My long-simmering Citizens United rant

It appears that I have never once blogged about Citizens United. But I really need to because I am fed up. There are legitimate issues to discuss in connection with this case, but so many people have gotten caught up in yelling the "Corporations aren't people!" mantra, we aren't even close to discussing the real issues.

First and foremost, let's be really clear about something. The Supreme Court did not say corporations are people. Not once. I promise you. I have read the majority opinion more than once. If you don't believe me, though, go read  it for yourself. They didn't say it.

But here's the bigger point that everyone refuses to acknowledge. People get so caught up in how ludicrous it sounds to them to treat corporations as if they're people that they miss the obvious. The First Amendment doesn't apply solely to individuals! Long, long before Citizens United, it was understood that corporations and collectives of people could speak and that Congress couldn't censor that speech. This wasn't some new, radical departure in First Amendment law. When people really stop and think about that, they have to see that. In the majority opinion, by the way, there's almost no discussion of any of this. There is a conclusory statement that, duh, the First Amendment protects corporations. Then there's a paragraph-long string cite, where the court lists something like 20 cases throughout  history that acknowledge this basic fact.

From the plain text of the Amendment, I don't understand where anyone got the idea that freedom of speech is a right that belongs solely to individuals. The text says  that Congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech. That's it. It's all about telling Congress they can't censor speech and doesn't limit in any way who the speaker has to be. (In his zeal to argue with me on this point, I once had someone insist that the right of assembly is a purely individual right. So, as I pointed out to him, does that mean that Congress can't prohibit individuals from attending Communist Party meetings but could prohibit the Communist Party from holding said meeting? He insisted no, because that would infringe on all of the individual party members' rights... So why wouldn't infringing on the speech of a corporation be unconstitutional because it would infringe on the rights of all the individual board members, shareholders, etc?) But I digress.

People are so incensed about the way that corporate spending is affecting elections, they seem quite willing to reach the conclusion that the right of free speech is limited only to individuals. But, geez, that would be an absolutely disastrous outcome. Our voices always become more powerful when we can find other like-minded individuals to speak beside us. We form collectives. We organize into groups. That's how we have advocacy groups like the NRA, Amnesty International, etc. The First Amendment prohibits Congress from censoring these groups. Of course it does. Would anyone really want it any other way?


Ok, so the Supreme Court didn't say corporations are people and it would be really devastating to freedom of speech if it were purely a right of individuals. So when complaining about the effects of Citizens United, can we please, please get past this nonsense?

We could perhaps talk about equating campaign spending with speech, though that's not a new concept either and I happen to agree with the Court's interpretation of it. Freedom of speech doesn't mean much if you're prohibited from spending money to get your message out. Sure, repeat your message, just don't print up flyers that you had to buy paper and ink for. And don't think about sending things out through the mail because we can't allow you to spend money on postage. If we can prohibit a speaker from using money to get out his/her/its message, we're pretty much limiting people to standing on a street corner and shouting. But without a bullhorn, because that would cost money.

No, the real battle in Citizens United was whether Congress identified compelling state interests that would justify the infringement on campaign spending. This is to me where the majority opinion is vulnerable. And perhaps the evidence gathered in the two years since the decision was issued might have persuaded a judge or two that the spending ban really was necessary to even the playing field or prevent corruption, etc. I still suspect, though, that a majority of the court would have found the law unconstitutional because it was a total ban on spending in the 60 days before a general election (and 30 days before a primary). It's a pretty high hurdle, as it should be, to convince a court that a total ban on speech is constitutional.

The real and proper response to Citizens United is for Congress to go back to the drawing board and try to come up with a different campaign finance law that would pass constitutional muster. They can find some guidance in that decision. The rest of us who are appalled by the effect of money on elections, especially the big PACs that can be funded by just one or two gazillionaires, can support our representatives and senators in that effort. But we're never gonna get there if we keep ranting that corporations aren't people and money isn't speech. Please, for the love of all that is good and pure, can we please get past those shouting points and get to the real issues?

Moving really is my only choice, isn't it? Crap.


- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

I haz an ouchy

Look at how stupid Mommy has made me look. I had this one little itchy spot and she freaked out. She kept trying to poke at it with wash cloths and powders and icky stuff. It did itch a lot and I was starting to feel not very good, but I didn't think it was such a big deal.

Then this morning, she put me in the car and I was very excited. We got to drive to a new place I've never been to before. But I got a bad feeling when I walked in 'cause it kinda looked like another place she takes me to sometimes where the people do mean things. (Do they really think if they give me enough cookies, I won't notice the mean stuff?) They shaved my ouchy spot, which hurt. And then they put even more goop on it than Mommy ever did. And there were needles. I do not like needles.

And then they put this stupid thing on my head. All the people in the clinic were laughing at me. I know they were. I can't shake it off and rubbing it on the floor isn't working, either. At least my ouchy spot doesn't itch anymore. Wouldn't matter, anyway, 'cause I couldn't scratch it with this stupid thing on. The good news is that Mommy keeps giving me a big bite of cheese every 8 hours. I think I've earned that.


Mommy says: Yay for 24 hour emergency vets! A spot like this can go from irritated to horribly infected very quickly. I didn't notice it until after my regular vet was closed yesterday, but looking at it this morning, I couldn't stand the thought of waiting until tomorrow to get it treated. Now that I know she's going to be just fine and I didn't do anything wrong (the vet assures me this hasn't been festering for days, but rather that it probably sprung up just in the last 24 hours), I can giggle a little at the bandage. Everyone at the clinic really was giggling, but only because it makes this already cute dog absolutely freakin' adorable. This picture really doesn't do it justice. If you've ever seen "The Muppet Christmas Carol," the way the bandage is holding her ears out and back makes her look like the homeless bunny who goes to buy the turkey for Scrooge in the end.

Pet Peeve #772

Is it too much to ask that people who are fluent in English should know how to use pronouns? Very educated  people don't know when to use a subject pronoun and when to use an object pronoun. Sadly, sometimes I get the sense that a lot of very educated people aren't quite sure how to identify the difference between a subject pronoun and an object pronoun. I mean, they could probably tell you a dictionary difference, but I wonder if they could actually go through a series of sentences and identify which pronouns are subject and which are object.

But I can. Because my mother was an anal retentive grammar type. Probably because her father was. He was a newspaper man. The super old-fashioned kind who wore a fedora to work every day and typed on a manual typewriter. (Totally off subject, but all while he lived to the ripe-old age of 90, having been diagnosed with MS in his 30s. Had to give that shout-out to Grandpa.)

I know our mothers all corrected us about not using me when it should be I. But sometimes, it really should be me! Me is an ok word to use. Learn when to use him and he and her and she. (Hint: if you're starting a sentence "Her and I," you're probably wrong...)

I know I shouldn't care so much about this. I should let these mistakes go because people just misspeak sometimes and because it doesn't much matter. And I should probably recognize that this hang-up says much more about me than it does about anyone else. But I can't quite help myself. I really like language. I really like it when it's used correctly. Sigh. This is probably why I'm alone.

And, on a totally unrelated note, I'm also a huge fan of the Oxford comma. Because I think a ham and peanut butter and jelly sandwich sounds gross.

Did you see this story this week? About the 5th grade teacher who limited each student to only 3 bathroom passes a week? Obviously, the students got other chances to go to the bathroom during the school day, but they're not allowed to leave class more than 3 times a week.

Maybe on the surface, it doesn't seem unreasonable. The students can go at lunch and probably at recess time. And I'm sure it is disruptive to have students asking to go in the middle of history discussion. But all I can think about is the girls. The poor, early blooming girls.

I was 10 in 5th grade. A lot of girls turned 11 during that school year. And some girls at that age have already started their periods. Way back in 1950, my mom started hers at the ripe old age of 9. (Sadly, no one had thought it necessary to yet have "the talk" with her, so poor thing thought she was dying.) It's far more common now, of course, for girls to hit puberty at such an early age. So all I can think about is how awful it must be to be in a classroom like this as one of those girls. Being 10 and having your period has to be hard enough without having a teacher who won't let you leave the classroom when you need to go. No school girl needs to have an accident because she's not allowed to go to the bathroom when she really needs to. Sometimes when you're young and new to this whole menstruation thing, you don't realize you're about to have a problem until you are really on the verge of a problem.

Happily, the school principal is apparently going to end the bathroom restriction. So I can stop worrying about those poor girls having really unfortunate, embarrassing classroom incidents. And if you're thinking I'm taking this issue a little too personally, well, I wouldn't know anything about that...

Oh, Kansas. I love you so. Why do you make it so hard?

It's a general rule that if Kansas makes the national news, it's not for something I can be proud of. Today is no exception. When Governor Sam Brownback took office one year ago, he announced creation of the Office of the Repealer. The job of the Repealer in Chief was to pour through Kansas statutes and regularions with a fine-tooth comb, identifying the ones that were unnecessarily burdensome, wasteful, and should be stricken from the books.

When this was first announced, one statute jumped out to me as an obviously out-dated, unenforceable, nay unconstitutional and immoral, statute that should be officially removed from the books. I was not alone in picking out K.S.A. 21-3505 as the obvious and natural first statute to be targeted by the repealer. That statute criminalizes sodomy between fully consenting adults of the same sex. This is a statute I would have found immoral and reprehensible all along as the government has no business criminalizing consensual, adult sex and has no business making value judgments that heterosexual sex is ok but homosexual sex is a crime. But the wrongness of this statute became more apparent after the U.S Supreme Court weighed in in 2003. In Lawrence v. Texas, the Supremes finally and clearly said it is unconstitutional to criminalize sexual activity between consenting adults, no matter what kind of sex or the sex of the people involved. And I, my like-minded progressives, and an awful lot of libertarians the nation over rejoiced.

But the Kansas legislature hasn't addressed our statute, leaving it on the books. Now, clearly no one could be prosecuted under that statute. And I would LOVE to see police try to arrest anyone under this because I'm thinking the 1983 claim would be pretty spectacular. (That refers to federal section 1983, the federal statute that authorizes citizens to sue for violations of their civil rights.)

So when the Repealer this week finally revealed his list of statutes he'd identified that should be repealed, lots of people hoped (maybe some even expected) that our good ol' unconstitutional gay sodomy statute would make the cut.

Well, the list came out today and, no, it didn't. And the New York Times broadcast our shame to the world. I wish I could say I was surprised. But, frankly, I wasn't. Because our governor is a C-Streeter. A devoted Catholic. A Santorum type. We know he supports faith-based initiatives in pretty much every aspect of government services. We know he opposes same-sex marriage, on religious grounds. I am confident he believes homosexuality is immoral, a sin, etc. I wouldn't be surprised at all to hear him say gay sex should be illegal, but I don't have any direct quotes from him on that. So it isn't a surprise to me that he doesn't particularly care about Kansas' gay and lesbian population being made to feel like second-class citizens because our state technically views their loving relationships as criminal acts. It doesn't shock me that he doesn't care about my fellow Kansans worrying that a rogue, bigoted cop or sheriff might decide to arrest them citing this statute as authority. It doesn't surprise me that he just doesn't think there is anything wrong about this statute.

I wish we had a legislature who would just vote to repeal this statute anyway. Because I would love to see if Brownback would have the nerve to reject that repeal. Or would he take the coward's way out and let repeal pass into law without signing it? Or would he step up and do the right thing by signing the repeal into law? Sadly, though, we will never find out because enough of the Kansas legislature is controlled by like-minded religious bigots* who probably secretly want to keep that statute on the books as a protest against those activist liberal supreme court justices who are stepping on their right to criminalize sex they see as icky and immoral.

So Kansas will remain a state where consensual gay sex is technically illegal and my gay brothers and lesbian sisters still have to live with the knowledge that they are less desirable, at least as far as our legislature and the voters who put them into office are concerned. And we will once again make national headlines for something I find deeply shameful. Sigh. It's days like today that I wish I had a portable career and a moveable house. Living within walking distance of Allen Field House isn't always enough to make me want to stay here.

UPDATE: My legislative liaison (aka my friend who closely follows the leg) tells me that the Recodification committee has listed this bill on their policy recommendations, so maybe the statehouse will take it up. Here's hoping.


*please understand I am not saying all religious people are bigots. I am specifically referencing a large chunk of my state legislature who have made some pretty despicable statements about homosexuality and you all know I don't look kindly on that. I just can't name them all.

Have you heard about the "controversy" around tonight's episode of "Modern Family?" It's absurd. An anti-profanity crusader was asking ABC affiliates not to air the episode and urging people to boycott it. And why? Because one of the plot lines is about a toddler saying a bad word. The f-word. This anti-profanity guy has somehow decided that this is somehow bad. Glorifying profanity, perhaps? Encouraging it? I'm not entirely sure because this article doesn't exactly explain the objection.

This is so absurd, I'm tempted to think it's a fake controversy to get a little publicity. But the show doesn't need the extra publicity as it's already a hit and just won the Golden Globe for best comedy. So maybe Mr. Anti-Cussing wants the publicity? Because, honestly, how can anyone object to a family comedy dealing with that time-honored tradition of hearing a small child say a bad word. Every family goes through this. The kid hears a word, repeats it, gets the shocked reaction and so decides that saying the word is fun, and keeps saying it. The horrified parents work desperately to find a way to get the kid to stop saying the word, especially before they have to go out in public (like say a wedding, as in this episode). They fret that everyone will think they're terrible parents, etc. Sheesh. This happens to everyone. I've read blog posts about it. I've talked to friends about it. I've heard the story of the first time I said the f-word.

In short, there is nothing remotely shocking or bad or controversial or anti-family or unwholesome or anything else about this being a plot on a family comedy. Actually, it seems a plot that was tailor made for this particular show. Know who should be ashamed? Mr. McKay Hatch of the No Cussing Club. For trying to promote himself over something so un-controversial.  Or for being so stupid that he actually thinks this is an issue worth fighting over.

I understand the need for record cites in written materials submitted to the court. I get that each party needs to point to the specific point in the trial transcripts where the testimony or attorney statement or court ruling occurred. I've certainly found more than one occasion when the record cite doesn't quite say what the party claims it does.

But let me be clear: actually plugging record cites into a brief is the worst part of my job. Absolute worst. Sigh. Two paragraphs down...

Question: How big of a dork am I?

Answer: When I watch a Lifetime movie and realize it's based on a real case, I get online, find the actual court opinion, and read it.

You can decide for yourself exactly how much of a dork that makes me.

If I were in charge, part 2

no one would ever again use the phrase "that being said." It's overused, weak language. Meaningless, pointless, stupid.

Drives me crazy. CRAZY.

Maybe I should have stayed away...

I know, I know. I've been radio silent of late. Well, if we're FB friends (or, gasp, real life friends!), you know that my home computer has been a little under the weather. I got a nasty, nasty trojan malware thingie that would not let me access ANY executable file. This sucker was so evil, it even deleted (or at least thoroughly hid) my antivirus software. It took a few days before a friend came over and finally freed my computer from the trojan's evil clutches. So now my computer is fully functional again. And just in time for me to work all weekend. Joy!

But I've had plenty to talk about this week. Which made the computer thing a tad annoying. Gov. Brownback gave his state of the state address. I can always rant about something related to Rick Santorum. There were a couple of interesting US Supreme Court cases this week. I will probably get around to some of that this weekend while I work.

I'll start with the Kansas governor's recently revealed proposal for overhauling our state's tax code. I knew I wouldn't like it. I knew it would be appalling and completely contrary to anything that has actually worked for an economy like Kansas. But I have to admit, it does accomplish a pretty impressive feat.

The governor is proposing reducing the tax rate on all income above $30,000. So he's playing it like anyone who earns more than that amount will pay less in income tax. But that's not really true. Because at the same time, he is advocating eliminating virtually all income tax deductions. So those lucky parents making less than $30k? They would no longer be able to claim the earned income tax credit. Which would actually increase their tax burden. And all of us who get to deduct mortgage interest and property taxes and student loan interest wouldn't be able to do so anymore. I'm about to do my taxes for this year. When I do them, I will also try to calculate how these proposed changes would affect me. I don't think I will be pleased. And finally, the sales tax increase that was approved last year on the condition that it would phase out after one year? The governor would like to keep that around. Indefinitely.

When you actually break down the proposal, it sure appears that the governor has managed to create a tax plan that would both raise taxes on most people while also reducing the state's overall income tax revenue. That took some work to come up with. Meanwhile, of course, altering the state's income tax plan this radically undoubtedly means that the tax burden will shift to local taxes, like sales tax and property taxes. Let me tell you, I am really excited about having to pay state income tax on the property tax I pay on my house while also watching that property tax amount increase because the county will need to compensate for the decrease in its share of state income tax revenue.

And somehow, the governor tells us he is just sure that this plan will be our state's path to prosperity. What he can't tell us is how exactly a plan that screws over this state's workers, families, and consumers will do that. Undoubtedly because he can't. Because it won't.

What's the difference between 2 presidential candidates and Fred Phelps?

We all agree the Westboro Baptist Church is despicable. Right? We all agree that their protests at funerals, especially military funerals, are shameful. That their signs expressing sentiments like "Thank god for IEDs," "God hates fags," "God hates America," and "God blew up the space shuttle" (always my personal favorite) are outrageous. Their vitriol is universally dismissed. Right?

So please explain to me what on earth makes Rick Perry and Rick Santorum any different from the Westboro Baptist Church. Rick Perry thinks gays are asking for "special rights" when they ask  not to be tortured, imprisoned, or executed simply for being gay. Rick Santorum thinks the US is pushing some silly "agenda" when the State Department announces its intention to side with LGBT organizations that fight back against oppression of gays in foreign nations. Rick Perry equates giving money to these organizations with making "war on traditional American values."

So, really, how are these men any different from the Phelps clan? They may not use the word "fag," but the hate and disgust is pretty much the same.

Perry, the governor of Texas, responded by saying, “Just when you thought Barack Obama couldn’t get any more out of touch with America’s values, AP reports his administration wants to make foreign aid decisions based on gay rights.” He said the Obama administration is making “war on traditional American values” and on “people of faith” by “promoting a lifestyle” they find “deeply objectionable.”

You know what, Rick Perry? I find your statement deeply objectionable. There is nothing moral or right or justified about refusing to stand up against the persecution, prosecution, or execution of LGBT people. Saying we're going to assist organizations that fight back against gay bashing isn't a challenge to anyone's faith.

The bottom line is that men like Rick Perry and Rick Santorum truly believe that gay bashing, that ranting against the scourge of the "homosexual lifestyle," that outlawing homosexual acts are traditional, core American values, values that need to be defended. I'm not stretching Perry's words to come to that conclusion. It's all right there in his statement. And Santorum has made it clear that he believes states should be free to criminalize same-sex sex acts.

The Rick Perrys and Rick Santorums of the world oppose a UN resolution declaring that persecution of gays is a human rights violation and oppose US foreign aid policy sharing this view for one simple reason. They want to be free to continue with their own gay bashing. They don't see persecuting or prosecuting gays to be a human rights violation because it's something they do every damn day of the week. And they won't stand for anyone telling them what they do and say is wrong.

Dear Republican voters:

You probably don't really care what I think. I mean, we all know that no matter who you nominate for president, I'm going to vote for Obama come November. Because no matter how disappointed I might be in his lack of backbone, he's still better to me than anyone you've come up with yet. (And he did get rid of DADT, which was a pretty big freakin' deal to me.)

But let me tell you this. There is probably no one you can nominate who will motivate me to donate money and time to the Obama campaign more than Rick Santorum. I mean, Ron Paul is a scary nutjob, but I don't seriously worry that he might win. And I don't care for Mitt Romney, but I think the nation would survive his presidency. And Newt Gingrich would implode on his own.

But Rick Santorum is a bad man. I mean quite honestly that I believe he is not a good person. He is mean. He is hateful. He is a sanctimonious jerk. He seems to be completely lacking in compassion.

I really just want to crawl in a hole until this presidential election is over. But I promise you. If you nominate this ass, I will donate every spare dime I have to the Obama campaign. I will travel to swing states. I will put every ounce of energy I have into re-electing Obama. I will be so very much more energized than I was in 2008 against John McCain (who I didn't think was bad, just misguided).

But Rick Santorum  is a small, mean-spirited man and is not worthy of the office of the president of the United States.

Rick Santorum, you really ought to know better

Is it really too much to ask that the men and women who are seeking the nation's highest office have some even minimal sense of how rights work? That they have a consistent view of the limits of federal government and state's rights? That they have a basic sense of fairness? Or even the tiniest bit of compassion toward their fellow Americans?

Apparently, it is too much to ask of Rick Santorum. I doubt it's any secret that he's not my favorite. (Of course, asking me to pick a favorite among this year's crop of Republican presidential candidates is kinda like asking me to pick a favorite between the Raiders and Broncos...) Every time I read about him, he gives me new reason not to like him. Honestly, as a person, I don't think I could like him. His positions are just so lacking in compassion and so extreme, it seems hard to believe there is a decent person behind them.

Today, I learned via the Huffington Post that Santorum would somehow  magically "annul" or "invalidate" all the currently legal gay marriages in the country if  he were to become president. My first reaction to this headline was to remark on what an assy thing that is to say and threaten to do. I wager he wouldn't appreciate it much if another presidential candidate vowed to annul all of the marriages involving Roman Catholics in the country. I'd like to believe Santorum would feel that other candidate was attacking him and his marriage for no good reason. I similarly assume that all my legally-married gay and lesbian brothers and sisters from California to Iowa to New England feel some pretty serious personal offense at Santorum's insistence that he is entitled to declare their marriages invalid.

Aside from the personal level on which it is clear that it's really quite jerky to threaten to undo legal marriages entered into knowingly and lovingly between consenting adults. Isn't Rick Santorum supposed to be from the party that champions small federal government and state's rights? Because this position is contrary to both of those ideals. Passing a federal constitutional amendment about something that has traditionally been left to the states isn't a very small government or pro-state's rights thing to do.

But going one further, Rick Santorum is a lawyer. He didn't get his degree from an evangelical, in my mind questionable, law school like Liberty, either. He got it from Penn State. So just in terms of the law, he really ought to know better. No constitutional amendment passed from here on out could annul or invalidate legal marriages that have been entered into up to this point. As a lawyer, he ought to understand this basic concept that due process and ex post facto concepts forbid stripping rights after they have already been legally conferred.

Even if you agree with Santorum on the idea that same-sex marriages should not be recognized, I would hope that anyone with a brain would be troubled by his insistence that a constitutional amendment could reach back in time and do something the document itself forbids. I would like to think that we should all demand more of our presidential candidates. That we expect some basic understanding of how our republic works from those who would seek to be in charge.

I know it's exceedingly unlikely that he could win the nomination. But, still, he shouldn't get a free pass on saying nonsense like this. For crying out loud, he's got a law degree. He really should know better.

If I were in charge

If I were in a position to make the rules for the criminal justice system, things would look a lot different. But have no fear, tough on crime people, I will never be appointed to the appellate court precisely because I would be so "defendant-friendly." Of course, I don't think I am defendant-friendly. I just think I am pro-Bill of Rights, pro-holding the state to its burden, anti-incarceration as the response to every crime, etc.

The first thing I would change might surprise you. The thing that is most sticking in my craw these days is the fact that the prosecution is allowed to take a defendant to a second trial after a hung jury. If I were in charge, this wouldn't happen. If I got to make the rules, a hung jury would result in the defendant being discharged from further prosecution in the same way s/he would be after an acquittal. Because in my world, the prosecution wouldn't get a second chance to make its case.

The prosecution has the burden to prove a defendant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. They have to prove it to the requisite number of jurors. (In most places, that's a unanimous 12, but it varies a little.) A hung jury means the state didn't meet that burden. The state failed to convince the necessary number of jurors of the defendant's guilt. Proving it to 6 or 7 or even 11 jurors should not earn the prosecution a second chance. Rather, that should be recognized as the prosecution failing. Because if the prosecution has only convinced 11 (or fewer) jurors, that is exactly what they have done: they have failed.

Instead of recognizing the prosecution's failure, though, courts have instead allowed a hung jury to be viewed as a situation in which jeopardy does not attach for purposes of double jeopardy. So the prosecution is given a second chance. And, if necessary, a third and forth and fifth. There is no set rule for how many failures to convince 12 jurors of the defendant's guilt finally amounts to a violation of the defendant's right against being subjected to double jeopardy.

If I were in charge, though, there would be a set rule. The prosecution would get one chance. One. A hung jury would be recognized as the prosecution failing to make its case and the defendant would be set free. Maybe this sounds radical to some of you, though I fail to understand why. To me, it just seems like the way things ought to be.

Oh, January 1, my old friend...

I guess it wouldn't be New Year's Day if I didn't feel a little fuzzy and off. If I didn't fall asleep in an unfortunate situation or have tremendous difficulty getting up in the morning.

I really like champagne and dressing up, so even though I grumble about NYE (it's just one day out of the year so I don't buy into the whole resolution, change your life stuff; if you want to change something about your life, there are 364 other days to start, too), I can still usually get talked into going out fairly easily. Last night's best laid plan to stay home with a buddy, order pizza, and just watch football, paying no attention to the time or that silly ball, started to go to hell in the afternoon when we were both sneezing madly. It was a very warm, breezy day, so we both assumed it was allergies. I continued on with my plans to go to the KU game (shout out to Thomas Robinson and his 30-20 day). Then I went out for a beer and a little food with my game friend. And then we were just going to go see her dad's band play. And since we were going out, even though the band was playing at 7, we might as well change a little bit...

So swingy skirt and 5 inch heels later, we were buying a bottle of champagne at the Jazzhaus. Because, as you'll recall, I really like champagne and dressing up. But the problem is often that champagne does not like me nearly as much as I like it. In fact, I think champagne and I are in an abusive relationship. Every time, champagne promises me it will be different and I believe it. And so I drank the champagne. And then, true to form, I decided that a shot seemed like a great idea. Because they were offering "Bye bye 2011" shots and my friend and I were both quite pleased to see this year end. So that happened.

And then a strange thing occurred to me. The champagne wasn't going to my head. I wasn't feeling fizzy and light-headed. All I was feeling was a little feverish and that my throat was getting very, very sore. Those weren't allergies! I managed to find a place to sit and my lovely friend bought me some whisky, ginger, bitters thing to make my throat calm down. It was all of 9:30. In another 5 minutes, I was done. DONE. My other friends (one of whom is 8 months pregnant) were happy to leave, so they took me home where this nasty, nasty cold hit me HARD. Smack in the face.

So I put on my pajamas, took some NyQuil, and was passed out in bed by about 10:30. I had to take a second dose at around 3. I just did the staggering-to-the-store thing to load up on soup, Kleenex, and cold meds. (Side note: Hey, lady in front of me in the express lane, I can count! That was NOT 15 items! I hope I gave you my cold germs!) And now my throat is on fire and my head is fuzzy.

BUT I was not the least bit drunk last night and I am not at all hungover this morning. So, though I feel like absolute crap, I must consider this NYE a raging success!