Monthly Archives: July 2005
SC Nomination Blog
Cable TV
What kind of cable TV package do you New Yorkers out there have? Matt and I are trying to decide what to get from our provider, Time Warner Cable. We only want TV – we don’t need Internet access, because our DSL is paid for by Matt’s employer.
I’d be fine without digital cable, except that according to the channel lineup, some of my favorite channels are only available on digital, such as Turner Classic Movies and TV Land; so are BBC America, which Matt would love to have, and LOGO, the new gay TV network.
Of course, the TWC website doesn’t make it easy to find any of the cheaper packages; I actually had to call Time Warner Cable to learn that the digital package, without premium channels or any other bells/whistles, is about $56 per month (plus whatever fees they tack on, I guess). There’s a pricing chart online, but it’s rather confusing.
Anyway, what do you get from TWC, and about how much do you pay for it?
Olympic Announcement
So tomorrow morning, at about 7:30-8:00 a.m. Eastern time, the winner of the 2012 Summer Olypmics will be announced. It will probably be Paris. I hope so. Please let New York lose.
The Other
Stephanie Coontz, in today’s Times, makes a point about marriage that’s worth remembering:
Traditional marriage, with its 5,000-year history, has already been upended. Gays and lesbians, however, didn’t spearhead that revolution: heterosexuals did.
Heterosexuals were the upstarts who turned marriage into a voluntary love relationship rather than a mandatory economic and political institution. Heterosexuals were the ones who made procreation voluntary, so that some couples could choose childlessness, and who adopted assisted reproduction so that even couples who could not conceive could become parents. And heterosexuals subverted the long-standing rule that every marriage had to have a husband who played one role in the family and a wife who played a completely different one. Gays and lesbians simply looked at the revolution heterosexuals had wrought and noticed that with its new norms, marriage could work for them, too.
But it’s easier to blame gays and lesbians for ruining marriage, because we’re The Other. Religious conservatives like James Dobson know that banning gay marriage will play much better than banning birth control, making women stay at home, forcing wives to submit to their husbands, or re-criminalizing adultery. Many people who wouldn’t think of enforcing those rules, because those rules might someday apply to them, have no problem banning gay marriage.
People will never proscribe their own liberty, but they have no problem proscribing that of others.
MIT Weblog Survey 2005
2012
So it’s not New York (whew!), but what an upset!
London
I haven’t really had a chance to blog today, but my thoughts are with all of you in London.
A Letter From London
A Letter To The Terrorists, From London:
What the fuck do you think you’re doing?
This is London. We’ve dealt with your sort before. You don’t try and pull this on us.
Do you have any idea how many times our city has been attacked? Whatever you’re trying to do, it’s not going to work.
All you’ve done is end some of our lives, and ruin some more. How is that going to help you? You don’t get rewarded for this kind of crap.
And if, as your MO indicates, you’re an al-Qaeda group, then you’re out of your tiny minds.
Because if this is a message to Tony Blair, we’ve got news for you. We don’t much like our government ourselves, or what they do in our name. But, listen very clearly. We’ll deal with that ourselves. We’re London, and we’ve got our own way of doing things, and it doesn’t involve tossing bombs around where innocent people are going about their lives.
And that’s because we’re better than you. Everyone is better than you. Our city works. We rather like it. And we’re going to go about our lives. We’re going to take care of the lives you ruined. And then we’re going to work. And we’re going down the pub.
So you can pack up your bombs, put them in your arseholes, and get the fuck out of our city.
My Words
I’m hanging out at home today, waiting for the cable guy to come and give us cable TV. I haven’t been in a blogging mood lately, and work has been busy, but now that I have some free time I can catch up on some things I’ve meant to blog about.
I started taking a 10-week fiction-writing class this week. The first class, rather introductory, was all about words — particularly, nouns. He had each of us make several lists of nouns in different categories.
One list was nouns that we like the sound of. I wrote down velvet, damask, vanilla, silver, quinine and clasp.
Another list was nouns that we like looking at (the words themselves, not the objects). I wrote down xylophone, earthquake, kevlar, jackalope, reflex and exchequer. I guess I’m fond of high-scoring Scrabble letters. (Given more time, I might also have written down quizzical.)
Another list was nouns that we find personally meaningful. I wrote down sex, neurosis, isolation, pressure, time and space. Don’t ask.
Anyway, the instructor’s great — very friendly and easygoing. I like him. The class should be fun.
Crossword Construction
This past week I read a new book, Crossworld: One Man’s Journey into America’s Crossword Obsession. While I don’t think very many Americans have a crossword obsession, I have one, at least when it comes to the New York Times crossword, which I do religiously. (My favorites are the hard ones, Thursday through Saturday.)
It was a flawed but enjoyable book (here’s the first chapter), and it prompted me to take a step toward something I’ve always wanted to do: construct my own crossword. It’s been a mini-goal of mine to someday get a crossword published under my name in the Times, so I may as well start trying. Plus, it’s just fun.
I found and read some great crossword-constructing tips from constructor Tyler Hinman, and I’ve already begun making a puzzle. I’ve come up with a punnish theme and several theme entries, but my fill doesn’t seem to be working so far, so I might have to reposition the theme entries and start again.
This is something I’m doing for the sheer enjoyment of it, and it feels good.
The Fourth
I never wrote about our recent Fourth of July festivities. Matt and I went to a party at our friend Marc’s place on Third Avenue in Village to have drinks and food in his apartment and then watch the fireworks from his roof. (Marc is the boyfriend of Matt P.) We were, of course, able to walk there from our new place – yay! We had a terrific view from the roof. At one point, before it got completely dark, the Fuji blimp was almost directly above us, looking huge. As it got darker, the roof filled a crowd of families and kids and adults. Then the fireworks began, and we watched them while listening to the accompanying music over someone’s radio — Sousa, Gershwin, John Williams, etc. I stood with my back against Matt’s chest and stomach, and he put his arms around me, and we watched the multi-colored display with some of our friends nearby. It was a real treat and probably one of the better Fourths I’d had in a while.
Computer Luggage
Although I consider myself to have officially moved, my lease on my old place has not yet ended, and I still need to move all my stuff out of there. I’m selling most of the big pieces of furniture, but I’ll still need to either rent a small U-Haul or borrow my parents’ car to move my two six-foot-tall bookshelves and my 27-inch TV and accompanying TV stand. In the meantime, though, out of impatience and a desire to lessen the burden when I move the big stuff, I’ve occasionally gone back to my old place with a suitcase and loaded it up with CDs or whatnot. I have a few hundred CDs, and in two trips I’ve managed to move over half of them, but I’ve still got two trips left. And I’ll probably take my CD stand on the PATH train with me on that last trip as well.
The coolest thing I’ve done so far, however, is to move my computer, which I did a week ago. I thought it would fit in my suitcase, but it didn’t (I should have measured beforehand), so I had to borrow Matt’s, which is bigger. I took Matt’s empty suitcase to my old apartment, unplugged all the computer stuff, wrapped the CPU in a towel and put it in, along with the keyboard (also wrapped in a towel), the mouse, the computer speakers, and the assorted power cords. I fortunately have a flat-panel monitor, so I managed to stuff it into a big backpack (after sticking it in a towel and then a plastic bag). So I walked to the PATH, rode the PATH, and walked to the new place lugging a very heavy suitcase and wearing a computer monitor on my back. Matt was somewhat shocked, but he shouldn’t have been, as I really wanted my computer.
The new apartment has a small room with shelves that we’ve turned into a combination walk-in-closet-and-Jeff’s-Study. Matt helped me set up the computer on a desk we’d stuck in there, and then he strung together a bunch of wires to connect it up with his Internet router. I put together an extra IKEA chair that belongs to the building, and voila, Jeff has a study, with a small window, even. I was worried that I might have damaged the machine by pulling it in a suitcase along bumpy sidewalks, but it emerged unscathed.
Matt and I really needed two computers. When I was unofficially living with him at his old place, we had only his, which was difficult, because we’re both Web addicts. If he was using the computer and I wanted to as well, I had to find something else to do. Now we can both do computer stuff at the same time.
And if I get really lazy, it’s nice to know I’ll be able to IM Matt across the apartment.
Selling Furniture
I’m selling some furniture. If you’re interested, let me know.
Fiction Writing
I had my second fiction-writing class last night. I’m finding it hard to get enthused. Three years ago I took a screenwriting course through the same organization, the Gotham Writers’ Workshop, and it filled me with such energy, inspiration and hope. There was this story I’d been trying to tell for so long, and I finally found that the medium of screenwriting helped it blossom. Over the 10 weeks of the class, I wrote a complete first draft of a screenplay. I had hope that I’d be able to revise it and sell it and pay off my student loans. But I eventually decided that it was a pretty ordinary story, nothing special, and that I didn’t want to put what would probably be fruitless effort into trying to sell it.
Now I don’t even feel the inspiration or desire. The focus of this course is on short stories, and I don’t care about short stories, either reading or writing them. I like novels, although not all kinds, and I don’t like novels exclusively. Whatever feelings of excitement and hope I felt during my screenwriting class are now gone.
(And if I have to sit through one more writing-course lecture about the protagonist and the antagonist, the desire and the obstacle and the conflict, I’m going to scream.)
I was talking with my therapist last week about the particular plotline I’ve been trying to get down on paper for the last 12 years. She asked me to describe it to her. It’s not really a single plotline but two similar ones: the story of Kirk and the story of “Scott”. What I want to get down on paper is that sense of excitment and discovery and romance I felt when I was in college and dealing with my attraction to guys. Both of those stories involved me confiding my soul and my secrets in a fellow gay student. There’s just this sense of innocence and expectation. And of lost opportunities.
The story of “Scott” (okay, his name was actually Ron) is, for me, the definition of “regret.” I regret ending that night prematurely, and I regret not giving his jacket back to him in person. I regret that I hadn’t gotten to know him earlier that year. I regret that I came out to my parents too soon and spent that year, and the next four, repressing my sexuality. Not dating, not meeting other gay guys, being too concerned with analyzing my position on the Kinsey Scale instead of realizing the dumbly obvious fact that I should just do what made me happy. Had I not come out to my parents so soon (stupidly, impulsively), I would have preserved that safe space within which I could have continued to explore myself and my desires without worrying about retribution.
My obsession with rewriting the stories I mentioned above is a desire to rewrite history, of course. To somehow go back in time and do it over. But you can’t. You can only look ahead. I wound up compressing my 20s into about three and a half years, and now they’re gone. But that’s okay, I guess. Age 31 isn’t bad, and my life right now is pretty nifty. Even if those years had turned out differently, they’d still be in the past by now. But maybe those years would have been richer and permanently rewarding.
I’m not sure what my point was here. I guess I was writing about my lack of interest in fiction writing. Sometimes I just want to reap the reward of writing — that is, the admiration you get from other people. I’ll get jealous that someone else I know has a book out, and I’ll assume that person’s getting all these accolades, and I’ll want those accolades, too. But accolades usually turn out to be evanescent.
My motivations are murky.
TiVo Boyfriends
Back when Matt was single, his friends used to say that his TiVo was his boyfriend. Now, of course, I’m his boyfriend, although we and the TiVo have had almost nightly threesomes. But last night I finally brought my own TiVo from my old place over to our new place, and we hooked both TiVos up to the TV. So I’ve decided that my TiVo and Matt’s TiVo are now officially boyfriends.
I hope you’ll join me in wishing them much happiness together.
Someday, of course, they’ll decide to get married, and the Religious Right’s nightmare will have come true at last.
Sarah Vowell
I sent the following letter to the New York Times today – not intended for publication, but simply to express my views.
Dear Editors,
You MUST hire Sarah Vowell as a full-time op-ed columnist. Each of her guest columns has been wonderful, and wouldn’t it be great to add another woman to the mix? (She could even replace John Tierney, whose problem is not his political views but the fact that he is boring.)
Do what you have to, but please bring on Sarah Vowell permanently!
Thanks,
[me]
I’d never read her before her guest columns started appearing in the Times last week, but she’s fantastic and original. Love her.
Turning Off Gays
“Turning Off Gays”: Salon.com presents the first of a four-part series on “reparative therapy” and the “ex-gay” movement.
Clement
Bush to Announce Tonight
Bush will announce his nominee tonight at 9:00. Darnit, I’ll be in the middle of my class then.
Interesting that he’s doing a prime-time announcement. I don’t recall that happening before. It’s probably to get maximum viewership and maximum deflection from the Rove/Wilson/Plame story.
WTF?
WTF? Now it’s not Clement?
I’m so confused. And now I’m worried.
On John Roberts
What to think of John Roberts?
I’m not going to be all pundit-like. You can read the same websites I’ve read tonight and find out all the conventional wisdom for yourself. I’m not an expert, of course.
So here are just some personal thoughts.
One, my gut reaction is: wow, what an amazing guy. Were he my age or younger, he’s the type of guy I’d be resentful and envious of – for his intellect, for his achievements, for the level of respect that he commands among his colleagues. (I’m often envious and resentful of my intellectual superiors, of whom there are many – particularly in the legal field.)
Two, the fact that I (so far) generally think well of him is making me realize what a narrow band of court cases I really care about. I tend to be a careful thinker (or at least I try to be), and I can often see merit in both sides of an issue. The cases I really get emotionally involved in are gay-rights cases, for obvious, self-regarding reasons.
When it comes to abortion, I tend to take the Bill and Hillary Clinton view: it should be safe, legal, and rare. Partial-birth abortion bothers me unless it’s necessary to preserve the health or life of the mother; should it be illegal? I don’t know.
The right to die? I support it. The death penalty? I’m against it. OK, there are two areas where I have clear views.
Eminent domain: I was pretty outraged by Kelo, the recent property-rights case (in which the “liberal wing” won the day). That’s one case that knocked my block off.
Federalism (Congress vs. the states): I’m a bit uneasy with Congress overstepping its constitutionally-mandated bounds, although Congressional power is generally more accepted in our culture today than it was 200 years ago. I disagree with Raich, which stretched the definition of interstate commerce to allow Congress to legislate against medical marijuana. As for other instances, my view depends on how the structural ideal balances against the merits of the law at issue.
Religion and the First Amendment: Most of these cases are tough, and I don’t have a clear philosophy here.
Free Speech and First Amendment: OK, here’s one more area where I do have clear views (and they are rather conventional): I almost always support free speech, no matter how odious. When it comes to cases such as publishing instructions on how to make bombs, though, I’m not sure.
Business: I’m not too fond of pro-business decisions, and I’ve read in one place that Roberts has generally supported business, although I can’t find any specifics on that right now.
What’s the point of all this? I guess it’s that my views on things are not often clear, particularly to me. I sometimes find myself more respectful of the conservative view than I’d expect (see federalism). Again, I can often see merit in both sides of a case.
In high school, I opposed the first Gulf War before it began, but once it began (and spectacularly well, at that), I changed my mind and supported it. At the time, I had just joined a BBS with some of my friends, and I took the screen name “Chameleon” in order to make fun of myself. I’d make an awful presidential candidate.
I’m envious of all those smart people who can easily absorb research and have, by now, digested everything that John Roberts has written in his two years as an appellate court judge and believe they know the man. He’ll probably be confirmed, and I don’t know what I think about that. I find myself less worried than I thought I’d be, although I’m still somewhat uneasy, because he is, after all, a conservative. But I’m not too fond of labels, and “conservative” can mean different things.
Basically, I’m surprised to find myself admiring a Bush nominee, although I admire him with caution.
Gang of 3?
Here’s a great analysis of how Roberts could become part of a new “Gang of 3” on the Court:
Thus, the possibility is a Court in the new Term starting in October that has Scalia and Thomas, joined somewhat loosely by Rehnquist, on the most conservative wing, Justices Souter, Ruth Bader Ginsburg and John Paul Stevens on the most liberal wing, and Roberts somewhat loosely aligned in the center with Kennedy and Breyer.
It’s all tea leaves at this point, but this is interesting nonetheless.
French Fry Case
Regarding one of the comments below: here’s more on the french fry case and why it wasn’t an unreasonable decision. I found the comments at the end particularly good.
Andy’s Post
Andy writes a great post on Roberts. For the most part, I agree with him.
Patty Roberts
From a long profile of John Roberts in today’s Times, one sentence stands out.
The school yearbook from 1972, his junior year, shows he played Peppermint Patty in the production of “You’re A Good Man, Charlie Brown.”
From this we can conclude that a Justice Roberts would have deep empathy on lesbian issues.
Dual Letters
Okay, this is weird.
In today’s Times:
To the Editor:
Re “Bush Picks Nominee for Court; Cites His ‘Fairness and Civility’ ” (front page, July 20):
I am a knee-jerk liberal, and I know that I will probably deplore many of the opinions that Judge John G. Roberts will write as a Supreme Court justice, if he is confirmed.
But I think that he is eminently qualified for the position and should be confirmed.
All Americans knew in the 2004 presidential election that Supreme Court nominations would play a big role in the near term. The public elected George W. Bush despite a clear understanding of his particular philosophy about constitutional interpretation and “legislating from the bench” – even if that negative characteristic applies equally to conservative and liberal judges.
The public will (and should have to) live with the choice that President Bush has made. Intellect and qualification should always be the prime concerns in selecting lifetime appointees to the high court.
In Judge Roberts, Mr. Bush appears to have gone above and beyond in those areas. That Judge Roberts may be crafted in the mold of Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas, judges whom President Bush says he admires, is our own fault.
Josh Goldberg
Chicago
I am a liberal, and I know I will deplore a good number of the Supreme Court opinions John G. Roberts Jr. authors. But I think he is eminently qualified for the position and should be confirmed nonetheless.
Americans knew in the 2004 presidential election that Supreme Court nominations would play a big role in the near term. The public reelected George W. Bush despite a clear understanding of his particular philosophy about constitutional interpretation and “legislating from the bench” — even if that negative characteristic actually applies equally to conservative and liberal judges. The public will — and should have to — live with the choice that Mr. Bush has made.
Intellect and qualification should always be the prime concerns in selecting these lifetime appointees. In Judge Roberts, Mr. Bush appears to have gone above and beyond those standards. The fact that Roberts is crafted “in the mold of [Justices] Antonin Scalia and Clarence Thomas” is our own fault.
JOSH GOLDBERG
Chicago
From the New York Times’s letters policy:
“Letters to The Times should only be sent to The Times, and not to other publications.”
Oooh, they got burned!
From Salon
From a letter in Salon.com:
My first wish is that the Democrats in the Senate confirm Roberts quickly, without much fuss, so our ADD media can get back to the Fitzgerald investigation that day by day threatens the permanent Republican majority in Washington far more effectively than the Democratic Party is capable of. It’s taken five fucking years for the media to stop playing stenographer and start acting like real reporters. A divisive partisan bitchfest over the Roberts nomination will only take the attention and focus away from the fact that the executive branch is filled with inveterate liars and criminals. Roberts is as good as it’s going to get if you’re a liberal, and you can’t just keep filibustering until 2009.
Roberts and Gays
For at least a year before the nomination of Judge John G. Roberts to the Supreme Court, the White House was working behind the scenes to shore up support for him among its social conservative allies, quietly reassuring them that he was a good bet for their side in cases about abortion, same-sex marriage and public support for religion.
Yeah, so that kind of worries me.
Granted, the only other part of the article that mentions gay rights is this:
Mr. Leo said he told wary social conservatives that even though Judge Roberts had not ruled on abortion or other issues his other opinions showed “a respect for the text and original meaning and a presumption of deference to the political branches of government.” …
Mr. Leo said such narrow and deferential rulings are “going to comport better” with the restrained role that social conservatives want judges to play on questions about abortion, gay rights or religious displays, which they believed should be left to elected officials rather than the Supreme Court, Mr. Leo said.
Granted, there’s nothing specific there that says Roberts would vote for or against gay rights. But I won’t kid myself; as impressed as I am by him, he’s still a Bush nominee. So I’ll continue to hope what I’ve already been hoping for a while: that no same-sex marriage case comes before the Court in the near future. Regardless of the Court’s composition, one of two things would happen: either it would find bans on same-sex marriage constitutional, or it would find them unconstitutional and thereby practically guarantee passage of a constitutional amendment outlawing same-sex marriage. This is just not a good time for the Supreme Court to be ruling on gay marriage, period.
There are, of course, other gay rights issues that could come before the Court.
Anyway, we knew after last fall’s election results that things didn’t look good. At this point, we just have to keep our fingers crossed.
Recent Readings
Books I’ve read in the last two months, working back from the present:
Becoming Justice Blackmun: Harry Blackmun’s Supreme Court Journey by Linda Greenhouse (just begun this morning)
The Dred Scott Case: Its Significance in American Law and Politics by Don E. Fehrenbacher
Crossworld: One Man’s Journey into America’s Crossword Obsession by Marc Romano
The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon
Atonement by Ian McEwan
Original Meanings: Politics and Ideas in the Making of the Constitution by Jack N. Rakove
I’ve been trying to switch between fiction and nonfiction, but I’ve obviously been more into the nonfiction lately.
Chuck Cunningham Syndrome
For some reason my TiVo decided to record one of the final episodes of “Happy Days.” While checking online to see how close to the end of the series it was, I stumbed upon this: Chuck Cunningham syndrome.
Chuck Cunningham syndrome is a jargon used by TV critics; it refers to a TV series in which a main character or a character otherwise important to the show’s plot is dropped with no explanation. If a recurring character disappears under realistic circumstances (i.e. a waitress at a diner stops showing up) it is not a case of the syndrome.
Contents
* 1 Origin
* 2 Examples of Clear Cut Chuck Cunningham syndrome
* 3 Examples of Lazarus Chuck Cunningham syndrome (where ‘Chuck’ comes back)
* 4 Examples of Near Chuck Cunningham syndrome (where ‘Chuck’s absence is briefly addressed)
* 5 Chuck Cunningham syndrome in reverse
Tons of examples follow.
Too Much Crap
I have way too much shit.
Today I finally moved the vast majority of my belongings out of my old apartment and into our new place. Matt helped me, and even more importantly, so did my dad. I took the bus out to the New Jersey ‘burbs to borrow my parents’ SUV, but because I hadn’t driven in more than a year, my dad decided to drive it instead. We managed to move most of the stuff in two trips. (My brother might help me move the rest of the stuff, which is not very much, next weekend.) When we dropped each load off at the new building, the on-duty guard and the superintendent both helped us unload the car and bring stuff up in the freight elevator. The 27-inch TV that Matt and I struggled to carry down my steps with our combined strength? The guard carried it out of the car and into the lobby by himself. By 1:45 pm we were done unloading stuff, and Matt and I spent the rest of the day setting things up.
We set up my TV and TV stand and my two six-foot-tall bookcases, and we laid out and vacuumed a couple of faux-oriental carpets. I set up my CD collection and unpacked all my books, which is what the first line of this post is all about. I have way too much shit. My books don’t even all fit in the bookcases – there’s a big overspill here in my computer room. And my CD collection is too big for the 450-CD rack I bought several years ago.
I don’t know why I have so many books. Some of them I haven’t even read. Some of them I’ve read and will never open again. But it’s so hard to part with books. And my collection overflows despite my loading up a big cardboard box with books that I’m planning to donate or leave on the street next weekend when my lease ends.
But books are comforting. They’re here for me, with their eclectic multicolored spines, waiting to be read or consulted. Fiction, history, biography, reference, self-help, gay issues, Tolkien. A world – no, an intellectual universe – awaits.
If only I didn’t have to move the damn things whenever I switch apartments.
FAIR v. Rumsfeld
This week’s New Yorker has an article by Jeffrey Toobin (I always confuse him with Jeffrey Rosen) about an upcoming Supreme Court case, FAIR v. Rumsfeld, that touches on gay rights. Strictly speaking, it’s not a gay-rights case; it involves the constitutionality of the Solomon Amendment, under which federal funding is withheld from any university that contains a law school that bans the military from on-campus recruiting. Many law schools include sexual orientation in their non-discrimination policies, and because gays aren’t allowed to serve openly in the military, the schools ban the military from recruiting on campus, just as they ban any law firm that discriminates on the basis of sexual orientation. The law schools claim the Solomon Amendment violates their free speech, while the government claims it has a right to attach conditions to federal funding. The federal appeals court ruled in favor of the law schools, and the Supreme Court is hearing arguments on the case next term.
I think I would side with the government on this. One, I don’t think this is a free-speech case; the law schools are free to vehemently speak out against the military’s policy, organize protests, whatever they want. Two, the government is not forcing any policy on the schools; they are free to choose between accepting federal funds and banning military recruiters. But this is a weaker argument, because (a) we’re talking about withholding federal funds from entire universities – $130 million in the case of NYU – and (b) if it were really a free-speech issue, I don’t think the federal-funding excuse would pass muster.
I was going to make a third point that the military is probably different from a law firm, but if I were a judge writing the opinion, I’d probably leave that part out, just because I wouldn’t want to go there.
Incidentally, the article also has some predictions about how John Roberts would vote on the case if he were confirmed.
Roberts’s Clerks
Most Supreme Court law clerks are hired a couple of years in advance, so where will John Roberts get his law clerks if he’s confirmed? Here’s some speculation (and it’s from a very entertaining blog – sort of a “Sex and the City” for the federal judiciary).
Pattygate
The Wikipedia article on United States Supreme Court nominee John Roberts was the focus of considerable attention last week, and not just in terms of heavy editing. It also inspired a joke that transformed into a rumor circulating in the blogosphere that Roberts might be homosexual, or at any rate a rumor that people might be trying to spread such a rumor.
Read more. Isn’t paranoia fun?
JH Podcast
Someone emailed me a link to an audiofile (I have not yet warmed to the inaccurate word “podcast”) of Jackie Hoffman telling two funny stories.
Hottie McFurniture
The guy who came to my old apartment last night to buy my bed was hot. He wore a sleeveless t-shirt and had tan, smooth, muscled arms (one with a tattoo), a swimmer’s body, and glasses. He was totally straight – his girlfriend was the one who first contacted me – but I get a thrill out of thinking that he’ll be having sex in my bed.
(And yes, I’ve already thought of the joke about asking him if he wanted to test it out first.)
The guy who’s picking up my couch on Saturday is cute. He came by the other night to take a look at it. He’s very tall, also with glasses, and was shy and quiet and friendly. He’s straight, too – it was his girlfriend who first contacted me about the couch.
Everyone else who’s buying my furniture is female, so no thrills there.
How the Shuttle Works
How Stuff Works: The Space Shuttle. This makes me feel like a kid again.
