Another possibility

Wait... we were the red team!

sardonic -- adj -- cynically mocking

While some are rightfully questioning a possible connection between the London bombing and Paris' failed Olympic bid, is it possible that someone was not fooled by this ruse and thus became motivated to attack London?

Words

are like women

Intoxicating... mysterious... infatuating... and, occasionally they drive you mad because of your inability to understand what they mean.

Were you lucky enough to experience WORDPak in junior high/high school? (Do you remember walking home from school wondering what the hell happened to the c?) After teachers tired of torturing their elementary students with SRAs, they employed WORDPak and then books by Jane Austen.

I have found myself immersed in historical American Revolution-themed works and biographies of our "founding fathers" (a phrase, I recently learned, was first coined by President, then Senator from Ohio, Warren G. Harding... who I recall from a visit to the Hall of Presidents at the Smithsonian over 10 years ago, may also have another noteworthy distinction... being the only President poisoned to death by his wife.)...

But I digress. As I said, I have read in the past month or am now reading "1776", "Alexander Hamilton", "John Adams", "His Excellency", and "The Writings of Alexander Hamilton". What has amazed me so far is that the breadth of their vocabulary stands every bit as awe-inspiring as their uncommon valor, brilliance, and patriotism. I mean, can you imagine people today using words like "emoluments", "foppery", and "parvenu" in every day conversation? And while it is understandable that people do not bandy a word like "manumission" around the water cooler, it hardly explains why "quotidian", "velleity", and "prolixity" do not find their way into our discourse.

As one person's small effort to color our language (and not blue) and in the spirit of sadisitc English teachers everywhere, each day I will post a word that relates to the piece I am writing, that I recently learned (from reading and not a calendar), or that simply strikes me.

So with that in mind... and as an homage to the most brilliant founding father, Alexander Hamilton...

autodidact -- n -- self-taught person

(note: emolument -- payment for an office or employment; foppery - foolish quality or action; parvenu - a person who has suddenly risen to a higer social and economic class and has not yet gained social acceptance by others in that clase ... e.g. Bill O'Reilly in his mind; manumission - formal act of freeing from slavery; quotidian - commonplace; velleity - mere wish or inclination; prolixity - tediously prolonged; wordy; tending to speak or write at excessive length)

Tresspassers William

Great sounds and "sights"

Somewhere in my parent's house the vinyl version of Fleetwood Mac's "Rumors" rests in quiet obsolescence, Stevie Nicks having worked her magic on me years ago. Ten years later two other song sirens, Natalie Merchant and Edie Brickell, lured me to the music of the 10,000 Maniacs and the New Bohemians. Five years passed before an Irish lass, Ms. O'Riordan, fronting the Cranberries, stole my musical heart with Irish melodies. Two years later, my affections wandered to a Scottish woman, Shirley Manson, and the band Garbage.

In the ensuing years, either my tastes turned to female solo artists or the number of female-fronted rock bands waned. Whatever the case may be, two summers ago Amy Lee and Evanescence reignited my love of both sights and sounds.

And now, two years later, I am smitten again (and have been for a few months). Anna-Lynne Williams and Tresspassers William, my ear and affectionate gaze are yours.

Friends

and not the NBC sitcom

35 years ago on this date I came into this world determined to accomplish three things ...

1) become the greatest hockey player the NHL has ever seen. While I still have a few good years left, taking into account that unlike other players my age, the only hits I have taken in the past 17 years have been inflicted by seventy-year old women carelessly careening around Giant Eagle, I suspect that my dreams of capturing a Hart Trophy are as whimsical as my aspiration of marrying Minnie Driver.

2) discover the cure for aging. Yes, aging. I have always believed that aging is not a natural process but a chronic disease that we all suffer from -- (though until this year, I was wondering if Dick Clark disproved the universality of my theory). Unfortunately, after falling asleep studying for my Virology exam my junior year at Pitt and subsequently sleeping through the exam, I decided that the world of science wasn't for me. While in theory one would think that knowing that the half life of Strontium 90 is approximately 28 years would impress women, the reality is that the only women who are impressed are tragically nerdy. I think it's safe to say that marriage to Minnie looks more likely.

3) find some incredible people to have as best friends. And by any measure, I have exceeded both the goal and my expectations. I am reminded of this every time I talk to them, or e-mail them, or read their work.

I have known my best friends for over half of my life now, and like any best friends, we have shared the highs and lows, the excusions and misadventures, and the memories and things-we-would-soon-like-to-forget.

When you are lucky, as I am, over the years and through these times your best friends become your brothers... and by extension, their families become part of your expanded immediate family. When you are especially lucky, as I am, your best friends marry wisely and your family of best friends grows as well.

My best friends have innumerable qualities that I love about them and that make them magnificent men... but none greater than these 3 . . . Wendy, Melissa, and Meredith. I treasure your thoughts, advice, and stories as much as I do those of my brothers.

So to my 6 best friends I say... thank you for making any birthday wish superfluous.

Elections Matter

or Ted Kennedy, please shut up.

Both parties raised the issue in the 2004 Presidential campaign. The next President may... likely would, they said... have the power to alter the make-up of the court. Of course, when they said it, they (both sides) said it in their typically apocryphal way, ignoring the almost 220 years of history that had inconveniently (and to them, unknowingly) preceded their statements. (Do they recall, for example, the Revolution of 1937 that dramatically transformed the economic rules of this country? Or that FDR appointed 8 justices during his 3+ terms in office?)

True to form, at least one side's recollection of history does not now extend back as far as the 2004 elections. On numerous programs I have heard the likes of Sens. Ted Kennedy and Charles Schumer lecture the public how President Bush has a duty to confer not just with the Senate (controlled by the Republicans) but with Democrats in the Senate. Strange, then why exactly did you warn me in 2004 to care about this issue?

The left-wing of the Democratic Party along with Ralph Neas and NOW have said that since O'Connor was a moderate conservative, Bush must appoint a moderate conservative. Just as when Byron "Whizzer" White (Onterrio Smith's favorite justice), a moderate conservative, President Clinton bowed to pressure from Republicans and selected renowned conservative Ruth Bader Ginsburg... oh wait. Maybe, I'm thinking of when President Bush 41 replaced Thurgood Marshall, a dyed-in-the-wool liberal, with another liberal thinker, Clarence Thomas.

Presidents have the discretion in picking their appointees and certainly have no obligation to consider the opinions of those who voted overwhelmingly against them. (Sadly, I am certain there would be ideologically-crazed conservatives who would be demanding the same from John Kerry if he had been elected President).

The point is... and it is a simple one... if the nominee is a competent and intelligent jurist/individual, then he/she should be confirmed.

As a member of my law school's chapter of the Federalist Society, I can assure you that I found little in Ruth Bader Ginsburg's writings and views with which to find agreement. She was, however, a competent and intelligent selection, and the 97-3 confirmation vote for her was as it should be. While much was made this week about the Senate confirming Sandra Day O'Connor 99-0, we should also recall that the Senate confirmed Justice Scalia (unquestionably brilliant and conservative) 98-0. Again, the way it should be.

Kennedy (97-0), Souter (90-9), and Breyer (97-3) all found little resistance in their confirmations. The notable exceptions in these past 20 or 30 years... Robert Bork (42-58) and Thomas (52-48)... either had the unfortunate circumstances of being too forthright on their judicial philosophy (i.e. Bork did not prevaricate) or had 1 former colleague accuse them of sexual harassment, which raised, in at least some people's minds (mostly which broke down along party affiliation), legitimate questions about whether they were competent to serve.

So, will Bush's next appointment be a Bork and a Thomas, or a Scalia and a Ginsburg? My suspicion is that the answer to that is "none of the above". I think we are likely to see a return to the 70s when 68 voted for and 26 voted against Rehnquist and 65 voted for and 33 against John Paul Stevens for appointment to the Supreme Court and when the shrillest of voices found audience in a third of the Senate.

Qualifications be damned. Special interests are paramount, say those who fight for the last branch of government still under their ideological spell.

(Tuesday ... "And Why It Matters ")