Jobber of the Week

Everyone hold onto your ears, the partisan rancor in Washington is going to reach it's highest pitch yet.

I guess it was the ten commandments then, that I was thinking about. Not eminent domain. I just remember Thomas' comments giving the impression that he actually took the facts seriously, whereas Scalia's comments kind of read like he was already on the Republican Bandwagon for this issue.

Plus they're distracting themselves from the Rove scandal, which is where the really important shit is. HOPEFULLY, that's what they do. Reid's "this guy is impressive, but we'll make an opinion later" comments give me faith that they recognize the decoy and don't take the bait. Besides, if they shit their pants in reaction to this mild conservative, Republicans will say "omg obstructionist" and the Democrats will have their balls chopped off, meaning they won't be able to say squat when a seriously fucked-up rightie with a real boner for "cleaning up the culture" is nominated for the next seat. The most politically savvy thing to do would be to offer a little, but not very much, resistance to Roberts. Let him through, but don't embrace him with open arms. Then, if he turns up to be a partisan figure, the Democrats can just say "Well, we didn't like him from the start." He's getting through regardless, so just make some token minor objections and then carry on.

Maybe, if it was ever spoken in the actual show.

You can please all of the people some of the time, and you can please some of the people all of the time...

Can Edge? So far I've found him boring, even when paired with guys like Shawn who should be able to make him look good even when they're not in control. The only time I was impressed by Heel Edge was the THAT'S AWESOME~! days, and I think he either was being a spot machine (ladders, TLC) or used as the guy who was tagged in to clean house.

I guess you didn't interpret that right, but I was including Pops' administration, too. I know that father and son aren't clones of each other and he's probably not asking his Dad to help him out on everything like I used to suggest years ago during 9/11 ("We got an emergency, we're being attacked and Daddy's phone is busy!") but there's so many of the same guys in that administration that are in this administration, that I kind of just blend their years together into on long blur. Maybe. If Reagan had nominated him it would have been a little different, since it wouldn't further connect him to a family legacy. This is why I don't like legacies in office. Kind of just seems like there's a tad of a good ol' boy system in place, with friends and acquantainces being given cushy or powerful jobs. The Bush family wouldn't be the only ones to be accused of this. Remember MikeSC's rant about Janet Reno and how it was clear that Clinton was just giving cabnet positions to friends and that it would be insane to think there wasn't another American, somewhere, who was better qualified to do the job? Same token I'm playing here. Maybe. I guess in light of who was being replaced, I was just hoping more for an outsider than an insider. Still, insider question mark who seems okay is better than an outsider bible thumper.

Why Roberts looks likely to win (MSNBC) Dem Strickland sees Roberts as "first-rate" (Denver Post) I'd say this guy has it made, and it's probably good, as the Democrats need to keep their focus on the Rove scandal and not let shiny objects distract them.

That's an okay arguement, but the reason for the OMG BUSH V GORE complaining still exists. This guy is an insider. I'll agree that in two years of judicial experience there's nothing that scares the crap out of me, but he's been involved with the Bush legacy at least as far back as being nominated by Senior. I think there's a segment of people who are tired of the very subtle cronyism. Other people in seats of power do it, too, but it just happens so much here, and it's almost comedic with this team because they've done so much of it in just eight years.

Okay, I'm posting again, because you know what? The more I read about this guy, the more and more I'm thinking that I passed judgment on him too soon because of who appointed him. I hope I'm right. The most scandalous thing in here seems to be that he defended some security officer's handcuffing and detaining of a 12 year old for eating in a no eating zone, because it didn't infringe on anyone's personal rights. While some are saying that makes him less than a great person, it's technically a correct decision as a judge to make, and the blame for not cutting a 12 year old some slack lays on the shoulders of the security guy, not the judge. That said, I still have strong doubts that this is really the best possible candidate for the job, but at least I don't think I'm going to wake up tomorrow and find that minority rights have reverted back 50 years. EDIT: http://www.nytimes.com/2005/07/20/politics...?pagewanted=all Endorsed by a lot of people I can't stand, but oh well. EDIT 2: Oh boy, he supports a flag burn banning as Constitutional. That said, I still don't think he's any kind of a fundie loon, and take comfort in it. We could have gotten worse.

The first batch of G5 iMacs had a shitload of problems. All first-try Apple products do, but these had more than normal, enough that they had a seperate help line or site or something just for all the problems they were getting. They released speed bumped and revised models shortly after 10.4 came out. I hope they fixed what needed to be fixed for these new ones.

It's almost certain the Democrats will filibuster. The question comes down to whether the 7 Democrats in G-14 choose loyalty to the party or loyalty to the gang. They already agreed to do an intervention-style meeting if someone feels the need to break away and filibuster, which I have to admit is something I find kind of funny. The Republicans in G-14 don't seem to care as much about whether a party puppet goes to the court or not as much as they do preserving the filibuster. They're not so short-sighted to see that if they strip away minority powers now, it may bite them in the ass in some future point when Democrats stop losing every election. The job of a Supreme Court Justice ought to be about choosing the best possible person for the job, not just adhering to a platform or ideology. Democrats didn't vote for Reagan, either, but he still consulted with Congress and managed to choose a candidate who was a conservative, BUT, made decisions based off what she believes the law said, not what she thinks the law SHOULD be. I think the feeling of dread a lot of people have is that you know that whoever Dubya picks is not going to have that same quality. Why? He's not getting re-elected. It's not like he's going to need votes for anything again, since people don't serve as President for two terms and then run for another office or anything. There will always be people who attack Bush no matter what and people who will always carry his water even if he mugged old people on camera. The point, again, is the best person for the job. Are you telling me that the best American, in the whole country, to serve as Supreme Court Justice is the attorney who argued Dubya's case in the legal dispute over the Florida ballots? And there's not a SINGLE LIVING AMERICAN more qualified?

Well what is it, something like 65% of the country that thinks it should be left as is? I don't think Roe should be bulletproof, but people's opinions on the immunity of fetuses have swung since then. Plus, people don't like having their access to something taken away by the government, even if it's to something they don't like. Then again: http://www.lawyernews.com/2005/07/guardian...rld-latest.html I don't know WTF to make of it. I still wouldn't be suprised if they expect a partisan hack because they picked a guy so young.

Oh boy, social conservatism! I know the Democrats will have a conniption because he's pretty dead-set against abortion, but I await to see where the Gang Of 14 goes before I start pulling out tissue boxes.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8605680/ Subtle change of language, and now that the press corps has grown some balls again, they're all over in letting you now about the difference. They're wriggling. They're wriggling like worms and I love it.

A lack of skill is a lack of skill, no matter which style you work. They tend to hire based on looks over skill, so that's probably what you witnessed. There's still a big difference between "two men in a ring working abdominal stretches" and Benoit/Regal. The crowd enjoyed Benoit/Regal, and it didn't even involve german suplexing someone like a rag doll all over the room. This is a big jump from when they started promoting this style in 2003, with Lesnar/Angle. I remember reading the comments here about how disappointed everyone was that the crowd stayed quiet through the chain wrestling and then popped for the first power move.

Edge doesn't play a good monster heel, so they're giving him the JBL treatment where he takes his licks and ends up still winning in the end, to everyone's frustrations.

Austin didn't become a milquetoast babyface, because he was still acting like a heel a lot of the time and simply getting popped for it. They didn't really solidify him as a babyface until Tyson, and the parlaying of Montreal into Austin/McMahon was perfect. The only time they started to run out of gas on Austin was when the guy needed to move on but they couldn't let go of Vince McMahon, main event heel. Having mini-feuds with Mick, Kane, and eventually Rock as "guys hired by the boss" that ultimately served to feed the larger Austin/McMahon story was fine, but after WM15 and Austin finally getting what's his and Vince tossing a tantrum and skulking off to think about life, that's the conclusion to the story they had been writing. But they kept it up, and tossed more guys like Undertaker, Kurt Angle, Big Show, and others into this feud that would never die. By the time Vince and Shane were squabbling about who gets to be the big shot of the stable, and Austin was saving Stephanie from dark weddings, it was really really time to put the ol' dog out of it's misery. And yet they kept Austin and Vince inseperable though 2001.

Fuck all of you for not keeping around your original Genesis, SegaCD, and Sonic CD game. Y'all can go to hell. While you try to play with that tiny GameCube pad, I'll be laughing at you. Anyway, since Andrew brought up the whole quality of writing thing, 1Up > GameSpot > IGN.

Even though you can find some better pricing structures than iTunes (Yahoo's launched or launching something that's like a dime less), the thing has become a bit of a cultural icon and because of that, there's now a ton of exclusive content on it that's actually quite listenable. Plus the library has exploded with a ton of labels and bands, although the bands that are slow to embrace technology (the Beatles), are still supporting the record industry's message of buying CDs (Madonna, the Beatles again), or are involved in legal fights with Apple Computer (the Beatles again) are noticeably absent.

Cena is still HUGELY over with marks as much as we complain that he'd be much better served as a cocky arrogant heel than a common man do-gooder. That does shorten the lifespan of his draw, as we've seen with Rocky, but until that happens he's still over. Eventually, people will either get tired of him or figure out what we've already known. By my observations of 2 PPVs this year where both titles were on the line, Cena is the more popular champion. Batista certainly has a marketable look and can definitely go places, but he hasn't main evented over Cena twice just because he's that much more popular. It's because he's a project of someone well connected to the office. Edge, well, his career could be set back for a whole year or more once they hit the blowoff match of this Hardy feud and the entire world realizes, oh yeah, it's just Edge and Matt Hardy, and promptly shits on the match.

Okay, the "replace SmackDown with ECW" idea being taken seriously thing has got to meet reality. The WWE isn't going to rearrange itself to have the WCW-ish Raw and ECW on the other night. ONS was a sideshow, the whole ECW revival, it's tie in with Bischoff, and the whole thing was giving the fans finality on what had been an unwritten chapter of wrestling history because McMahon figured he could make a dollar. This company has never fully embraced ECW's style of wrestling aside from that one show, and it can't do it full-time. They've already got enough problems with guys getting injured all the time, and they've been training fans for more than three years to respect more regular, two-men-and-a-ring style of wrestling. It's taken some time, but they've got crowds responding and sometimes giving standing ovations to the likes of Chris Benoit. After all this retraining, it'd be kind of sad to undo it and bring back the endless parade of Holy Shit spots.

The rest of the conservatives may lean to the right, but are independent thinkers who are following their gut instincts. I'll give them that. Scalia is pure Republican hack. His comments in the land use case sealed it, although I can't remember the details.

Also, as unfunny as Mallard might be, it is only a fraction as unfunny as Prickly City. AND you actually get the feeling that the person drawing Mallard actually tries to make it look good (even if his Jon Stewart looks like John Kerry,) whereas P.C. looks like a child made doodles.

But why would the CIA reccomend an investigation if it was as blatant as night and day that she works for them?