Yesterday, after 14½ years, we said goodbye to our dear gentle friend, Lady. She had been with us since she was six weeks old and was loyal and loving to the end. I have so many fond memories or her and they’ll never die.

A good friend shared the following poem with me. Maybe someone else will benefit from reading it.

You’re giving me a special gift,
So sorrowfully endowed,
And through these last few cherished days,
Your courage makes me proud.

But really, love is knowing
When your best friend is in pain,
And understanding earthly acts
Will only be in vain.

So looking deep into your eyes,
Beyond, into your soul,
I see in you the magic, that will
Once more make me whole.

The strength that you possess,
Is why I look to you today,
To do this thing that must be done,
For it’s the only way.

That strength is why I’ve followed you,
And chose you as my friend,
And why I’ve loved you all these years…
My partner ’til the end.

Please, understand just what this gift,
You’re giving, means to me,
It gives me back the strength I’ve lost,
And all my dignity.

You take a stand on my behalf,
For that is what friends do.
And know that what you do is right,
For I believe it too.

So one last time, I breathe your scent,
And through your hand I feel,
The courage that’s within you,
To now grant me this appeal.

Cut the leash that holds me here,
Dear friend, and let me run,
Once more a strong and steady dog,
My pain and struggle done.

And don’t despair my passing,
For I won’t be far away,
Forever here, within your heart,
And memory I’ll stay.

I’ll be there watching over you,
Your ever faithful friend,
And in your memories I’ll run,
…a young dog once again.

Bye sweet girlie…

Cop: Did you kill Joe Blow?

Suspect: No!

Cop: Prove it.

Suspect: I can’t. Besides, I shouldn’t have to prove anything! You prove that I did.

That’s more or less the situation in which Erich Scherfen of Schuylkill Haven, Pennsylvania finds himself. Scherfen is a Gulf War veteran, having served in the infanty. Following that he became a helicoptor pilot in the Army reserves. He served a total of 13 years in defense of the United States. He now works, or should be working, as a commercial pilot for a small airline, Colgan Air Inc. Unfortantely, Scherfen is suspended from his job and was due to be terminated in ten days unless he can prove a negative in the interim.

What’s my beef? Is Colgan a terrible company? Not really. They’re following a reasonable policy. They don’t emply terrorists. Is Scherfen a terroist? Heck if I know but I suspect that he isn’t. So what’s the deal here? Well, it seems that Scherfen has found himself on the US government’s terror watch list. His crime? Scherfen is a convert to Islam and is married to a US citizen who is also Muslim, and who was born in Pakistan. His wife, Rubina Tareen, operates a small business that distributes books and DVDs about Islam, publications that she describes as nonpolitical. Even if they are political, that does not in and of itself equate to promoting terrorisjm. Both Scherfen and Tareen deny any involvement in terrorism or with terrorists.

According to CNN.com, Scherfen said “I have no idea why I am on the list, and they’re not telling officially that I’m even on the list”. The US Justice Department said it will not confirm or deny that the couple’s names are on a watch list for national security and privacy reasons.

So where does this leave Scherfen? This honorably discharged US Army veteran is soon to be out of a job and a career unless he can prove a negative. How much does that suck?

Scherfen has filed a lawsuit against the TSA with the help of the ACLU. A federal judge has asked Cogan to delay Scherfen’s termination and they have agreed, for now. So much for innocent until proven guilty.

My daughter had her Bat-Mitzvah on August 9th. What a party! If you’re really bored you can see some photos at http://katelyn.ohlste.in/bat-mitzvah/cpg/.

Yes, I own the domain “ohlste.in“. It’s an India domain but they allow people from all over to purchase their domains (as it should be). That’s the first I’ve made use of it. I also own “ohlstein.name” which is currently pointed to this site. So I have three. One for each of my kids. I told my oldest (Jeff) that he can have first choice and he chose “ohlste.in”. I hope that he has to wait a long time for it. Of course if anyone else in the family wants to use a subdomain or an email address I am open to the idea.

Now Ingrid Newkirk, the founder of PETA, has a vice president named Mary Beth Sweetland who is an insulin requiring diabetic. I wonder if Mary Beth knows that all of the original studies involved using insulin taken from slaughtered pigs and cattle which was then tested on dogs. Well, she does, and she even knows that her insulin still contains animal products. But she doesn’t see herself as a hypocrite. Ah, but I digress.

PETA, which I am sad to say is headquartered right here in Norfolk, Virginia, today faxed a letter to Kentucky racing officials insisting that jockey Gabriel Saez, who was riding Eight Belles in yesterday’s Derby be suspended indefinitely. For those of you who are unaware, Eight Belles was the first filly to compete in the Kentucky Derby in nearly a decade, and came in second. About a quarter mile past the end of the race she suffered a tragic injury, fracturing both ankles. Because she could not stand, she needed to be euthanized. No one felt worse than Saez, except possibly the horse’s owners and trainer.

PETA, in its letter from Kathy Guillermo, has made the ridiculous claim that Eight Belles was “doubtlessly injured before the finish”. Eight Belles trainer Larry Jones said the filly looked fine when she crossed the finish line.

“I don’t know how in the heck they [PETA] can even come close to saying that,” Jones told The Associated Press on Sunday. “She has her ears up, clearly galloping out.”

So PETA knows better than the man who has been training this horse. And the millions of people who have seen the race, either live in person or on television, or later on tape. How PETA officials could come to such an intellectually dishonest conclusion should be beyond me, but sadly, this has become their standard operating procedure.

Warning, the following contain profanity but are well worth viewing:

I suggested earlier that the US set up a system to control prices of exported wheat so that our country, which produces the lion’s share of exported wheat in the world, can, in essence, exchange wheat for oil. Is this not evidence that the world is heading in this direction. OPEC has existed for decades. They have turned off the pumps in the past, hurting us greatly at those times. While a rice cartel would not cripple the US, as we are not huge consumers of this grain, the handwriting is on the wall.

Want our wheat? Ship us some oil and we’ll send you a sandwich.

Nope. It’s time to be thinking about drawing down our troop commitments overseas. We have other bases in the middle east in places where we are welcome. Places such as Bahrain, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Oman, and Qatar.

McCain is wrong about this. The Iraqis do not want us. That much is clear. Fifty or more years? Ridiculous!

To take it a step further, the US is overextended overseas, and borrowing money that we do not have to support this mission. We have so many problems at home that it’s time to see to them and let Iraqis take over their own security.

Hillary Clinton is on a very rocky ship right now. She needed a 10 point win in Pennsylvania in order to stay relevant, and she eked that out. Obama is cruising with a lead in delegates. Hillary needs to keep winning to remain viable.

Clinton has proposed a head to head debate with no moderator a la Lincoln-Douglas in 1858. Obama feels that 21 debates are enough for the electorate to have seen what the candidates are about.

I agree… with both of them. We all pretty much know what they have in common and where they differ. One more debate is really not going to help delineate that. On the other hand, a debate where each can speak to the issues without the “help” of a moderator might well be extremely interesting.

In this situation it would appear that the greatest upside would be for Clinton. She needs a big showing in the coming contests to tip the scales in her favor. The bigger downside is for Obama. If he does poorly then his opponent stays in the race. What this comes down to really then is not what is best for the electorate, but what is best politically for each candidate.

Go on and debate her Barack. I think you’ll beat her head to head and hopefully put this puppy to sleep.

The average person can actually do something about this by keeping a hive or two in their backyards. Most honey bees are fairly docile (unlike wasps and hornets who can be plain old nasty) although Africanized honey bees can be more aggressive. This will help your fruit trees, your vegetable garden, and your flowers, and those of your neighbors. If done right it won’t be a huge bother.

A decent first book on the subject is:

JK Rowling is using the US court system to block a small time website owner from publishing a book of Harry Potter terminology. Rowling, who has become a billionaire from Harry Potter, says it’s not about the money. Cough, bs, cough. Warner Brothers is also party to the suit in US Federal court. Talk about a waste of court time.

The book in question is written by a librarian named Steven Vander Ark who has maintained a website for several years, a website that Rowling herself admits to having used as a resource herself at times. She has been quoted by various news sources as having said:

This is such a great site that I have been known to sneak into an Internet cafe while out writing and check a fact rather than go into a bookshop and buy a copy of Harry Potter (which is embarrassing). A Web site for the dangerously obsessive; my natural home,

Does Major League Baseball own all of its past stats and the scores of today’s games and the names of the players, or are those news? Isn’t Harry Potter terminology public information by now?

US law that governs this is the doctrine of “fair use” from the Copyright Act of 1976, 17 U.S.C. § 107, reprinted here:

Notwithstanding the provisions of sections § 106 and § 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include:

1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;
2. the nature of the copyrighted work;
3. the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and
4. the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work.

The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors.

Source: http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.html.

OK, so it is of a commercial nature. So are newspapers and other media that publish scores and sports statistics.

The nature of the copyrighted work. It’s just a compilation of terminology, not a usurpation of the characters or the creativity.

The amount? These are long books and films we are talking about. Again, this is a lexicon of terminology.

The effect on the the potential market? Well, somehow I don’t think it’s going to affect the sales of this billionaire’s books and movies. It might help however.

U.S. District Court Judge Robert Patterson, who is hearing this case, urged the parties to settle. I suggest $0.005/copy for Rowling, a free copy of the book, and she gets to keep using the site. And then a quick flight back home.

That’s my $0.02 worth, which is more than Rowling and Warner Brothers deserve.

The race between Hillary Clinton and Barack Obama has gotten so nasty that it’s hard to imagine the two ever teaming up on a so-called “dream ticket.” But some Democrats are holding out hope for just that.

The New York Times reports how several high-profile Democrats, like Former New York Governor Mario Cuomo and Pennsylvania Governor Ed Rendell, along with some of the uncommitted superdelegates think it’s a good idea. Their thinking is it would combine the voter bases of both and be a way to end the nomination race before the party’s convention in August.

Is this a rhetorical question, or a serious one? I don’t really know. Cafferty does make the argument that LBJ took the nod in 1960, as did Bush 41. If I recall correctly, there was even semi-serious talk of Gerald Ford running for VP with Reagan in 1980! If history is a guide, people can put aside their differences in order to win and politicians love to win. There are some major stumbling blocks to a Clinton-Obama political marriage.

First, if Obama is the nominee for President, Hillary has little to gain from it other than being seen as a team player. She probably would have more impact as a big state Senator than as Vice President. She is 60 years old and will be 61 prior to election day. If she runs for Vice President, and they win, she will be 68 going on 69 when her next real chance is likely to come up. Of course they could lose, however unlikely such a “dream ticket” is to lose, and then she might have a real shot in four years, at a more reasonable age of 64. Clearly her age has to be a factor in her decision.

Obama, who is as of this moment the front runner by a hair, may still not win the nomination. Accepting the nomination for Vice President would be much more palatable for him at least in terms of his relative youth. He turns 47 in August. Even if they serve eight years together, he will only be 54 when he seeks the presidential nomination in 2016. Of course if he wins the popular vote in the primaries, and has the greater number of elected delegates, as seems very likely at this point, the only way Hillary gets the nomination is through the so-called super delegates. That might be so distasteful to Obama that the idea of accepting a spot as number two on the ticket under such circumstances would seem slim.

Add into the equation the fact that Obama and Bill Clinton seem to really dislike each other on more than just a political level and I would be surprised to see it happen either way. But politics does make some strange bedfellows as they say…