I haven't shave since last Sunday. This is partly because I loathe the process of shaving. Ever since I made this monumental decision the Angels have not lost a game. Now I know my folical expansion has no correlation to the Angels' winning streak hitting four games. I am not usually into this sort of superstitious argle fargle ( copyright Justice Scalia) but desperate times call for desperate measures. So I will continue to shun my razor as long as the Halos keep winning. Whatever I can do to help the ball club and hey, we will take it one day at a time.
-- Freakin Bud Norris. How is it this guy continues to own the Angels. Another seven innings with no earned runs. I think the Angels should trade for him tomorrow. Seriously, What could it take? Maybe Cole Kalhoun and another guy. If for no other reason so we don't have to face him again. I don't know how he does it but I am sick of him owning the Angels.
-- If you like outfield defense this was the game for you. Astros kid centerfielder Brandon Barnes made two sick plays in one inning (show respect; they were pretty incredible.) Josh Hamilton made a nice running catch early in the game and Mike Trout made a riduculous, game saving, running, back handed grab late. JB Shuck played, and that is all we should say about that.
-- Nice game for Hank Conger. He threw two dudes out on the basepaths and had a double that led to the game winning run. Conger also got mixed up in the weirdest play of the night. Conger ran back on a pop fly and stopped when someone in the Astros dugout yelled "I Got It". This is considered bush league and if Mike Scioscia finds out who it was, you can be assured that dude will be wearing one in the next day or two.
-- Jerome Williams was back to his old solid self tonight. Jerome did what he is supposed to do, get outs by letting the defense do the work. Even though the pen was shaky, they got the job done. Pitching will be key and tonight it came through.
Every once and awhile Erick Aybar has a game like this one. Aybar generated one run by stretching a single out on an error. He pressured the defense into a run by advancing on a throw to third. Then he slapped a single scoring two runs. He had a hand in all four runs by being a smart player who hustles. We need more of these games Erick, and fast.
Oh, yeah! I knew there was an appropriate term to be used whenever Justice Kennedy uses some tortured logic to vote to advance the goal of engorging the power of the federal government. "Argle-fargle"© sounds just about perfect and much more family-friendly than the term I use in this context.
But, wait. Perhaps this comment wasn't meant in a friendly manner. Hmm…I wonder if it might have been meant in a mocking way. Could it have been directed at the Prop 8 non-decision? No, that was Justice Alito who made outright fun of <sarcasm>the brilliant judicial mind of the now-retired Vaughn Walker</sarcasm> in his opinion. The case where just last Friday Jerry Brown directed all county clerks to accept filings for gay marriage? You do know that CA state constitution (Article 3) states pretty plainly that: "An administrative agency, including an administrative agency created by the Constitution or an initiative statute, has no power:
(a) To declare a statute unenforceable, or refuse to enforce a statute, on the basis of it being unconstitutional unless an appellate court has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional;
(b) To declare a statute unconstitutional;
(c) To declare a statute unenforceable, or to refuse to enforce a statute on the basis that federal law or federal regulations prohibit the enforcement of such statute unless an appellate court has made a determination that the enforcement of such statute is prohibited by federal law or federal regulations."
In other words, the statute stands until struck down by the highest court to hear it and it MUST be enforced. Huh. Well, that's really weird. The SCOTUS did not, in fact, declare Prop 8 unconstitutional. They declared that, since the Democratic People's Republic Of California did not see fit to have <sarcasm>the as-talented-as-Judge-Walker</end sarcasm> Kamala Harris represent the people's will, as demonstrated, again, in the latest initiative vote on the topic, that no one else involved had standing to argue in favor of the initiative. That's a little different than "has made a determination that such statute is unconstitutional" and, if I recall correctly, the SCOTUS decision actually vacated the 9th Circuit (The most overturned appeals court in the country - Yay! - CA leads in something besides illiteratecy! It's a little bit of a cheat, though, since we have help from eight other states.) ruling on the subject, effectively reverting state law back to the wording of the initiative. So why is Gov. Moonbeam actively breaking this part of the constitution so plainly painted on the side of the barn?
Now, after the initiate process began the above constitutional wording was considered by the activists who pushed it through to be sufficient to stop those who would thwart the will of the people, aka "those wascally Wepublicans", to prevent any nefarious circumventing of said will. But, soft! What light through yonder window breaks? It is the activist Leftists who have decided, in their magnanimous omniscience, to correct the wrong thinking of the CA voter by re-educating their obvious mistake in failing to understand the simplest possible wording of an initiative. Our thanks to the State, and our Dear Leaders, for showing us the way to enlightenment by casting aside the wording of the constitution they are sworn to uphold! This Initiative is, of course, both unconstitutional AND unenforceable in the minds of these elites. All hail! And somebody start re-painting that rule on the side of the barn before the fuckin' sheep notice!
Or perhaps it was something in the DOMA decision the author didn't care for? Perhaps it was the opinion that the law was not valid because of the malice it intended. That is, of course, the malice that, what?, something like EIGHTY FIVE Senators voted for? And which that noted homophobe Bill ("I'm the REAL first black president") Clinton signed into law? Yeah, that must be it. <sarcasm>Declaring nefarious intent will most certainly advance rational debate.</sarcasm> Or perhaps a different decision/opinion? I'm up for discussing any of them.
In the meantime, I have the perfect words to utter whenever a judge legislates from the bench. I'll send Justice Scalia a quarter every time I use the phrase. I can follow a rule, unlike the elite ruling class in Beijing…er…"Sacramento".