Thoughts: I added my .02 in discussions of spelling rules and vanity acting roles, while discussing (link supplied) an interesting Weekly Standard article on due process for [alleged or otherwise] terrorists and other like minded sorts. Finally, I have discussed my thoughts on the president and the judicial appointment process in the past. The Federal Appointments Process: A Constitutional and Historical Analysis reminds us of the complexity of the process as well as the importance of looking at things partly in a historical institutionalism sort of way.

Politics: I just started Wes Clark's book Winning Modern Wars, and it seems promising. My general sentiment on Clark is that he would be a good asset for the Democratic Administration, let's say Secretary of State or something, but perhaps not as the Chief Executive (he has a lot of good domestic policy ideas, his time in the military and so forth [e.g. he chairs an alternative energy firm] forced him to defend some of them, but he still seems a bit weak in that department). His competition is mixed, so don't count me out yet Wes.

As to the Dems winning, it is said that economy and how the foreign policy stuff is going will be the final difference, especially the former. I find this a bit sad -- my opposition to this administration is at its base an opposition to its basic philosophy of government as well as its basic style of doing things. Pocketbook issues are honestly not what is upsets me the most about them. If they had a smart economic program, I'd still be against them. All the same, yes, I'd admit that the vagaries of economics might very well be what matters. Seems so shallow. Marx might be laughing somewhere.

Sports: I have gotten caught up with the whole Green Bay/Brett Favre madness with his dad dying, the team playing great vs. Oakland the day after, Arizona's miracle win to allow GB to get to the playoffs, and so on. I was quite annoyed when they couldn't win it in regulation as if they somehow deserved to win, even though Seattle almost should have won given how great their QB played (dropped passes led to the need for an OT where the opposition caught the crucial pass, but damn if Brett's former backup [talk about the Maytag repairman of the NFL] tried to tackle the player ... failed, but gutsy to the end). Anyway, it was a great game ... better because that end of regulation field goal missed.

Okay, so Pete Rose admits now to betting on baseball, including on games in which his own team played. So, besides being a gambler, he now admits to being a liar too. This is supposed to make us all feel better, since he repented and all, so hey let's allow him back into baseball (maybe, after a probation period). No, don't really buy it. I'm all for reasonable punishments and all, but the guy had years to tell the truth, but all he did was thumb his nose at the game, and continue lying. To make matters worse, he made out as if he was the victim. And now he should be reinstated? The rules say that in a few years it will be in the veterans hands to vote him in, and I guess the "jury of his peers" so to speak might best have that decision. Still, as a fan, I have some symbolic role. And I say ... keep the SOB out.