9999

Join Quality Paperback Book Club and get 6 books for $1 each. New members will also receive a free gift.

Is Lea Michele pregnant?! Rumors were rampant early this week that the Glee star might indeed be expecting, after photos of her sporting a possible baby bump surfaced. Here's the thing about baby bumps (and personally, I loathe the term, but it's just the easiest way to explain): Ever feel bloated after scarfing down lunch too quickly? If you're already super thin, your tummy might pooch out just a bit.

If you're a high profile Hollywood actress and you've got even the slightest hint of a pooch, oh boy, you're supposedly preggers!So, back to the original question: Is Lea Michele expecting a baby with boyfriend (and Glee co-star) Cory Monteith? No, she's not. In fact, the denial came straight from Lea herself, via Twitter, telling her well over two million followers, "My first fake pregnancy rumor! I've finally made it!"

Instead of getting angry about the crazy pregnancy rumors, Lea Michele actually embraced the idea of the fake story. Honestly though, she "made it" years ago. Still, she's missing out, at least for now, on some awesome baby gift from idol Barbra Streisand!

I for one am glad every single day that I'm not famous. I'd be horrified if everyone judged my appearance like the media does every single second of the day. We all have our not-so-awesome days, and if I felt a little bloated and covered up with my enormous purse to hide it, I wouldn't want to be splashed all over magazine covers. UGH.

Lea Michele and Cory Monteith do make an adorable couple, and maybe someday they'll decide they want to have some little ones. For now, that's not in the cards.

Ar-i-ZON-a!

• That song, by Mark Lindsay (better known as "Paul Revere" from Paul Revere and the Raiders), was one of my earlier pop-radio memories.  For whatever reason, I remember that song and I remember wondering why it took them so long to finish all the "na-nana-nananana ... Hey-Jude" part.

But ... whatever ...

I owe an AFL update, and, after giving it some thought, decided to just go day-by-day.

Oct. 9

Paxton ... 3.0 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 5 K ... "sitting" 93-94, "touching" 96 per Gameday

Smith ... 2.0 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 1 K ... fastball 92-93, slider 85-87

LaFromboise ... 1.0 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 1 BB, 2 K ... fastball 87-89, cutter 75-77

Bawcom ... 1.0 IP, 0 H, 1 R, 0 ER, 1 BB, 1 K ...fastball 92-94

Franklin 2b ... 1-for-4

Oct. 10

Zunino DH ... 1-for-5

Romero 2b ... 1-for-4

Catricala LF ... 0-for-4

Oct. 11

Franklin 2b ... 2-for-4

Zunino C ... 0-for-3, BB

Catricala 3b ... 0-for-4

Oct. 12

Bawcom ... 1.0 IP, 6 H, 4 ER, 0 BB, 0 K

LaFromboise ... 1.1 IP, 2 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 1 K

Smith ... 1.0 IP, 1 H, 1 ER, 1 BB, 0 K

Oct. 13

Zunino C ... 3-for-5, 2 triples

Catricala 1b ... 0-for-3

Oct. 15

Paxton ... 3.0 IP, 3 H, 1 ER, 1 BB, 5 K ... no f/x data

Zunino C ... 1-for-5, double

Franklin SS ... 2-for-4, HR

Catricala DH ... 1-for-4

Oct. 16

Bawcom ... 1.0 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 1 K

LaFromboise ... 1.0 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 1 K

Franklin 2b ... 3-for-4, 2 doubles

Catricala 3b ... 0-for-2, sac fly

Oct. 17

Smith ... 1.0 IP, 0 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 0 K

Zunino C ... 2-for-5, double, HR

Romero DH ... 3-for-5

Oct. 18

Bawcom ... 1.1 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 0 K

Zunino C ... 1-for-4

Romero 2b ... 1-for-4

Oct. 19

Franklin SS ... 1-for-4

Romero 2b ... 2-for-3, double

Catricala LF ... 1-for-3

Oct. 20

Paxton ... 1.1 IP, 4 H, 4 ER, 2 BB, 3 K ... no f/x data

Smith ... 2.1 IP, 1 H, 0 R, 0 BB, 3 K

LaFromboise ... 1.2 IP, 4 H, 3 ER, 0 BB, 1 K

Zunino C ... 1-for-5

Franklin DH ... 0-for-5

Romero 3b ... 3-for-5, HR

Oct. 22

Zunino C ... 1-for-4

Franklin 2b ... 0-for-4

***

Stray thoughts:

• Looks like they were trying to get Vinnie C jump-started by giving him a lot of early starts.  Looks like it didn't work.
• One glitchy start for Pax, but 13 K in 7.1 IP.
• Smith keeps knocking on that "figure-me-in-with-Capps-and-Pryor" door, and darn if he might not barge his way in one of these days. 
• The stat sheet lists Romero at "3b", but he's only played once there in five appearances.  FWIW.
• Yes, all three of Franklin's XBH came hitting lefty.

October 12^th ended the month’s session for oral arguments heard by the High Court. While much has been made over the affirmative action case heard in Fisher v. University of Texas, it seems once again that the legal media have over-hyped the case’s potential for any significant or far-reaching outcomes.

Abigail Fisher was denied admission to the University of Texas when she applied in 2008, and did not take the rejection lightly. Rather, the young white Texan obtained legal counsel through the law office of Wiley Rein, LLP and attorney Bert Rein in order to sue the University for race discrimination.

Ms. Fisher believes she was denied entrance because of the University’s diversity policy, a policy that she and her attorney contend is solely based on race, unwarranted and by extension, unfair.

The overriding question of the interests served and need for Affirmative Action in higher education may not be answered by the Court because Justice Kagan rescued herself, cutting The Nine down to eight. In this setting, the strong likelihood of a split 4 – 4 vote means no opinion will be rendered, and the matter will stand as the lower courts decided.

Walmart Wrongful Firing and a Wrong Decision

James Casias worked for Walmart in a Michigan store from 2004 until he was fired in 2009 for violating Walmart’s drug use policy after he tested positive for marijuana during a mandatory post-accident drug test.

Casias has sinus cancer and an inoperable brain tumor for which his doctor prescribed medical marijuana for pain management. When he filed suit against Walmart for wrongful firing and violation of the Michigan Medical Marijuana Act (MMMA,) he claimed he never used the drug at work, or before arriving to work.

The district court dismissed the case, and the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld the dismissal because the panel agreed with the lower court’s conclusion that the MMMA does not apply to private employers.

It is quite disappointing that the courts took the back doorway out of this one. As Americans become increasingly in favor of medical marijuana use and more states legalize it, public policies on medical marijuana will continue to overlap into the workplace, and conflicts will arise more often.

It’s hard to believe that the private sector will work out feasible solutions for these conflicts on its own. It also seems unlikely that government agencies will be of much help.

While the EEOC is preoccupied with helping convicts by limiting pre-employment screening by employers, it has little to no concern for protecting workers like James Casias whose last hopes for a quality life lie with medical marijuana use.

Perhaps the courts should take on this issue through more meaningful analysis now, rather than waiting until governments and employers have made a real mess of things.