Back after a brief hiatus...

With as much typing as work requires me to do, and the subsequent shooting pains through my right hand, I'm losing motivation for this blog. There is something noble I suppose about enduring pain for "art" (ha) but to me it strikes me more as the dying embers of arrogance brought low, still trying to prove that I am prosaic and/or witty in the written word while my skills fade, like Mozart...or, consarnit, Beethoven, or whoever that guy who went deaf was. I should know of course, but, well, I know a lot more about other sorts of music, and only a basic cursory knowledge of the classics.

Screw this pretentious rhetoric, right up the nose, to put it eloquently.

So my blackcurrants are dying...something I've had to come to terms with. Perhaps gardening is not a gift of mine, or perhaps I just need to try again next year. We'll see if I have the heart to do so.

This morning I had a surge of federalist sentiment, particularly on the abortion issue. But really, on any issue. As far as I'm concerned, let Massachussetts (sic? heck if I know) marry gays, let Utah marry groups, and let Kansas or Wyoming or whoever outlaw abortion. This is the thing I just don't get about liberals...what subtlety am I missing with the Bill of Rights? Basically, it outlines the rights and powers given to the government on the federal level, and then says, all else, given to the states. Do we disagree on that? I'm a simple, entirely un-nuanced guy in this, and I took one class on Constitutional History but I've forgotten most of it. So bear with me in my simplicity. So where does abortion fall? And gay marriage? I say, nowhere in the Bill of Rights. At least, I haven't found any of that yet in there. Email me if you've uncovered it by all means. Ahh, pardon the sarcasm, grouchiness is a side-effect of sore wrists/fingers. But honestly, why shouldn't that logically be the realm of the states? Is that so unthinkable? What is unthinkable, to me, is a federal government constantly expanding in direct, open contradiction to the Constitution, and the only ones who take issue are known as fringe nutjobs by "mainstream" America. What's so nuts about abiding by the Constitution?

Roe v. Wade was a travesty in my opinion, just as the Federal Marriage Amendment would be in a sense, although at least that has a solid foundation, being a Constitutional amendment. Amendments are part of the Constitution, so therefore are not ruled by it.

I could rant more, but there is work to be done. Adios for now.