but I couldn't help but flag this quote from Country Joe MacDonald, he of the "Fixing-To-Die Rag."

The issue has very little to do with the Marines and a lot to do with political grandstanding and NIMBYism, McDonald said.

"The council said the Marines can't recruit here, they should recruit somewhere else," he said. "And if there's a problem, we still want you to help us. It's astounding. It allows everyone to make fun of Berkeley again."

He said protesters on both sides are driven by "civilian guilt."

"Most people yell and scream about this issue because they're trying to show how patriotic they are," he said. "At this rate, Berkeley's going to be a damn noisy place."

I just found a YouTube video of people dancing to it back in 1982. It's quite a sight to see, and I love the old-fashioned sounding TV host introducing the number...

hether a $500 million damages award against Genentech Inc. stands will probably come down to whether the California Supreme Court interprets a 32-year-old contract as establishing a fiduciary relationship between the biotech giant and a research center.

That issue was the focus of Tuesday's oral argument in the long-awaited case, as the court's justices attempted to nail down exactly what constitutes a fiduciary relationship in a patent contract. All seven justices -- including 1st District Court of Appeal Justice James Lambden sitting in for recused Justice Kathryn Mickle Werdegar -- asked tough questions without tipping their hands about who would prevail.

Attorneys for both sides were well-regarded appellate specialists. Jerome Falk Jr., a partner in San Francisco's Howard, Rice, Nemerovski, Canady, Falk & Rabkin, represented Genentech, while Peter Davis, counsel in the San Francisco office of Reed Smith, presented arguments for City of Hope National Medical Center.

It was on television too, although viewing the archive requires blasted Windows Media Player...

Because honestly, I don't think this is going to convince anybody of anything. Except that he likes to use big windy words. And that maybe they should vote for one of those other candidates with less flaky-sounded endorsements. Honestly, what was the Chronicle thinking? Did they do it on purpose? Are they seekretly hoping it's Clinton vs. McCain, and thus they got normal-sounding people to write their endorsements?

These are the first two paragraphs of Lerner's piece.

I enthusiastically support Barack Obama, the first serious spiritual progressive candidate for the presidency. Once in office, Obama's discourse of hope, challenging narrow technocratic consciousness, will open the possibility for serious social movements to push him beyond the constraints of Democratic Party spinelessness.

Spiritual progressives want a New Bottom Line so that institutions, social practices, even our own personal behavior is seen as efficient, rational and productive, not only to the extent that they maximize money and power (the Old Bottom Line) but also to the extent that they maximize love and caring for others, kindness and generosity, ethical and ecological sensitivity, and enhance our capacity to respond to others as embodiments of the sacred and to the universe with awe, wonder and radical amazement.

Uh... yeah. Right. Please, somebody... just make it stop.

OK, now that I've looked online, it seems that the Chronicle may have run different opinion pieces in different markets. This is better...

Basically... If we Democrats want the White House back, we'll nominate Obama.

Hi guys and gals.

I don't think that you should vote for Obama just because he supports Israel. I do think, though, that he's quite a remarkable candidate, in many arenas. This includes his ability to inspire not only die hard
Democrats like ourselves, but individuals like my father, who is always arguing politics with his liberal family and his friends. Take a look at the attachment, even if it's just to humor me. My father wrote a
very surprising letter, introducing information which clearly indicates that Obama is far from being anti-Semitic, or anti-Israel.

Sincerely,

Wendy

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: "Bloom, Elliott"

Subject: Obama is pro Israel

Hi All,
Recently I received email accusing Barack Obama of approving of anti-Semites, and being anti-Israel. I just assumed that this was another Clinton dirty trick and have obtained strong evidence of Obama's pro Israel record, and strong support from the Jewish community from the beginning of his political career. Marsha Alper, who is a volunteer for the Obama Presidential campaign obtained this material for me. I have included a PDF and web references provided by Marsha. This material indicates that it is a foul canard that Obama is not a strong supporter of Israel. He is not an anti-Semite and has been a strong supporter of Israel for many years.

I have voted Republican in all Presidential elections from the time of Jerry Ford. I ask you to join me in support of Barack Obama, the most inspiring, eloquent, and intelligent candidate for President since JFK. I will vote for him because I believe he can bring Americans together to solve the most impossible problems we have faced since world war II. If we take the path of partisanship, divisiveness, and politics as usual, the path of the Clintons, we do so at our peril as a Nation.

Best Regards,
Elliott

Oh, and the hair, although that kind of goes without saying.

"[Some of my opponents] do not want to change the Constitution, but I believe it's a lot easier to change the constitution than it would be to change the word of the living God, and that's what we need to do is to amend the Constitution so it's in God's standards rather than try to change God's standards," Huckabee said, referring to the need for a constitutional human life amendment and an amendment defining marriage as between a man and a woman.

I saw the new movie version of the musical Sweeney Todd last night. Overall, I was pleasantly (though perhaps that word seems odd, given the grim subject matter!) surprised at how well it turned out. The actors sang well and looked the part(s), the imagery was great (Tim Burton was born to film this!), there were still elements of the grim humor that's such an important part of the show (though at times, my father and I were the only ones laughing)

The acting was superb. Although all the actors looked younger than I'm used to seeing in those roles (Johnny Depp may be in his 40s, but he still looks like a college student to me), they inhabited their characters fully.

Helena Bonham Carter was fabulously creepy too -- looked like a broken China doll. The "Down By The Sea" scene was funny and sad at the same time.

There were other nice touches, like the scene when Anthony first sees Joanna and sings to her. Judge Turpin notices this, invites the boy in, and then proceeds to have Beadle Banford beat the **** out of him to discourage him from further wooing. Anthony picks himself off the ground in the alley, wipes the blood off his face, and resumes singing, but with a gleam in his eye. He's in love, yes, but boy is he pissed off. It's a mirror of Sweeney Todd's victimization, rage, and determination to get even, and it works very well in the movie.

Unfortunately, they did have to leave out some of the original show in order to make this a reasonably short film (two hours as opposed to three.) Some of the omissions were understandable and didn't make that much of a difference, but in other cases, well... for example, I missed the beggar woman's obscene rhymes ("Hey, hoy, sailor boy, want it snugly harbored? Open me gates but dock it straight, I see it lists to starboard!"), Michael missed "Kiss Me", the duet between Anthony and Joanna, and we both regretted the lack of "More Pies Please/God That's Good." (It was in there in a truncated form.)

Many people have given this movie negative reviews, and I think the problem comes in towards the end. In the stage musical, there is the same piling up of corpses, and the final tragedy, when Sweeney realizes what he's done and Toby kills him for killing Mrs. Lovett. However, as my mother put it, the chorus that introduces and ends the musical on stage acts as a way to distance yourself from the violence. It's a reminder that we're watching the modern equivalent of a Greek tragedy, and a bit of a relief, one which is totally denied here. The absolute last scene is visually and emotionally grim and devastating, and unrelievedly over the top. There's something about having all the actors get back up and take their bows, even when they're covered in blood...

Still, overall I thought it was a good movie and I'll probably get the DVD (I may just skip the last few minutes!)

"Hello?" I said.
"Hello?" a young male voice said.
"Who are you trying to reach?"
"Hello?"
"Who are you trying to reach?"
"I'm trying to reach you!"
"Who are you?"
"Uh... they call me Freaky Reese."
"Well, I don't know you, so I think you have the wrong number."
"OK, bye."

The number on the caller ID was 510-776-77XX (I guess I shouldn't print his full number; why am I concerned about his privacy? Or maybe I'm just concerned about retaliation!) and Caller ID identified him as... "MOO MOO."

As a former coworker of mine used to say, "The freaks are out."

It's also popular to say that modern music is by and large crap.

On the other hand, while rock of a certain vintage is quite good, it also has generally been played to death. Certain songs come on, and I have to switch stations. Because it's just one too many times.

So this playlist is for people who like early 1970s-era rock music, or people who are sick of rock music. Like me. You'll find some music by 70s band Big Star, who should be all over classic rock stations but aren't, as well as more recent acts like Spoon, Chuck Prophet, and the Raconteurs. I also threw in a couple of non-English language songs, because I thought they rocked. (Fans of Carlos Santana should really investigate Amadou and Mariam further.) Enjoy.

While critics of Mrs. Clinton used to denounce her for voting to authorize the Iraq war in 2002, today the challenge came from an otherwise enthusiastic supporter of Mrs. Clinton, Barbara Dennett, a math teacher and field hockey coach.

At a town hall meeting in a middle school gym here, Ms. Dennett first hailed Mrs. Clinton’s health care reform effort in 1993-94, then said “I also completely trust you on the social issues, women and children and family.”

“My concern is your voting record on war,” Ms. Dennett said. “The friends I talk to, to get them on board, they don’t trust you because of your voting issue on war.” She added that she and her friends did not want Mrs. Clinton to be “a war president.”

Saying she was “very glad you asked that,” Mrs. Clinton began her answer by trying to narrow the daylight between her record and those of her Democratic rivals. She noted that the other Democrats who are running for president, and who were in the Senate in 2002 – all voted for the war. Barack Obama, another contender and a vociferous critic of the war from the start, entered the Senate in 2005.

“You know, I believe that every one of us who is running to be the Democratic nominee has the same position now on Iraq,” Mrs. Clinton said, “that we’re going to end the war because George Bush won’t end the war.”

While all of the Democrats favor “ending the war” and “bringing the troops home,” two common phrases on the campaign trail, there are some differences: Bill Richardson says he would remove every single troop as quickly as possible, John Edwards says he would remove all combat troops, and Mrs. Clinton and Mr. Obama said they would leave some troops in the country or in the region for narrowed missions.

Mrs. Clinton said her 2002 vote was intended to increase pressure on Iraq to accept continued weapons inspections, not to go to war. Referring to herself and other Democratic candidates, she added, “we’ve each said in our own way that we regret the way President Bush used that authority” – an answer that fuzzed over Mrs. Clinton’s refusal to call her 2002 vote a mistake, as Mr. Edwards has and as some Democratic primary voters pressed her to admit when she started running last winter.

Ms. Dennett eventually piped up and mentioned Iran – a reference to Mrs. Clinton’s vote this year to label the Iranian Revolutionary Guard a terrorist organization, which Mr. Obama and Mr. Edwards criticized with the suggestion that it could embolden President Bush to go to war.

“It seems like a pattern, that’s my concern,” Ms. Dennett said.

“I don’t think it’s a pattern, I just have a fundamental disagreement with my colleagues who are running,” Mrs. Clinton said. “I think the facts are indisputable – they support Hezbollah, they support Hamas.”

“I do not favor war,” she added. “I also believe that we have to get tough in a diplomatic, pressured way with Iran, and I think that helped them do it.”

And then this teacher who asked a tough question... said she's still going to endorse Hillary. For what reason?

“It’s because I’m a woman, and because it’s about time it’s a woman for president,” she said.

Lovely.

Edited to add: she apparently just meant the Iranian Revolutionary Guard. But poorly worded!

My first reaction was that it sounded...er.... suggestive. And I could have dismissed this reaction due to the fact that I am secretly still a 12-year-old, but Michael agreed that it sounded... off.

Of course, this IS the company who used to use the tag line "I'd hit it!" And perhaps the line between food and sex is finer than I'd like to think.