Oh no you din’t, Zapatero.

You did not just sell chemical and biological weapons to Hugo Chavez.

Bad move. Eight kinds of bad move.

I have had Google ads for several weeks now, and I think I’ve made a buck-fifty. It’s not worth the paperwork it will consume at tax time. They’re coming down.

Does anybody make money off of them?

I am back in Los Angeles after a wonderful week in Chicago.

We hit all the high spots, focusing primarily on activities that would be fun for the kids. I think they had a great time.

We also ate a lot of deep dish pizza.

Accompanied by my parents, we also visited Park Ridge, where I spent the first four years of my life. We visited my old house (didn’t get to go inside) and various playgrounds and pools that I used to frequent.

It’s funny what you remember and what you don’t. I remembered almost nothing — except for a small pair of stone whales in a wading pool that we went to a lot. I guess I spent a lot of time crawling on and around those whales.

I got to meet Spoons, Pejman, and Omnibus Driver. I had hoped to meet Blackfive, but it just didn’t work out; we didn’t have the time.

I had a wonderful time at the Lyric Opera watching the performance of Wagner’s Ring cycle. I hope to post a detailed review once I get some time. Suffice it to say that it was quite an experience hearing Plácido Domingo, Jane Eaglen, and James Morris.

I am starting a trial tomorrow that is going to take all my time. Part of me wants to allow the guest posting to continue, since I won’t be able to post much of anything for the next couple of weeks. But part of me also wants to limit guest posting to a week or so as a general rule.

I think I’ll do a compromise this time: I’ll ask the guest posters to cease regular posting beginning tomorrow, but feel free to post anything you think is really important over the next couple of weeks. And thanks for pitching in and keeping things interesting!

I’m back in town and quickly browsing through the local rag before turning to some work. What should I see but this piece about “filibusters.” Funny thing: the piece reads just like an opinion piece from a brazen left-wing hack, who shades the truth and hides the parts he doesn’t like — yet it’s actually written by a deputy Opinion editor at the L.A. Times. (Insert your own jokes here.)

The piece cleverly frames the issue as whether we are going to keep “filibusters” rather than filibusters of judicial nominees — quite a different matter, since the Constitution contains specific provisions about approval of judicial nominees.

This part caught my eye:

Beneath all the huffing in Washington, many see a healthy dose of hypocrisy, or at least glaring memory lapses. Republicans have happily used the filibuster to block initiatives, including President Johnson’s nomination of Supreme Court Justice Abe Fortas to become chief justice in 1968.

Note to the author: you’re writing a clearly labeled opinion piece. You don’t have to use the time-worn trick of talking about what “many” think when you’re really talking about what you think. Just say: “I see a healthy dose of hypocrisy.” Try it; it’s liberating.

Hardly surprising that the “hypocrisy” you see is that of Republicans. Never mentioned is the hypocrisy of Senate Democrats, such as Pat Leahy, who once said:

I have stated over and over again on this floor that I would refuse to put an anonymous hold on any judge; that I would object and fight against any filibuster on a judge, whether it is somebody I opposed or supported; that I felt the Senate should do its duty.

“Many” see hypocrisy in that statement, too. But the “many” don’t work at the L.A. Times.

By the way, as I have pointed out before, the Fortas example is not on point. Even assuming that he really was filibustered — something his opponents denied doing in the four days they discussed his nomination — Fortas would likely have lost a floor vote. Bush’s nominees would not.

It all sounds like a mess of talking point for Democrats. Should I be surprised?