Sirens
I haven't written here for a while. There's a reason for that. Little has changed.
Or maybe a lot has changed, and it's hard to see it happening from my limited perspective. I've only been at school since the end of August, and since then, there has been little activity here. I've played some chess and blackjack with Scott and Mike, I've played some Warcraft, I've gone to classes and spent a lot of time reading. I've been seeing movies. When you're busy, it doesn't look like you're doing anything.
Scott and I saw six movies on Saturday. The Constant Gardener. Cry_Wolf. The Lord of War. Flight Plan. Venom. Corpse Bride. Scott said yesterday, "I woke up on Sunday and wondered where Saturday went." I felt the same phenomenon. Even though we accomplished more in one day of movie-watching than we'd ever accomplished before, it seemed like we'd missed a whole day. It seemed like nothing happened. (Best of the day: Constant Gardner. Worst of the day: Venom.)
So maybe I've been missing something. But it's hard to tell from where I'm standing.
Alyssa comes to visit on Wednesday night. The Marlins are boned. The Dolphins won their second game, which is what I predicted before will be the last game they win this season. The only movies coming out that I can think of are the new Harry Potter, Zorro Retires, and The Fog (where the fog is evil for some reason). Besides this, there's nothing to look forward to but Mid terms and Fridays.
Here's the question of the week: if democrats won't accept John Roberts as a justice, then who WOULD they accept? Here's the answer. There's nothing wrong with John Roberts. He's fine. Except that, under pressure, he refuses to answer point-blank questions about his personal preferences. Just because he has preferences (whatever they are) doesn't mean he wouldn't make a fine chief justice. When you're at a job interview, you can't just shrug off questions like he has. He could have admitted that he's personally against abortion (or not, who knows?) but since he's so thoroughly explained time and time again, his personal opinion doesn't matter. His job is to find and apply the law. I'm sure the Republicans are just as curious about Roberts as we are. But-- it's reckless to appoint a Chief Justice and not know very much about his personality, even if it's not that important to his job.
What would I do? I don't know. I think Roberts if very professional, but I doubt the President would ever appoint someone who wouldn't swear to him behind closed doors that he'd actively persue an opportunity to strike down Roe v. Wade. So when asked a straight question, such as "hey, do you think abortion is morally reprehensible," you'd like to get a straight answer from the man who would be Chief.
Republicans are the ones who should be the most afraid: he could just as easilly be fanatically in favor of issues they don't like.
And I'm bored of this. Maybe I'll write later.
Or maybe a lot has changed, and it's hard to see it happening from my limited perspective. I've only been at school since the end of August, and since then, there has been little activity here. I've played some chess and blackjack with Scott and Mike, I've played some Warcraft, I've gone to classes and spent a lot of time reading. I've been seeing movies. When you're busy, it doesn't look like you're doing anything.
Scott and I saw six movies on Saturday. The Constant Gardener. Cry_Wolf. The Lord of War. Flight Plan. Venom. Corpse Bride. Scott said yesterday, "I woke up on Sunday and wondered where Saturday went." I felt the same phenomenon. Even though we accomplished more in one day of movie-watching than we'd ever accomplished before, it seemed like we'd missed a whole day. It seemed like nothing happened. (Best of the day: Constant Gardner. Worst of the day: Venom.)
So maybe I've been missing something. But it's hard to tell from where I'm standing.
Alyssa comes to visit on Wednesday night. The Marlins are boned. The Dolphins won their second game, which is what I predicted before will be the last game they win this season. The only movies coming out that I can think of are the new Harry Potter, Zorro Retires, and The Fog (where the fog is evil for some reason). Besides this, there's nothing to look forward to but Mid terms and Fridays.
Here's the question of the week: if democrats won't accept John Roberts as a justice, then who WOULD they accept? Here's the answer. There's nothing wrong with John Roberts. He's fine. Except that, under pressure, he refuses to answer point-blank questions about his personal preferences. Just because he has preferences (whatever they are) doesn't mean he wouldn't make a fine chief justice. When you're at a job interview, you can't just shrug off questions like he has. He could have admitted that he's personally against abortion (or not, who knows?) but since he's so thoroughly explained time and time again, his personal opinion doesn't matter. His job is to find and apply the law. I'm sure the Republicans are just as curious about Roberts as we are. But-- it's reckless to appoint a Chief Justice and not know very much about his personality, even if it's not that important to his job.
What would I do? I don't know. I think Roberts if very professional, but I doubt the President would ever appoint someone who wouldn't swear to him behind closed doors that he'd actively persue an opportunity to strike down Roe v. Wade. So when asked a straight question, such as "hey, do you think abortion is morally reprehensible," you'd like to get a straight answer from the man who would be Chief.
Republicans are the ones who should be the most afraid: he could just as easilly be fanatically in favor of issues they don't like.
And I'm bored of this. Maybe I'll write later.