I went into my Harford Road 7-11 tonight at around 9:30 to fill up on caffeine before going out to Bally's to complete my second workout of the day - this one primarily running. I filled up my coffee cup, sauntered around drinking it for a while, then filled it up again - my coffee trick that no one seems to mind over there since I'm one of their best customers.
Then I go up to the register. Shit, I don't have my wallet. Then I realize I only have 76 cents in my pocket; refills cost 94 cents. So I head out to my car, but it's the rental and I don't have my usual ashtray full of change. Nothing is on the ground under the seats. So I walk around 7-11 for a little while, looking on the ground for a quarter or something. I got nothing.
So I embarrassedly bring my coffee up to Muhammad, who works 20-hour days sometimes, and it looked like he was towards the end of one of those days, and explain my situation. He asks how much I have, then lets me have the coffee for that 76 cents. I offered to run home and get the money for him, but I knew he wouldn't hear of it. I'll get him tomorrow.
I guess I could think to myself that he really didn't have a choice, other than dumping out the coffee and not letting me have it. At least he got something for it by letting me have it. But I prefer to think that he was just being a good person.
Just like with Bush tonight choosing John Roberts as the Supreme Court nominee. I could think that he's choosing the more controversial candidate (more than the rumored Edith Clement, who I was a little excited about, or the earlier rumored Gonzales) so that the confirmation hearings will help deflect attention from the Karl Rove mess (and, by the way, it's really amusing to listen to right wing radio right now, proclaiming that Rove did nothing illegal. Hello? Aren't some things about right and wrong? Isn't revealing the identity of a CIA agent morally wrong, even in the unlikely event that it's not considered illegal? And bad for the country, no matter how you slice it and what technicality you try to get off with? ). I could think that. Part of me definitely does. But I prefer to acknowledge that there could have been a heck of a lot worse candidates than this guy, and even though he's anti-choice, he seems to have some respect for maintaining the precedent that's been set (and Roe v. Wade was 6-3 anyway, so now it would just be 5-4). At first glance, he seems like he'll follow the law and the consititution, and while he's real religious so I know how he'll vote on gay rights and abortion and capital punishment, hopefully he'll be someone who, like O'Connor did, listens to both sides of an issue and isn't a Clarence Thomas-like tool of the right.
It's a bit shocking to me that the Supreme Court now has just one woman, though. I would never want anyone chosen just for gender or race, but when you step back and look at the big picture, it's not very inspiring to see 7 white guys, a black guy who is hook-line-and-sinker with a party that less than 10% of black people vote for, and one woman (and she's old and has had cancer in recent years). There's just something wrong with that picture, much like the recent Rolling Stone list of the 500 Greatest Albums of All Time that contained all of 48 albums by female artists. I wrote a letter about that. I don't know what my options are here, except hope that Ginsberg can stay kicking for a few more years and maybe the next nominee will be more moderate and more female.
So, I now officially have Orioles fever. Tonight, for the first time ever, I turned off the Tigers game to listen to the Orioles. Of course, the Tigers were winning 7-1 against the hated White Sox, and the Orioles were involved in a close one against the Twins (another team I hate, a hatred stemming from their 1987 victory against the Tigers in the playoffs). It was a heartbreaking loss tonight. I hope this AJ Burnett trade happens because something needs to jolt this team back to first place. The new news is that the Orioles don't want Lowell and that Pittsburgh will be involved in the trade, and that the Orioles might get Daryle Ward instead of Lowell. This probably would be alright, but I have mixed feelings about Ward, who used to be a Tigers prospect. He's never lived up to his hype, and has always been out of shape. I don't see how he could play a corner outfield position effectively. He can hit, for the most part, but not enough to be a corner outfielder or a first baseman, and he hasn't hit very well this year. We'll see. If we get Burnett, all the offensive player has to do is replace the mediocre bat of Larry Bigbie, so I think we'll be alright. I just think Lowell, despite his struggles this year, is more likely to bust out than Ward.
Also, don't look now but Sammy Sosa is 7-18 (.389) with a home run and two doubles in his last 4 games. He's back, I tell you.
Silver vs Politico
-
This made me very happy this morning: It’s striking how preoccupied Harris
and VandeHei are with the perception that Politico is too “insidery”. My
persona...
10 minutes ago
7 comments:
He's "anti-choice?" What kind of made-up phraseology is that? Would the opposite of "anti-choice" be "pro-unborn baby murder?"
No. Someone who is in favor of giving women the right to choose to have an abortion is not "pro-unborn baby murder!" I'm not. I hate the thought of killing a fetus. But I hate the thought more of the government getting control of a woman's body. So, "anti-choice" makes a lot more sense to me than "pro-life," because I think a lot of people who are in favor of a woman's right to choose still hope she chooses life, and, even if they don't hope this, very few would think of themselves as "pro-abortion."
"Anti-choice" is the most accurate phrase for someone who is against a woman's right to choose. "Pro-life" just doesn't work for me. It assumes the opposing side is against life and is for killing, which isn't the case. "Pro-choice" is clearly the opposite of "anti-choice." Much more accurate terminology than is given otherwise. Call it what it is.
I don't really get the thinking that the Supreme Court nomination is meant to direct attention away from Rove.
Sure, it *will* direct attention away from Rove for a bit, but it's not like Sandy O'C decided to retire just to "save" Rove, and it's not like a conservative President is going to pick a non-conservative judge. Any nomination was going to raise *some* level of controversy, just due to the polemic nature of politics.
So, should the entire SC nomination process be put on hold until the Rove issue is resolved (whenever that will be, as it's already taken a few years to get to this point)? Maybe I am missing something?
Well, I think it's just how conservative you want to go. All week, there were leaks that Edith Clement, who is firmly pro-choice, would be chosen. She'd be a slam-dunk nominee, from all I've heard. Then, he decides to go with someone who won't be slam dunk nominee, necessarily, but much more controversial.
But, again, I'm not saying that's what it is. My cynical side does, but the optimistic side usually wins out.
And Supreme Court justices do not *need* to raise controversy. The right hated Clinton just as much, if not more, than the left hates Bush, yet Ginsburg still passed 96-3 in confirmation hearings. She sailed right through. I think Clement would have, as well. I don't think Roberts will go as easily.
Yes, there seems to be a sick balance as far as I can see between the Left's hatred of Bush and the Right's hatred of Clinton. It's why I opted out and went Independent (which, if it were truly a political party, would surely be full of asshats, too.)
I don't see anything out of the ordinary, so far, in this early process. It would be beyond wishful thinking that Bush would nominate someone who was openly p-choice; that is not going to happen. (Just like Clinton, given the chance, would not have nominated someone who was openly pro-life).
If Bush were to pick someone without controversy, well, that would be a first in his administration. But it's hard for me to seriously think that all this is going on to direct attention away from Rove. To me, it's just politics as usual.
Just to quibble with this statement a bit:
(and Roe v. Wade was 6-3 anyway, so now it would just be 5-4)
The vote was 7-2.
Also, Roe v. Wade was in 1973.
The assumption that the vote would only change by one (if argued today) is false. The only supreme court justice between 73 and today is Rehnquist, so you cant really say what the vote would be. You can make some guesses, but they are a different court.
Post a Comment