.  They also have a very attentive staff to make sure the art is not damaged or touched.  They also don't allow flash pictures in some areas and other areas they don't allow pictures at all.  There was one section with large paintings with biblical themes and there was one in particular that  I would have liked to take a picture of but it wasn't allowed.  I forgot the name of the artist so I have not been able to find it online but it was a scene with Solomon and the two mothers claiming ownership of the same baby.  There was also a dead baby and the dispute was who belonged to the live baby.  Of course Solomon in is wisdom is holding his sword over the baby getting ready to find out who the real mother is.  

Overall, most everything that I saw struck me as a bonified museum piece and I can only imagine the actual dollar value of some of the stuff on display.   Last time I went I saw a Van Gough and I am pretty sure they still own it but today the only ones I really recognized were the ones by Picasso.  They also had several from artists who tried to paint in the style of Picasso. 

In one section they had a child mummy in a glass display that alone was worth the visit.   I still have to go back because it was hard to move fast enough to take it all in properly.

The display of Native American art was not as extensive as I would have liked but it was truly amazing.  

The bottom line is that if you are near Houston you should check out the museums even if you don't think you would be interested.   Once you get there, you definitely realize that it is cool looking stuff and a good way to pass the time.    One tip I can give you is not to try to eat lunch around the museum district because there isn't much there. 

This one above is a Rembrandt that is owned by the Museum. 

Above is a pot from around 500 BC.  I noticed another smaller one in this section that had three legs also.

Baseball, Apple Pie, and steroids

The Roger Clemens trial is underway and you can read about it here if you want to:

 http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/other_mlb/view/20120418roger_clemens_jury_selection_like_slow_baseball_game/srvc=home&position=recent


It isn't my place to judge Roger Clemons, Barry Bonds, or Mark McGuire, but common sense will tell you that maybe Andy Pettit didn't lie when he said is friend Roger Clemons was using Steroids.

I was at Minute Made Park a few years ago when Barry Bonds broke Babe Ruth's walk record.  It was a magical moment.  I felt a connection to history and the significance of what Babe Ruth had done.  Turns out it was all phoney.

I used to think about what would have happened if Mohammed Ali faced Mike Tyson when they both were in thier prime.  If you take steroids out of the equation then Tyson probably wouldn't even have been considered. 

Steroids has been terrible for baseball.  In the short run it generated some interest when the home run records were being broken but it just comes down to cheating and that isn't what baseball is all about.

Roger Clemens should have just accepted the reality of the situation and kept his mouth shut.  He could have lived happily ever after with his millions of dollars and steroid shrunken penis.   I actually would like to believe he didn't use steroids and didn't lie to congress but somebody needs to explain why Andy Pettit would have lied and said he did and then I will give him a little more benefit of the doubt.

Little Joe YouTube Documentary

Here is a documentary of sorts that I ran accross when searching Little Joe on YouTube:

Watch it!

Little Joe on 45 rpm record

Little Joe Rocks it on this one back in 1963. 

I wasn't the only one who noticed

This morning I posted about the federal judge issuing what appeared to be a partisan order.  It appears that I wasn't the only one who got that impression:

http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/jerry-smith-obama-rebuke-questioned-legal-experts-213822371.html


..."I know and respect Judge Smith...But I am surprised to see a request to the Justice Department asking them to explain their views on judicial review," said Jeffries, a former clerk to Supreme Court Justice Lewis Powell. "My position would be that judicial review is judicial review, whether you like it or not."

Other scholars concurred. University of Chicago Professor Geoffrey Stone told Yahoo News in an email that Obama wasn't actually questioning judicial review, but was cautioning the judges to remember the other branches of government. "Judge Smith's response was, in my view, quite inappropriate," he said. "It was an unmistakably political act that was well beyond the proper bounds of the judicial role."...

Too bad we don't have more judges like Sanders Sauls, the Democrat judge who ruled against Al Gore in the Florida election fiasco.   He understood that the responsibility placed on him was bigger than his own political viewpoint.

Hey Everybody Look at us! We are the 5th circuit and we want to be in the news.

Seems like the 5th circuit court of appeals has and empty docket and can move on to jump in the middle of partisan politics:

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504564_162-57408827-504564/appeals-court-fires-back-at-obamas-comments-on-health-care-case/

I respect thier right to vote in November but when they call out the President of the United States for making comments about a law he signed, that is about as activist as it gets.  The whole thing has been turned over the Supreme Court so they need to remember thier place and do the specific job that the taxpayers are paying them to do.  

It is disheartening to hear that judges are behaving in such a silly manner because I know there are citizens depending on thier sound judgement.

We used to have a judge here in Houston who love to grab the spotlight by sentancing people to wear signs in public & other crap like that.  He was always on had to make a comment for the cameras.  His name is Ted Poe he is now an elected member of congress.   It just showed me that he wanted the free PR to promote his ownself and I have a general disdain for that type of bullshit.

couldn't even hurt a flea (even when I tried)

This past winter here in Houston was mild.  We didn't have a hard freeze that I remember and that means we will probably have plenty of misquitoes and fleas this year.   I am already noticing that the fleas are worse than normal.  We have some large shrubs that have attracted quite a few birds.  I am not a flea expert but I think they bring fleas with them. 

Last night I tried a little flea hunting experiment.   I read on the internet that you could make a flea trap using a candle and a dish of soapy water.   The idea is that the fleas will jump towards the heat and land in the soapy water.  It was suggested to be used indoors but I wanted to try it in the kennel area that extends from our patio.  It is not a kennel but more of a small wire fence that keeps our dogs from running to the edge of the yard and waking up the neighbors when we let them out at night to do thier business. 

I found a flat pan and filled it with soapy water and put a candle in the middle of it and placed it in the middle of the kennel.  I lit the candle and turned off the light  and went inside to allow time for my enginious plan to work.  I checked after about an hour and couldn't see any fleas but I decided to be patient and left the candle buring overnight.  This  morning I was all excited and went out with my reading glasses so I could get a good view of all the fleas that I had killed.  There was one June Bug and some miscellanous small gnat looking bugs and maybe one that looked like a flea but I wasn't sure.  I then dumped the soapy water in the yard, threw away the small pile of candle wax and ate a bowl of cheerios.

Little Joe Washington

The Eyes of Texas Are Upon You

Here is one fresh of the press:

https://www.oag.state.tx.us/oagnews/release.php?id=4020

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE March 30, 2012 www.texasattorneygeneral.gov	CONTACT Press Office at (512) 463-2050
Houston-Based TaxMasters and Founder Patrick Cox Ordered to Pay Over $195 Million For Defrauding Customers in Texas and Nationwide
AUSTIN – Texas Attorney General Greg Abbott released the following statement after a Travis County jury returned a $195 million verdict against Houston-based TaxMasters, Inc., its predecessor companies and its founder and chief executive officer, Patrick Cox, for violating the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act: “Today’s decision marks a significant victory for the Texans and TaxMasters customers nationwide who sought help from TaxMasters with their income tax debts and were taken advantage of in the midst of a national economic downturn. While the TaxMasters CEO made hollow promises about fighting for taxpayers and their pocketbooks in television ads, the evidence proved that the firm didn’t even bother to show up when it came time to fulfill those promises, but instead misled and defrauded their customers.” In an apparent effort to avoid the State’s enforcement action, TaxMasters filed for Chapter 11 bankruptcy protection just one day before the jury trial was set to begin. Citing the firm’s bankruptcy petition, TaxMasters CEO Patrick Cox sought to delay the trial, but his request was denied and the trial proceeded as planned. After an eight-day trial, the jury found that TaxMasters, its predecessor companies and Patrick Cox committed over 110,000 violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act and ordered the defendants to pay a total of over $195 million. Of that, over $113 million is restitution for fees TaxMasters’ customers paid to the firm, and $81 million was further awarded in civil penalties. Breakdown of the verdict • Consumer restitution: $113,099,820 • Civil penalties: $81,205,000 • Attorney fees: $1,045,998 • Number of Violations: 110,383 Facts of the case • The State’s enforcement action against TaxMasters, Inc. was filed in May 2010. • According to the State’s enforcement action, the so-called “tax resolution” firm misled Texans by aggressively advertising its services to federal taxpayers who have received notice from the IRS of an audit, garnishment, lien, levy or tax deficiency. • TaxMasters misled customers about their service contract terms, failed to disclose its no-refunds policy, and falsely claimed that the firm’s employees would immediately begin work on a case – despite the fact that TaxMasters did not actually start to work on a case until its customers paid in-full for services, even if that delayed response meant taxpayers missed significant IRS deadlines. • TaxMasters also failed to contact and consult with the IRS on the client’s behalf, appear on the client’s behalf at an IRS audit or hearing or postpone or stop a wage or bank account garnishment or stop a levy or lien against a client’s property. • From 2005 to 2012, the Texas Attorney General’s Office received 891 consumer complaints against TaxMasters. • The case was handled by Assistant Attorneys General Nanette DiNunzio, Bruce Griffiths and Jennifer Roscetti. The trial team also consisted of legal assistants Pam Yediares and Pauline Sisson. NOTE: The Texas Attorney General’s Office will actively participate in the bankruptcy case to seek to recover restitution for customers.

 

universal devide

If what the pundits are correct and it turns out to be a vote along party lines, then that, in my opinion, is a bad thing for the court itself.  The Chief Justice has tried to avoid these types of rulings because he knows it is a bad thing to openly clarify the ideological devide in the form of a 5/4 ruling along party lines.  Whichever way the ruling goes, it will be best for the the court and the county if it by more than the minimum majority either way.   I was surprised that the attorney arguing in favor of Obamacare didn't use the example of citizens being forced to buy automobile insurance.  Of course that is being done by the states but it still seems like an example that would be a better fit than the burial insurance, brocoli, or cell phone examples they discussed.  It is always a bad sign when judges try to oversimplify an issue into something that it isn't and I don't think the president's guy did such a good job in coming up with common sense answers and examples.  His biggest hurdle seems to come down to convincing the court that it is in fact constitutional for the federal government to force citizens to purchase insurance.

I also agree that the questions asked during the oral presentation are not a reliable indicator of how the court will rule.  When it comes down to it, just as Clarence Thomas has previously said, the court relies mostly on the written briefs.  The bottom line now is that we will find out in the summer when the ruling is issued.

Day 2

Here is the audio for today's oral arguments:

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/27/149465820/transcript-supreme-court-the-health-care-law-and-the-individual-mandate

partisan evaluation

Here is a link to the top story from today's news:

The Supreme Court is deeply split on ideological and political grounds, with the five conservative Republican-appointed justices often in the majority: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.


Here is what Reuters News service says about the political leanings and predictablility of the individual Justices:


"...The Supreme Court is deeply split on ideological and political grounds, with the five conservative Republican-appointed justices often in the majority: Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito.
The four liberal Democratic appointees are Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan.
A looming point of interest for the 400 spectators who will crowd into the courtroom on Tuesday is whether that 5-4 division becomes evident or appears to splinter.
All four liberals are likely, based on their past decisions and statements, to vote to uphold the law. If that occurs, they would need only one of the conservatives for a majority. An American Bar Association legal group survey of academics and lawyers found that 85 percent thought the law would be upheld.
Among the justices most likely to become swing votes in the dispute are Roberts, a 2005 appointee of President George W. Bush. Roberts has often deferred to Congress in rulings and has signaled an interest in avoiding a deeply divided ruling.
Another conservative justice who could defy political-based assumptions is Anthony Kennedy, a 1988 appointee of President Ronald Reagan. Kennedy has straddled the middle and has most often been the swing vote when the liberals prevailed.
Based on his opinions, Justice Clarence Thomas is most likely to vote to strike down the law. Scalia and Alito cannot be as easily predicted as Thomas..."

Oral arguments before the Supreme Court of the United States of America

Click here to hear audio of the proceedings from today:

http://www.npr.org/2012/03/26/149401430/transcript-supreme-court-the-health-care-overhaul-law-and-the-anti-injunction-ac


Amazing stuff. 

The text is also there so you can either read it or listen to it. 

SCOTUS

The Supreme Court is in the news today:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577305362846327828.html?mod=googlenews_wsj

They are going to hear arguments on "Obamacare" and rule on its constitutionality. I have mixed feelings on government healthcare. I do feel like that as a country that had the resources to invade & occupy Iraq & Afghanistan and to send out billions in foriegn aid, we should have a responsibility to provide basic needs for our own citizens. Our country was founded on based at least partly on Puritan principles and taking care of the poor is about as basic as it gets when it comes to the golden rule. However, I do not like the type of service I get when I go to the Post Office and I can only imagine what Governement Healthcare could evolve into.

There is no question that partisanship has take a front seat to patriotism here lately but I see more of that in the Executive and Legislative brances. According to the constitution Congress is in charge of spending money. The president cannot spend a dime (in theory) without Congressional authorization. When I hear members of Congress attacking the president about his budget, I always wonder why they are not attacking thier own branch of government since Congress actually has to sign the checks.

I know there is some ideological differences between the members of the court but I am comfortable with that and have generally felt good about how the Justices have been conducting thier business and have full confidence they will issue a decision that is based on the law. I am not convinced that it will be purely non-partisan but I have made a decision in advance to respect thier ruling, whichever way it goes.

effect & cause

Bobby D

Bonus video

But wait.  Order now and receive this bonus vidoe at absolutely no (current) charge.

sixteen saltines

Check the video of our favorite rock and roll hero.

There is no charge to view the video but please keep in mind that at some point in the future we might ask a favor from you.  Of course when the boss asks a favor, well you know.   Please enjoy the video.

Time Travel has not happened even in the future

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-17364682


You can read the whole article by clicking the link above but here is the synopsis provided at the beginning of the story:

An experiment to repeat a test of the speed of subatomic particles known as neutrinos has found that they do not travel faster than light.


Here is a bit of background provided in the article itself:

...Results announced in September suggested that neutrinos can exceed light speed, but were met with scepticism as that would upend Einstein's theory of relativity.

A test run by a different group at the same laboratory has now clocked them travelling at precisely light speed...


Or you could read my posts here where I have already gone on record to make it official that we here at the one man web log never had any doubt whatsover.