I'm
not dead, but the site temporarily is; there've been a few glitches
lately, and movabletype is currently hosed. I'm working on the
problems, but until they're all sorted out, please consider the site on
TEMPORARY hiatus. Even after I have it up, I will not be on full
posting mode until January 3, 2005. Everybody needs a vacation!
UPDATE 1/5:
Argh. Admittedly, I didn't even start to look at the problems until
yesterday as I have had a heck of a Christmas/New Years going on here,
but everything looks well and truly hosed at the moment. I'm about this
close to simply dropping MovableType and installing from a backup I had
(that isn't ...tooooo far back, I think); if the problems continue past
this week, I'll do just that. I have not abandoned this site. It's just
resisting.
So why, after Kerry was raked over the coals for DARING to mention that he’d like to see troop withdrawals start happening by the end of his first term, is Rumsfeld not beat up for saying the same thing? And I specifically want to know, Grim and Novak, why you aren’t laying into him for this. Because, you know, you were all over Kerry for it.
There was a bit of a DNS glitch this week with my domain provider / website hoster (who is, literally, a friend with a server in his basement.) — it’s good to see that I’m back, thanks to his help and the good people at GoDaddy.
Updates forthcoming, though not much has happened this week that I felt absolutely necessitated older commentary from me.
When I was supporting Wesley Clark in the primaries (and I still think the man will eventually be a politican to be contended with), I wrote on Kerry:
John Kerry — The man is articulate, says all the right things, has aplomb coming out of his ass, and yet he has all the charisma of Tom Delay at a press conference. His problem is exactly the opposite of Howard Dean’s, and with his decision to go on the attack, he’s turning everyone off. I really like the guy, not only for his positions on a wide variety of issues but also because he’s a bit of an American hero. He’d make a great President, but he’s a lousy campaigner.
Still true now. I still think he’d make a great President, and he was an amazing debater, but he was a lousy campaigner. And the Democratic tradition of anklebiting and forming circular firing squads certainly didn’t help.
The Supreme Court today rightfully sidestepped the issue of gay marriage and declined to hear an appeal by foes of the practice that would have invalidated the Massachusetts Supreme Court’s overturning of a ban on it in that state.
The oddest thing is the breathtakingly hypocritical argument by the applicants:
Critics of the November 2003 ruling by the highest court in Massachusetts argue that it violated the U.S. Constitution’s guarantee of a republican form of government in each state. They lost at the 1st U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Boston.
In other words, they argued before the federal courts that states’ rights were being violated in Massachusetts by…Massachusett’s state court.
Ow. My head hurts now. The Supreme Court might as well have said “come back to us with a real argument and we’ll talk.”