Since last I wrote about the Cubs, good things have generally been happening. So I think it best that I continue to not say anything regarding the Cubs. Remember, don't f*** with a winning streak.

So, moving right along, I want to mention that the marathon training at the Corner of Grace and Wayne has gone digital. We are now keeping our training log online because, really, paper is just much too difficult. I imagine this will be of interest to about 0.002% of the people out there as it is really just a training journal, but I wanted to put it out there for anyone who wants to track our progress and share the pain. It can be found at: jasonleahrun.blogspot.com. And if there are some more seasoned runners reading this, hop on over and feel free to leave suggestions on things that might improve our running.

I also haven't taken a look at the news in awhile, so let's see what's happening...

Bush calls for Dignified Confirmation

"After all," he continued, "This isn't a Presidential Election. This is important stuff."

A few differences between a Presidental Election and a Supreme Court Justice Confirmation:

• Decision to confirm/deny will not be based on the following:
• hair color/amount of hair
• folksy manner
• wife's wardrobe
• It is expected that everyone will vote during the Justice Confirmation process, not just the elderly.
• After much speculate that the candidate would be an minority, they settled on a white, Christian guy.

...wait, scratch that last one. Not so much a difference, it turns out.

The selection process by the numbers:

Number of times we will hear the words "litmus test" in the next couple months: 1872
Number of times we will hear the words "activist judge" in the next couple months: 12,042 (9420 of which will be spoken by our president)

Speaking of which, what is an "activist judge"? Is it someone who does not strictly interpret the constitution? Maybe. I actually think it is someone who makes a decision that pisses off the current administration, but that is neither here nor there. Just curious, but do we really think that the constitution should be taken entirely literally? I mean, it was written over 200 years ago. Back when the only black people in the country were slaves and only white males could vote.

Does it seems like some things might have changed since then?

Could be.

Maybe, just maybe, it would be a good idea to view the constitution as a living document and try to rule based on the spirit of the law, rather than sifting through the document to see if it it mentions, for example, abortion specifically (just to pick an extreme hot-button issue, you know). After all, it wasn't really an issue back then so it's no suprise it didn't make it into the final draft.

I don't know, the whole thing just leaves me clammy. Being a strick constructionist makes about as much sense to me as literally interpreting the Bible.

Which is to say...none.

Alright, enough of that. On to some more serious news:

James Doohan, 'Star Trek's' Scotty, dead

He's finally been beamed up.