Tigers Win! No dice, Minnesota.

So long, old friend. I wish I could have taken my son to see you when he was old enough to understand how special it was for me to see a game there with his grandpa, and how much I wish he could have seen a game there with grandpa and I.

Todd Jones did his best to give it up, but:

THE DETROIT TIGERS HAVE FINALLY REACHED THE .500 MARK!

I guess I will be seeing WALL-E:

An automatic classic that will stand the test of time and sear itself into the collective memory of a generation, WALL-E is so profoundly moving, so quietly eloquent and so purely magical, it may well be movie of the decade.

I. CANNOT. WAIT.

Scalia writes for the majority. Meanwhile, John Paul Stevens demonstrates that he has absolutely no clue:

In a dissent he summarized from the bench, Justice John Paul Stevens wrote that the majority "would have us believe that over 200 years ago, the Framers made a choice to limit the tools available to elected officials wishing to regulate civilian uses of weapons."

He said such evidence "is nowhere to be found."

Really? There is no evidence that the framers of the Constitution "made a choice to limit the tools available" to government to intrude into the lives of citizens?

Really?

Justice Stevens: THAT'S THE WHOLE POINT OF THE CONSTITUTION. To LIMIT the power of government. That's why we have the government we have: divided into different branches on multiple levels, so that too much power can't accumulate in any one area. LIMITED GOVERNMENT. Perhaps you've heard that phrase before, somewhere, back in the mists of history.

It'd be really cool if the more left-leaning members of the Court (and Congress, and various state offices, etc) could at least make some sort of effort to be informed of basic facts and principles of American governance and history.

I disagree with Joe Lieberman on most issues. I wouldn't vote for him. But it's hard not to respect him.

While Democrats in the Senate have placated Lieberman since his 2006 re-election so he would caucus with them and thus allow them to maintain their one-seat majority, no such placating will be necessary in January 2009 when the Democrats are likely to control the Senate by a comfortable margin. And if that occurs, their supposedly "opportunistic" friend Joe Lieberman will likely be replaced as chairman of the Senate Homeland Security Committee. "Opportunistic" Joe will be a man without a home with little power to influence anything.

Despite attempts to defame him, Joe Lieberman is no turncoat or opportunist. He is a statesman who has made a politically risky decision that he believes is in the best interest of the country. He is a profile in political courage.

David Brooks looks back:

Expert and elite opinion swung behind the Baker-Hamilton report, which called for handing more of the problems off to the Iraqi military and wooing Iran and Syria. Republicans on Capitol Hill were quietly contemptuous of the president while Democrats were loudly so.

Democratic leaders like Senator Harry Reid considered the war lost. Barack Obama called for a U.S. withdrawal starting in the spring of 2007, while Senator Reid offered legislation calling for a complete U.S. pullback by March 2008.

The arguments floating around the op-ed pages and seminar rooms were overwhelmingly against the idea of a surge — a mere 20,000 additional troops would not make a difference. The U.S. presence provoked violence, rather than diminishing it. The more the U.S. did, the less the Iraqis would step up to do. Iraq was in the middle of a civil war, and it was insanity to put American troops in the middle of it.

When President Bush consulted his own generals, the story was much the same. Almost every top general, including Abizaid, Schoomaker and Casey, were against the surge. Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice was against it, according to recent reports. Iraqi Prime Minister Nuri Kamal al-Maliki called for a smaller U.S. presence, not a bigger one.

In these circumstances, it’s amazing that George Bush decided on the surge. And looking back, one thing is clear: Every personal trait that led Bush to make a hash of the first years of the war led him to make a successful decision when it came to this crucial call.

Via PW

A look at Barack Obama's new general election ad over at The Corner:

About 46 seconds into the ad, we are told that Obama “passed laws” that “extended healthcare for wounded troops who’d been neglected,” and in the usual manner of these political commercials we are given a little citation at the bottom. The citation reads “Public Law 110-181 1/28/08”. That law is the only federal legislation cited in the ad — the other two items mentioned were from the Illinois legislature.

Public Law 110-181 was the 2008 defense appropriations bill. It passed the Senate by 91 to 3 in January, with six Senators not voting. Among those six absentees was Barack Obama. So he cites a bill he didn’t even vote for

Be sure to read the rest. It's rich.

That's 8 of his last 9 hits as homers. Let's just go ahead and name him AL offensive player of the week, mmmkay?

So, the Tigers have totally blown this game tonight against the Padres (thanks again, Fernando Rodney!), which sucks. But on the bright side, newly-skinny Joel Zumaya is making his debut for 2008 and he's managed to throw a whole bunch of strikes, many of which were in the 97-100 mph range. So I can't be too disappointed.

Bullpen FAIL, but Zumaya WIN.

So it was just after 10 when I realized that I still has to get some stuff off the table on the deck from dinner. I walk out, notice a few slices of cucumber still sitting on a plate, so i chucked them out into the yard (I'm mowing the lawn tomorrow anyway), and one of them goes into the rose bushes.

And it hit something. Which moved.

So I'm peering out into the darkness, trying to see which of the neighborhood cats was in my yard.

But it wasn't a cat.

Two home runs, three runs driven in so far tonight against the SF Giants.