UConn James

And the cocaine crisis in his nuclear family. Jeb is so tainted it's not even funny and "It's a private matter and we wish the best for them blah blah blah" doesn't calm the nerves of people who see he can't even be a leader and role model in his own family. If they run him, they will lose. Then there's the whole, My state can't incarcerate or even keep track of our child rapists and sexual predadors. The case where they had video of the guy leading the girl off... he used a handgun in the commission of his previous crime. Five year mandatory term. MANDATORY. He walked in three. That's some nice governing there.

That mascara was on thick yesterday. But I suppose it's enough that she doesn't use that deep blue eye shadow that is so favored among Southern conservative women.

Agreed. When an issue is before the SC, it is usually of a very broad scope and not dealing in the minutia of "well, a California probate court ruled that blah blah blah." The comprehensive knowledge factor? Meh. It's nice for a judge to have it, but I don't think it's necessarily a requirement to judge individual cases. That's why the justices have law clerks --- to do comprehensive research on the issue's past and to flesh out the arguments of each side. Ms. Miers is going to have a lot of night table reading to catch up and I don't envy the row she's going to hoe, but I don't see why she's inherently a bad choice b/c of this.

Well, I wrote it the way I did b/c the "Privacy clause" for many generally refers to the 9th Amendment, which some people have a problem with b/c it is in itself vague. But the language of which harks back to the section that says barring federal or state laws, (or the unconstitutionality of such) decisions are left 'to the people'. This is what RvW was decided on; that federal or state law banning abortion should not exist b/c it's an issue that falls on the individual to decide. Some might call it roundabout, but that's what the high court's opinion was (I forget, was it written by SDO?) and it would behoove people to realize that these things DO. NOT. CHANGE. EASILY. so why all the caterwauling from the right who refuse to accept the law? And, more broadly speaking, there is privacy inherent in the Constitution, just that Jefferson did not specifically spell it out that "no person shall snoop, skeeve or otherwise interfere in another's personal matters" in its own seperate amendement. And that's the problem we have with people who MUST have everyone's morals and worldview be exactly like their own, kooks who think it's all right to use their telephoto lenses, etc. The Roberts court is going to be defined, I think, in how it rules on issues of privacy in our modern world and with our modern technology; in a word, continue down the path Brandeis and Warren started w/ that law review article.

Maybe someone should clue in the anti-choice crowd, b/c it's their constant shouting about a matter of SETTLED LAW that 30 years ago was deemed covered by the "reserved to the people/privacy" clause of the Constitution. This wrangling is what prompts Dems to vocally defend RvW, in a similar way that the NRA (life member here) vocally defends the rights of gun owners. Maybe then we could get on to the whole governing thingy about issues that matter.

I wasn't aware we have microphones powerful enough to pick up vocalizations that are muffled from one's head being up one's ass. Did he pout, stormily pick up all of his Legos and run home this week too?

Exactly. Insurance companies/HMOs have nothing to do with it. </sarcasm> I want to agree with you in principle. When you can't afford something, you shouldn't buy it. But to have the dollar outcome of human institutions of economics determine whether you get to procreate.... I'd rather live in a cave and be able to live unobstructed by any social rule than wear a McDonald's shirt & tie and essentially be a slave to the system. And I don't think I'd be alone in that.

Yeah, that Pitt playoff game where IIRC he threw two picks on consecutive ill-advised cross-field throws. ----- If JP is pulled, he goes into Ryan Leaf/Tim Couch mode, I don't care what the kid says about his confidence level. It is an admission that the team has no faith in him to be our starting QB presently or if he falters next year. You stick with him and hope he can learn something from this season in the same manner Carson Palmer learned last year. And if he continues to play horribly with no hope of improvement, that'll be the tough choice to make in the offseason. You don't pull him four games in tho.

Maybe next week you and the other BlueCoats could do a civic service by kidnapping Tom Clements for the duration of the game. You could feed him some Argyle Street Chili from the recipe book that will still have him in the bathroom for next week too. And then, you can play a subliminal casette tape until the phrase "Run the ball" is imprinted on his mind.

In the preseason, he was the Patriots call-guy for the local channel in Boston. After a while, when you really listen to it, his voice is annoying, especially while verbally fellating Tom Brady et al. But I'd say that the only thing worse is him having Rwandy Crwoss as his color guy, (doubly so, as in true Not-that-there's-anything-wrong-with-that mode, he was sporting a new full moustache) doing the same thing. I turned the sound down 42 notches while I was scouting the enemy.

As Garrison Keillor says, paraphrasing here, Freedom of speech is like the freedom to jump off the roof and fly --- you can try it, but there'll be consequences. FoS is about no prior restraint from and no jail time for people speaking their minds. It says nothing about what might happen as a result of what you say. You can be fired, ostracized, given detention, fined by the NFL, etc.... Especially when you say something as stupid as this guy. With all of his (and I would add Pat Robertson in the same vein) blunders over the years, why hasn't he crawled off to a cave yet, and why does he still have any semblence of influence in the Repub. party and society in general? Good on the Dems for exercising their own freedom of speech.

I have a lady friend who works up at a yoga center in Mass. Says EH's been there and she's not anything special. Take away the makeup and she's got a lot of pock marks, etc. I also have a supermodel's actual email from forward emails I get.

That was more of an addendum to your post replying to JSP, not directed at you.

I should've asterisk'ed that. Read: hardline social conservative. He sure ain't no fiscal conservative (My opinion of him would be 1000 times greater if he were).

Meant in the way that if you're a hardline Bush conservative, you want to see piss and vinegar and a Give-em-hell-Harry. But for the other 70 percent of the country, on the left and in the middle, his engagement slash incitement of political rancor puts them off. I can see why he is this way, but I don't necessarily agree with it. Thanks for your interpretive commentary. You get 1 1/2 out of 4 stars. Half a star for an attack I didn't deserve, but one star for the use of !

You're asking why people get pissed after drinking whiskey? Have you ever tasted that stuff? It's like biting into a delicious-looking apple and tasting dogsh--. There's that dark amber drink that looks cold and smooth but tastes like a firestorm. Back in the '60s my dad was in basic training with a guy who'd give him all but $9 of his check, he'd go to Denver and buy a jug of wine for $8.99 (my dad contends that it was the kind of wine where you got $8 back when you redeemed the bottle ) and got just as drunk as someone spending $40.

You think Pres. Bush is going to set himself up to fail on the first try? Somehow, I think that's a complete 180* from his demonstrated personality. For all of his talk about trying to not be a partisan and to tone down the conflicts in Washington, Mr. Bush enjoys picking fights. I'm not trying say that's a bad thing... or maybe I am. But one thing's for certain; he's going to nominate who his staff, the RNC and his own gut (just as good as a brain, if you ask him) tell him to nominate. Given that he waited until after Roberts' confirmation to announce his second, I would guess we're going to see a hard-liner. And where the sh-- flies when he does, it's going to be "hasta lasagna hope ya don't get any on ya."

What you can't really tell is what manner of "illness" was/is being talked about by Danielle, Desmond, et al. When Rousseau captured Sayid, I got the impression that it was more of a mental illness that caused her co-survivors to go crazy (basically, the classification that a lot of us were/are putting Locke in), so she was forced to shoot them. You're talking about a physical manifestation. Which would certainly fit in with Desmond injecting himself. Which one is it? And why would Danielle shoot someone just b/c they're sick? Do we go around shooting everyone with AIDS rationalizing that this will now make everyone who's not infected, safe? What kind of an illness is it? Which I'm assuming that no one here should be expected to have an answer to.

I suppose it's good warm-up stretching for later in the season when they move on to the reach-around.

From Mr. Clutch's blog: So I guess it can be said that Desmond is waiting for Walt, who would be the one who'd know the riddle (He read the cards w/ Michael). I totally missed Desmond at the goodbye scene. This is a show specifically designed for TiVo. Leaves those of us w/ antique over-air antennas out of the loop on the fine details until the DVDs come out.

And she stuffed a whole bunch in her back pockets. Apparently she wasn't thinking of what chocolate does against body, as these are not M&Ms. And she put them in the worst of spots for that occurance and subsequent public opinion. And moreso when she was almost shot by Desmond when she was in the vent. That's something how after 2 eps, we're at the same point in time as the end of the first. I guess that's how they're going to slow this series down so it can last for a couple more seasons.

More like Hear No Evil, See No Evil, Speak No Evil. And then we'll be shocked --- SHOCKED! --- when that evil bites us in the ass in the form of avian flu, etc. when someone who's uninsured doesn't go to the hospital, infects 20 people, those people infect 400 people,.... Health care is a public concern and I would argue it is a national security concern.

How about when the poison oak is weepy pustules over 50 percent of your body including the uhhh... nether regions? For an $18 face value steroid Rx, it started to reduce them in two days. Too bad the office visit of the two minutes it took to write on a piece of paper cost $150.

I had one of those that I got for 6 months after I graduated, with a $250 deductible. Had a moderately serious situation and it covered about $100 of a $1,500 bill at a time when I was really stretched thin. All of the news stories and people make all of these claims about 40 million w/o health insurance. I ask What about those likely 50 million others with insurance-in-name-only? Do you want to sit on the toilet seat at Wal-Mart right after Harry Strangeass and think that one-ply seat cover is going to protect you from his bacterial-infection ass sores, and one or both you go untreated b/c you don't have health insurance?

Katrina was my fault. I saved up until I achoo'ed the mother of all sneezes. Sorry 'bout that.