I'm going to tackle a few of the suggestions in the ALL-REQUEST post at once here. I'm going to leave the music ones aside until I can think about them a bit, and some of the others deserve longer treatment. But please keep those requests coming!

1. Fitz-Hume makes a cicada-like appearance to ask a few questions. (That's cicada, not Secada, but I think he makes some appearances in that style, too.)

First, he asks, "Apropos YearlyKos, where would you host YearlyBTQ and whom would you invite to attend and speak?" Hm. Good question. I thought, like the Kosians, that Vegas would always be a good place for a convention. But it gets very hot there. (To everyone who says, "But it's a dry heat!" I say, "Yeah, and so is an oven, but I don't want to hang out in there, either.") So now I'm thinking Toronto. I noticed that the ABA is having its 2011 annual meeting in Toronto, and of course that made me wonder why the American Bar Association is having its meeting in another nation. Maybe it has some connection to the National Grammar Rodeo from my favorite "Simpsons" episode. Anyway, I've always heard good things about Toronto, it seems clean, the exchange rate is in our favo[u]r, and they seem to have rounded up those pesky terrorists. So, make plans now for the (eventual) YearlyBTQ in the Great White North!

As for invitees, make sure your passports are up-to-date, because everyone's invited. Unlike certain other blog conventions, I don't want an echo chamber. So I'll be happy to convene with readers who disagree with me politically, but politely. I don't imagine we'll get any presidential candidates, though. But maybe we could get a Member of Parliament to drop in!

2. Relatedly, someone with the confusing name "Southern Appeal Fan" asks, "Why is [it] that feddie is always right, and you are always wrong?"

That name reminds me of another "Simpsons" episode, the one where the family goes to Australia. Bart makes the Aussies angry by making long-distance collect prank phone calls. The State Department sends someone to explain that Bart has caused an international incident. The GLG-20 shows some slides documenting the deteriorating Amero-Aussie relationship, including the brief craze for Australian-related films. Noting that our friends Down Under were disappointed that these films didn't stay popular, we see a slide of an abandoned movie theater with a marquee reading "Yahoo Serious Festival." Lisa has the classic response: "I know those words, but that sign makes no sense." Similarly, I know the words "Southern Appeal Fan," but that username makes no sense.

Well, maybe it makes more sense when you find out that "Southern Appeal Fan" and SA Proprietor Feddie have the same I.P. address. I can only assume that Feddie is making his children wander through the web and extol his virtues. Evidence: that really obvious missing "it" in the comment, demonstrating a childish grasp of English. For shame, Fedster -- the internet is a scary place. And maybe I should resolve to make BTQ less kid-friendly. In any event, I'll take the Fan's question at face value. I actually don't think Feddie and I tackle many of the same subjects, so I think it's hard to say we disagree very often in print. (Here's a recent example, and about typical for the level of vitriol we sling at each other.)

We do disagree on a lot of things, to be sure -- poltically, morally, judicially, etc. But I always hope that, unlike his kids, Feddie is mature and reasonable enough to admit that I could at least arguably be right on some occasions. I think Feddie is a good example of why I think it's fun to read blogs whose stance I don't always agree with. It's boring to read the same opinion over and over! Now, Feddie can sometimes dash off posts that aren't models of maturity or politeness (or maybe he lets his kids post those). I know he is quite passionate about some subjects, and I think sometimes he gets carried away on the tide of his own rhetoric. And sometimes he can be impatient with dissenting viewpoints. But when his posts are considered and thought-out, I think they're as good as those on any right-wing blog out there.

I will say that I'm not the biggest fan of the way Feddie sometimes posts, in that Insta-style of linking to something without commenting on it (beyond "Spot on!") or explaining what he's linking to; and the opposite method of quoting a piece wholesale but not offering any original thought. As a reader who may not want to read every site Feddie does, and doesn't want to use SA as merely an aggregator, those practices annoy me a little. But he's far from the only blogger to do it, and it's a nitpick, really. And I'm not vouching for any of his co-bloggers, whom I read to varying degrees. But I've engaged enough with Feddie to have a pretty good idea where he's coming from. That's certainly not to say he's always correct, but he's not wrong 100% of the time. After all, he reads this site, so at least he's right about one thing.

3. PG asks, "[I]n what foreign nation do you take the most interest and why?" I probably gave it away earlier with the location of the BTQCon, but I'd have to say Canada. And it's not just because of the many fine comedians they've sent our way. I took some Canadian history courses at Duke. I started with one that was more about a social history of the American and Canadian Plains (lots of interesting agrarian protest movements! lots of populism!), and that led to some that were Canada-specific. Duke has a tremendous Center for Canadian Studies, and a recent U.S. Ambassador to Canada, Gordon Griffin, is a Duke alum. Perhaps relatedly, the CBC was available on Duke's campus cable system, and I remember watching returns in the 1995 Quebec secession referendum late into the night. Anyway, the interest in our northern neighbor has remained, although I can't say I follow it as closely as I used to. I check the news from time to time. I'm probably more informed about Canada than the majority of Americans, but that's not saying much. But, I think it's worth paying attention to, not only because of the border issues and terrorism, but also because Canada is a huge trading partner with the U.S. and shares so many cultural similarities. And they have fascinating politics up there. I think that, especially because of the shared border, Canada is our most important ally, and all Americans would do well to take more interest in Canada. The Canadians probably don't want the attention, though, so don't feel too bad if you forget about them.

4. Fitz-Hume asks, "Besides the Tarheels, which are your least favorite sports teams and why?" A lot of people hate my Alma Mater's sports teams (well, mainly the basketballers) for their image, their popularity, their exposure, the favoritism they're perceived to get from the media and referees, and the fact that they seem to win a ton of games. Perhaps because I love them, I hate the other Duke-like teams of the sports world: the New York Yankees, Notre Dame football, Kentucky basketball, the Los Angeles Lakers, all those "dynastic" teams. I probably dislike those teams for the same reason that other people hate Duke. I'm sure I can spend hours explaining why Duke isn't really full of assholes (whoops! sorry, Feddie's kids!) like those other teams. But that would just make the rest of you hate the Devils even more. There are a lot of other teams I can't stand during any given game, but those are the biggies. Actually, I'm not uniform in my UNC loathing; since they represent Duke's conference, I sometimes pull for them to win non-conference games in order to boost the ACC's showing. But I don't care if those other teams never win a game again, and I'll never pull for them.

Of course, nothing sums up the anti-fan absolutist sentiment better than this wonderful quote from Warren St. John's masterpiece, Rammer Jammer Yellow Hammer. An Alabama fan is discussing his hatred for all things related to the University of Tennessee, including its ubiquitous fight song: "I'd cheer for Florida, Auburn, Notre Dame, Russia, and the University of Hell before the words 'rocky top' would ever come out of my mouth."

It's time once again to fall back on my tried and true method for generating blog posts: an ALL-REQUEST WEEK. I do have some ideas for posts, and some book reviews in the works, but circumstances are preventing me from day-to-day posting. So help me out -- give me something to write about. All requests considered, most answered!

I have one specific request for you readers. I need to re-tool my blogroll, so please let me know if there are any blogs I should be reading (including yours). Thanks.

Sorry it's been quiet here lately. I've been Building a Better Blog. Really. Stop laughing. Anyway, a few thoughts left over from the weekend.

1. I lost my ATM card Saturday. Well, more precisely, it was "retained" by the machine. I was driving home from dinner and thought I should pick up some cash since I was tapped out. Naturally, I passed up about three ATMs to pick the drive-up one I did. God forbid I get out of my car or something. It did seem a little run-down, like it had been used very heavily and never serviced. But I figured it was okay because it was attached to the branch, not some lone machine without anyone around to love it.

Well, sure enough, it gave me fits. The keypad was finicky, and then when I was done, it spit the card back at me. I say "at" because it didn't spit it "to" me. The edge of the card was about flush with the slot. So I couldn't grab it. I knew time was wasting while the thing was beeping at me and taunting me with "Please take your card" messages on the dim screen. Sure enough, before I could come up with something to pry the card out of there, the machine swallowed it back up. I didn't even get my cash! The ATM told me "Your card has been retained. Please contact your financial institution."

I hate crap like this. It's all can I do to manage the hassle of having this card and making sure I have enough money to use it. But now I was in a tight spot. I use the ATM/check card as my Visa, and I have an American Express. I used to have a Mastercard, but they cancelled it because I never used it. So now I have no cash and an Amex that a lot of places won't take. And checks, but I hate writing checks. I was bitching to a friend about this, and only then was I reminded that, oh yeah, I can cash a check at the bank. It's not like I didn't have money; I just thought I didn't have a way to access it. I guess I was a little too dependent on that check card.

Anyway, I got home and called the bank. It was Saturday night, so I didn't try the branch, and I didn't want to wait until Monday to call them. So I called the national toll-free customer service number. The woman there told me that they treat this like a lost card because the machine has already eaten my card. Me: "You mean someone can't just grab it out of the back of the machine?" Her: "No, sir, because your card has been destroyed." So I had to order a new card, which won't be here for seven to ten business days. I could have had one here in two days, but I would have to pay $16 for that privilege, and skip work to be home to sign for it. No thanks, I'll write checks for a week.

Well, then it got strange. To conduct this transaction, the woman on the phone had to have me verify all my account info. She asked me what accounts I had with them, and I said I thought I just had the checking. But, as I later discovered/remembered, my Dad has account with them that my name is on, so that was showing up too. I'm guessing red flags were flashing all over this woman's screen now. I had all the address, social security, etc., stuff. But that wasn't good enough. She asked me when I got this alleged card I was allegedly missing. Not when I opened the account; she wanted to know when they sent me this actual card. I knew when it expired, but I had no idea when the last one did. Seriously, who keeps track of when their bank last issued them a replacement card?!

She actually said to me, "Sir, there's certain information you have to give me to verify this account, and you haven't given it to me yet." I asked, "What about the account number?" "No, that won't do." Finally, exasperated, I said, "What about the card number?" She seemed surprised: "You know the card number of the card you lost?" And yes, I did, and rattled off all sixteen digits. Thank you, internet shopping! She said that did it, and she hadn't asked me that crucial piece of information because she didn't expect me to know the card number. So then everything was kool and the gang.

Later, I got to thinking about this. I'm sure they wanted to guard against identity theft. But the thief could potentially have stolen the card and used it to file a lost-card claim and get a new one sent to him, right? It just seemed odd that knowing the account number wasn't sufficient, but knowing the card number was.

Oh, and the postscript. I went to the bank today to cash that check, and the tellers there informed me that, yes indeed, the tellers at the branch could have just retrieved the card on Monday morning. Their policy was to hold the cards when that happens, but that the stand-alone ATMs do destroy retained cards. So now I have to memorize a whole new sixteen-digit number for nothing.

Some quick hits:

2. A discussion on the wonderful Slog, the blog from Seattle's The Stranger newspaper, about whether celibrichef Anthony Bourdain is attractive.

3. Two from Rolling Stone. First, the much-discussed article from Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., asking whether the 2004 election was "stolen." The conservative buzz I saw about this was that it just griped about exit polls. But there's a lot more to it than that (in addition to exit poll statistical analysis). I think the use of "stolen" is unfortunate, and in the hands of a less, well, out there author, less willing to entertain some wild theories, there's plenty of material here. Someone like Rick Hasen, for example. Oh, wait -- Hasen points to this great response from Dan Tokaji. I agree with the basic sentiment here: Kennedy didn't make a case that Kerry really "won" the 2004 election, or that votes were actually stolen or ballot boxes stuffed. But he does lay out a very convincing case that the Ohio elections officials did everything they could (within and outside the law) to tamp down Democrat votes and ensure Bush's re-election. Tokaji's bottom line: "The most important question we now face, however, is not whether Kerry really won. It is instead what ought to be done about the very real and serious problems that emerged in Ohio and other states in 2004, which Kennedy exhaustively documents, for the most part quite accurately. Unfortunately, some of the measures being implemented in the states would do little or nothing to improve elections." Worth reading.

3. Another from RS: "Sex and Scandal at Duke." I won't comment much here, lest I sound like I'm whining that the sorority girls wouldn't date me when I was at Duke, or lest it turn into Milbarge's Treatise on Sex, Equality, Hooking Up, and Charlotte Simmons. I'll just say it's hard to read this story without being...not depressed. Hmm...I'll go with disappointed. And that probably just makes me sound old and lame.

4. Thanks to Blondie for mentioning my long Atkins post in her entertaining and interesting edition of "Blawg Review," co-compiled with Woman of the Law and Not Guilty. Lots and lots of good stuff in this Review.

5. I've just received the copy of Jeremy Blachman's Anonymous Lawyer I passive-aggressively whined about last week. I have one short book to finish first, and then I'll dig in to AL. Review to follow, as soon as I can.