Sometime with snow on the ground, I was skiing with (e:holly) and her family, namely Cintra and Big Momma. The trails wound around a lake (kinda like the lake in our own Delaware park). Big Momma wasn't actually skiing, she was riding a snow-mobile, following behind us. It was great fun. Cintra led the way, calling back encouragement. We got to the top of a hill and looked around, the next bit would be a tricky steep decent (which has always been the most fun, partly becaue of the harrowing risk of death). The scariest part was that at the bottom was the lake, frozen over, but one never knows... Cintra takes off, sweeps down the hill, goes about five feet onto the lake and swings back to the bank. Perfect. (e:holly) goes with similar gusto. My turn comes. The wind rushes by, trying to tear my eyes from the tips of my skis. I manage well enough. Ten feet or so out atop the ice. Big Momma's turn comes. This will be very tricky. We start to yell advice to her, but it's too late. With a maniacal/hysterical grin she slides her growling monster over the lip. She's at the bottom in no time. She keeps going. And going. She's halfway to the middle of the lake when she finally starts to turn the thing back towards shore. We're all screaming and scared to death. The crack makes all of us jump. Within seconds the ice has splintered, it seems that she will make it, but slowly she is sucked backward into the lake. It's not as bad as we feared, the lake is only about three feet deep. We're wondering what to do when we hear the garbled roar of the snow-mobile's engine. She's gunnin' it. The snow-mobile finds traction on the bottom and the ice is cracking in front of her. We stare in amazement as Big Momma forges a path to the shore, still grinning from ear to ear. She pulls up to shore and we pull her off her beast. With a calm look she's says simply, "I'm done."

bleep....bleep...bleep

you have...bleep...accepterd the terms of...bleep...service.......

estrip initialized.....bleep...bleep...bleep..........

have a good...bleep...day...........

Pano, restraunteer and promoter of urban blight, himself holds an artist's rendering of the new and improved Pano's.


Yuck! Even if he extends the patio and hides the parking lot behind it, it still looks like crap. Ugly little one-storied flat-roofed building. How rich does he need to get? He needs ten cars instead of five? Another vacation house in FL? WTF? If he wants to get richer that's fine, but he shouldn't be allowed to do it over the objections of a whole community. Let him expand, but make him do it on our terms.

"The House yesterday voted to strip federal courts of the authority to hear cases challenging the constitutionality of the Pledge of Allegiance, a dramatic move meant to thwart what the bill's sponsors call "activist" judges on the federal bench."

"The measure, approved 247 to 173, is part of an effort by Republicans to restrict the courts' actions on several hot-button issues. In July, the House approved a measure that would limit the courts' ability to review cases involving the legal definition of marriage. Another bill pending in Congress would restrict the courts' authority to rule on cases involving the display of the Ten Commandments."

Is this not a little frightening? Now we have Congress preemptively limiting America's right to challenge certain institutions. I hadn't even heard about limiting court cases regarding the legal definition of marriage, and I thought I was on top of that. Doesn't this seem to be a crossing of our branches of government? If Congress can circumvent the judicial system by forbidding certain items from coming before the court in the first place haven't they overstepped their legislative perogative?

According to Michael J. Glennon, a constitutional scholar and law professor at the Fletcher School at Tufts University, "the Constitution explicitly authorizes Congress to make exceptions to the appellate jurisdiction of the Supreme Court. But the high court in 1803 also underscored its ultimate authority to rule on the constitutionality of the nation's laws."

One more spectacle in our slow spiral towards a facist state.

(e:Ajay) has issues with some of my statements [inlink]ajay,127[/inlink]. I have issues with the fact that a jury has no authority to change a sentence. We couldn't have reduced the crime to say 2nd or 3rd Degree Robbery (with a lesser sentence). What if I thought the man did it, but I don't think stealing $30 of food should put a man in jail for multiple years (especially at the cost to the rest of us law-abiding taxpayers). As to having "no doubts about his guilt" well that's not what we we there to prove. We were deciding if he was guilty beyond "a reasonable doubt" which sounds semantic, but in actual practice means you have to be able to explain these reasonable doubts, if such there be, to the rest of the 11 jurors. As to "save him" I was referring to not letting a bunch of quasi-racists (meaning those who would never admit it but secretly know that every black man in prison deserves his place there) convict a man without even considering the circumstances. Like I said in my journal, out of 12 jurors there were 8 who would have talked for 5 minutes and convicted the guy. I wasn't trying to save him from himself, but from a rampantly racist criminal justice system. I wish the system was bent on re-educating instead of punishment. But it ain't. And I knew it before the trial and I know it now. Therefore, the guilt.

As for bikes, I'm gonna ride however I feel safest, and if that happens to be in disregard for the law than so be it.