Back. Never fear.

HERE COME THE JUDGE -- My former (adjunct) professor and bar tab benefactor, the Honorable Mark P. Painter, presiding judge of the Court of Appeals for the First District of Ohio, wrote a brilliant opinion striking down the section of the Ohio Revised Code which bans the concealed carry of weapons. Brilliant in its structure, brilliant in its simplicity, brilliant in its candor -- one never uses the words "reversal-proof," but he covered himself nicely. I now owe him SEVERAL good beers. Uncle Woody's, Judge? You name the time.

SLAVERY IS FREEDOM -- Why do we keep sending unfettered money to these people? And to think there's a boycott of Israeli goods underway here at home. I guess Amy Pagnozzi and her ilk think we should back a repressive, brutal regime over a secular, liberal democracy with a free economy and an independent press . . . for the first time in our history. Orwell would be proud.

Please note that in her piece Pagnozzi cites Israeli "misdeeds" such as shooting at ambulances and cordoning off Palestinians who entered the Church of the Nativity in Bethlehem, but never mentions that in all cases, the folks contained within were armed combatants of one sort or another.

WAFFLE WHILE THE IRON IS HOT-- Lots of blogging here and abroad concerning President Bush's about-face concerning the war on terrorism. I have to say, over the past few months, Bush has dropped the ball more often than the Carolina Panthers. Instead of using his unprecedented gift of popular goodwill to act on the principles we all hoped he would, he's caved time and again -- on steel tariffs, on "campaign finance reform," and now the war on terror. Another Vietnam? Let's hope not, but here's how it could happen.

TOTAL PERSPECTIVE VORTEX -- Just took an online IQ test. I won't tell the result, but according to it, I'm Bill Clinton. Fortunately, my compartmentalization quotient is much, much lower.

GOT IT, FINALLY -- I finally figured it out . . . I was trying to pinpoint exactly how I wanted to describe "Enterprise," the latest installment in the "Star Trek" franchise. Aside from the glee I get from knowing it chafes the lipstick off Donna Minkowitz and her lefty-loosey friends over at "The Nation" (who apparently takes issue with the captain treating his female Vulcan first officer as though she's a member of his crew, rather than subjugating his command decisions to the inner spirit of the Goddess within every member of the Sisterhood), I enjoy the show more than I ever expected I would . . . and I think this is why.

We're all aware of the vast numbers of "classic" TV shows which have been translated into (sometimes very different) big-screen version within the past ten years or so. Thankfully, the successful series of movies and television projects kept that nightmare from happening to James T. Kirk and company. But some movie versions of those old shows weren't bad at all, and those are the shows that the producers of the movies obviously cared about maintaining some sort of integrity.

If history had gone a little differently, and Paramount wanted to revive the original "Star Trek" in movie form, yet be faithful to the show, I think the result would have been very much like "Enterprise." And I can't say it would have been altogether bad.

What exactly is it about, then?

Here's a bit about a college activist who's trying to make her all-female campus a bit more safe using what she considers the best method for self-protection -- the carrying of a gun.

However, the author makes it clear that such a point of view would have no place at the more "traditional" feminist "take back the night" rallies and anything else which might remotely speak of empowering women -- which is something I've never understood. If there's any device which can make a woman the equal of a man who attacks her in dark patch of the campus quad, it's a Kimber Mini-45.

So, is it about empowering women, or isn't it? Only in certain pre-approved ways, I guess.

UNTERMENSCHEN?

A natural and very real possible "nightmare future" of genetic screening envisions a world where less-then-perfect children are aborted, as a matter of course, before birth. Clearly, the recent trend in "wrongful birth" and "wrongful life" actions lends itself to that chilling vision of what's to come.

But no one ever thought about the reverse, that someone, anyone, might actually want their child to have a DISability. This story concerning a deaf lesbian couple who sought sperm donated from a deaf man so that their child may be born, deaf, too, speaks of another nightmare world . . . where children are "disposed of" because they ARE perfect.

William Gibson never prepared us for that one.

Sometimes I wonder if even PETA themselves know what motivates them. It may not be the most urbane fundraiser imaginable, but demeaning to the cow? I think not. To say it is predisposes a human level of dignity on the animal, and last I checked, the bovine species aren't very particular about where they leave their droppings or who watches them do it.

Interesting story from Indiana about a 1930s mural depicting a KKK rally. Why is it suddenly a problem just NOW?

However, Major League Baseball opened yesterday, which to me means winter is over.

March Madness appears to be over. Thank God.