Johnny Coli

Miller ran Pabst and the rest out of town. The last time I (and a few of the lads I often imbibe with) was there we had to ask the barkeep at this little watering hole around the corner from the Pfister Hotel if he could rustle up some PBRs for us. He had to go down to the basement and find an old sixer, but he dusted it off for us and we drank 'em warm. The rest of the trip is a bit hazy, but I do remember speaking to Bob Brenley (manager of the Diamondbacks at that time) in the hotel lounge (he was drinking a tumbler of scotch and wearing a hawaiian shirt), and was also just a few feet away from a rather sharp-looking (and very much alive, to my surprise) Doc Severinson, who was entertaining a table full of slightly older-than-middle-aged women.

I've been to Milwaukee. The article is right. They know how to knock'em back in that town.

To quote Our Unitary Executive, "Nothing."

How does she know that it was their cat that did it? If you look in the box and observe a cat, is it a proper assumption to make that you would find a turd? What if you only observed the turd, could you make the assumption that it came from a cat, even in the absence of a cat? Is her reasoning "Cat, ergo, turd?" Or is it "Turd, ergo, cat?" Some would argue that the turd is always there, regardless of whether the cat ever was, simply because the absense of a turd takes up as much space in the mind as an actual one. The turd was there because the old woman willed it into existence. The boy, much like the cat, has nothing to do with it.

The coffee drinker that lives next door to the White house and two doors down from the guy who smokes blends. EDIT: I see the answer has been posted. So much for my non-spoiler post.

None of the above. You're 24 years old, so you've still got time...unlike a lot of these other slobs ( ). Move to a better, major city. You don't have a degree, but you can easily get a tech support job through a temp/contract agency. Go back to school and pick a career. Work the temp/contract job while you're in school. I was a bit older than you cooking in restaurants here in Boston (Loserville, USA) and worked enough hours at a liquor store to supplement my student loans, and to pay rent and eat while going back to school (the 30% discount on beer didn't hurt any, either). It can be done.

"The Dems are soft of soul security."

Using GOP rhetoric to point out the absurdity of GOP rhetoric seemed applicable.

That was the point. Invading Pakistan would be foolish. Yet the reasons that the pro-war pundits are using to rationalize a war with Iran could be applicable to many countries, and they're not lining up to pre-empt any of them. The reasons I see bantered about are "They're islamic and they hate us", "They want nukes", "Terrorism". To me, that's grossly over-simplified.

Like Pakistan? Islamic nation. Has nuclear weapons. Is not a member of the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty. It's citizens are often involved in anti-US demonstrations (as recently as last week), and they may even be harboring the real guy that was behind 9-11 (remember him?). Sounds like a great time to invade Iran. It all adds up to an invasion of Iran. Edited to convey the sarcasm that was intended.

They can't hear you over the war drums.

As someone who is married to and was living with someone who went to lawschool, I can tell you without a doubt that the first year is pretty tough (for both the student and the spouse/significant other). I'd pick her up when the library closed at midnight, had to pick up the slack around the palace because she was always studying, and basically dealt with having law school rule our lives. It did get somewhat easier year's two and three, but year three was all about the Bar, so that can get pretty stressfull, as well. The advice about outlines is true. They are key. Her laptop crashed once and that was a day from hell recovering outlines that hadn't been backed up yet. So, another good bit of advice is save like a madman, and download to disks every once in a while. It took a while to find the right kind of people to get involved in study groups with, but she ended up latching onto some pretty cool people we are still friends with years later. They weren't so much for working out stuff during the semester, but they came in pretty handy while going over old exams before finals, and as support groups. It was pretty tough at times, but I kept reminding her that there are complete idiots out there who manage to get law degrees, so if you're an intelligent person willing to put the time in you should do great (and she totally kicked ass). Good for you for deciding to get a terminal degree, and good luck. Good luck to your significant other, too. They should give us some kind of minor law degree as well because you can't help but pick up a significant bunch of law by just living with a law student.

You can't manufacture "cool." A cult movie becomes a cult classic in spite of itself, not because it is viral marketed or because it purposfully aims for the lowest common denominator. This movie was mass-hyped, aided by the studio's allowance of fans to use the title for fan-based merchandising...thus, everyone and anyone is pumping out "Snakes on a plane" T-shirts, etc, because buzz is the only way this movie would have ever seen the light of day. Is the movie dumb fun? Probably, but so are a whole host of other flicks. But this movie does not epitomize "cool" nor will it hold on to any long-lasting cult status. If anything, it will subject us to more of the same "dumb as a marketing device" movies. It will win it's coveted MTV movie awards, and it will be "The best movie ever" until "Snakes-fatigue" and the next internet hype-driven movie comes along...just a fading blip on the pop-trash-culture radar screen. Manufactured cool. The Blink182 of movies.

So if there is a question as to the validity of the signitures on the ballot the Dems should just shrug their shoulders and let the chips fall as they may? Look the other way for the good of democracy and the process, right? The majority of Romanelli's (sp?) campaign money came from GOP contributers, he used GOP people on the ground to help get the signitures, and it looks like some of the signitures on the ballot/petition may be Santorum staffers. If the good people of PA wanted a third party would Romanelli need to take cash and resources from another party? Seems less than above-the-board, if you ask me, and certainly doesn't sound like a third party candidacy. But it's your state.

Rolling around in the filth with the GOPigs is a fabulous way to get your budding “independent” third party growing. They’re just oozing credibility.

You need to hit the legal blogs for actual analysis not mired in MSM soundbites. Volokh Conspiracy has some good entries on this. Eugene Volokh is a law professor at UCLA, but there are a host of other law professors that submit content. Scroll down for related content, as there is some good stuff by Orin Kerr (George Wash Univ Law) and Jim Lindgren (Nothwestern Law) on the Fourth Amendment. SCOTUSblog has a good post by Lyle Denniston, and it was the first piece of analysis I saw on the ruling yesterday. They also have an NSA wiretap decision roundup that links to more analyses. Balkinization has three excellent posts from Jack Balkin and Marty Lederberg, the most recent by Jack explaining how Judge Taylor's somewhat sloppy opinion may actually be ingeniusly sloppy as a strategic setup for subsequent appeals.

It is unfortunate that the PA GOP, so desperately trying to keep a deranged man in the Senate, have resorted to spending so much time, money and manpower to get a third party candidate on the ballot...not because they're so big on free and open elections, but because that candidate takes votes away from another candidate. Free and open, indeed.

Busted.

We also would have accepted "The GOP is soft on the US Constitution."

And the Bushies haven't exactly been batting a thousand at the SCOTUS recently.

I see... A judge in Michigan deems Bush's warrentless wiretapping unconstitutional because it violates two Amendments, FISA and the seperation of powers doctrine, and you come away with "The Dems are soft on security."

I haven't been following that race as much as the Lieberman/Lamont one, but I looked back at my relevant posts here (three in total it looks like; for the most part more giddy at Sanitarium's sh!tty numbers than Casey as a candidate) My take: If you can't beat the pants off a nut like Santorum, then you don't deserve to win. He still leads in the polls, but you are right, he's sinking fast. Have they started the debates yet in that race? Maybe Casey is saving his money for an ad blitz closer to the elections...I would guess that these new poll numbers would light a spark under his campaign's a$$ to get moving. You'll have to tell us what's going on with ad time in PA. Is Santorum burning up the airwaves to make up ground, while Casey waits to fire up the campaign post-Labor Day? It could be a resource thing...let Rick bust his nuts to make up ground, then really start the campaign closer to the election. You don't want to run out of cash in September. I don't know.

They are.

Looking past the "Joe's ahead in the polls" snapshot and examining the trend is the most relevant news from these new numbers. Here's the ink to the Q-poll Lieberman's support has started to tail off over the past two-and-a-half months, while Lamont's numbers are really coming on strong. It's going to take a huge push from the GOP to keep Joe The Enabler around. This will be a close one. It's exciting to see a virtually unknown candidate come out of nowhere, bounce an 18-year incumbent off the party ticket, and poll this well two months out from the election.

Like Cheney and the GOP endorsing Lieberman (D oops, R CT-Sen)?