A Not-Quite-Week in Review
Shelly is currently disputing with me over an entry in the check registry. "Seventeen dollars for 'coffee with Shelly?'", she sputtered. "When was that?" Checking the handy column to the left, I told her it was on the 17th, but could remember no more details. "That wasn't coffee with me, that was $9, and it was at Panera's!" I can only dream wistfully of the days when even a nine dollar entry labelled 'coffee' would in itself have looked excessive.
Unfortunately, a quick visit to our online checking account, which in the interest of full disclosure is owned by my employer, proves her right: The seventeen dollars was not coffee related. Rather, it was a pizza dinner we had two weeks ago. So I occasionally mislabel things!
Module grades came back today. Guess who passed all three of them! I even passed the much-maligned 'share' module; many people congratulated me on that today, as I'm only the third in recent memory to pass it the first time. Three down, 12 to go, and then I'll be in bonus territory!
Also, as a little plug for my good friend Justin, his parents have recently come into a cache of collectable firepower, by which I mean they have inherited some rare guns. As the days when I could wantonly snap up every gun that caught my eye are over, I'm unable to assist him directly in relieving his parents of said arsenal. But for any out there considering making that move over to gun-ownership (as you should), give Justin a call and put in a bid!
Good Lord! Everyone has a MySpace page now! Jen S! You never told me you had a MySpace page (at least not that I recall, which admittedly doesn't mean you didn't)! BTW, Ju, that's the former Jen Crawford I'm addressing there, so don't get your wires crossed, pal! ;) Nevertheless, I shall hold firm against the tide! You'll have to pry a MySpace page into my cold, dead hands!
While in the MySpace world just now, I came upon a blog of an old friend whom I hadn't seen in a while, but who recently featured as fainting bridesmaid in Jen's wedding. Don't get confused now, I know I'm throwing an extra one into the mix, but her name is also Jen. Let's distinguish her from the others by giving her a distinctive suffix initial, say Jen... 'M'. Anyway, this passage from her blog caught my attention:
This morning at the Breakfast Shoppe with my parents, I
eavesdropped on a conversation the table next to us was having. Two
couples, two men, two women, all four in the 60's & 70's. One chimes
in that they hope the newly appointed government officials do something
about the need for stem cell research. She was hopeful that the
research could help so many people in the world, especially those nearest and
dearest to us. She feared that she would never see this research in her
lifetime, but hoped that her children and her grandchildren would see it in
theirs. I envied their converstation. Too many times we revolve
discussions around meaningless anticdotes and never really bother to talk about
"real issues." Are we scared to discuss such controversial topics in
public, or are we just worried that our views would be looked down upon by our
friends?
Well, there is the fact that the 'ban' on stem cell research really only bans federal funding of the research (private research is free to continue, it just needs to find other sources of funding), but that's a whole other topic. What really intrigued me were Jen's comments at the end. I think most of us know the answer to that, though. People only bring up controversial subjects around people who they know will agree with them; they don't around other people because they will either get into a heated argument or make someone very uncomfortable. If you think I'm wrong about that, next time you're out with a bunch of friends (preferably some of whom you don't know well), kindle a good, friendly tete-a-tete by saying "Illegal immigrants should be executed!" or "People who want to marry their pets should be able to follow their hearts!" You'll probably be able to count on one hand the number of minutes before someone gets furious and storms out.
Subject switch: Shelly just pointed out to me a passage in one of her law books, saying people who desire 'strict constructionist' judges don't truly understand the legal process and how law is decided. In a battle of judical and legal knowledge with the authors of the text book in one corner and Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas in the other, I'll take the guys who actually got appointed to the Supreme Court.
Alright, that's all for one night. Shelly needs a backrub, and I'm on call!









