Since I Been Gone

You might have noticed I have not been posting much this week. I hate to say I'm too busy to post because it wasn't like I didn't have half an hour here or 15 minutes there. The real answers are (1) updating this site hasn't been the highest of priorities and (2) I seem to have experienced a minor writer's block.

But whatever. Consider this my omnibus wrap up for the week that was. Or the week that will soon be the week that was. Or something.

Anyway, let's take questions.

Q: What is your take on Supreme Court Justice nominee Judge John G. Roberts?

A: I don't know why you're asking me. I'm no SCOTUS expert but since you asked, here goes.

I am simultaneously cautiously optimistic and defeatist. The good news is that he's not a total wingnut. Of course, the reason he doesn't come off as a jack booted righty could very well be because of his limited judicial record, and while I don't believe that to be the case, it does present a problem.

If you look at the overview of likely candidates Slate posted earlier, you'll see that most of his decisions lean to the right. And he did once argue that Roe v Wade should be overturned. Then again, he was arguing for the Bush I Administration and was not stating his personal view (plus I don't like the idea of Roe v Wade being the all purpose litmus as I mentioned earlier). And as with many things Bush (II), the defense is always plausible deniability.

I think he'll be okay though. Sure, he has argued against the environment and POW rights, he appears to have done so from sound constitutional grounds. Would I rather have someone like O'Connor in her seat? Sure. But when it comes to the SCOTUS, ideology isn't as important as the understanding and respect for the Constitution (unlike, say, textualists like Thomas and Scalia).

But again, who really knows given his short judicial record? All I can say for now is, eh, could've been worse.

At the risk of coming off like a Slate shill, they've had a great discussion on Roberts and the nomination process.

Q: So the Judge Roberts thing pushed the whole Rove scandal off the headlines, right?

A: Not quite. Even if Rove and Libby technically didn't commit a crime by outing Valerie Plame, they could still go down for perjury or obstruction of justice.

Maybe this story has legs, maybe it doesn't. Or it could be overwhelmed by bigger stories like flip-flops in the White House (horrors!).

Anyway, Guardian has a nice bio on Turd Blossom, while the Voice's timeline has this amusing tidbit:

1971: Rove drops out of college to devote full time to College Republicans

Q: Speaking of outing...

A: Yes, I have been outed. My online identity was exposed for the first time since I began writing this blog. I went to Tiny's for a sandwich yesterday and I was recognized by Kevin, the man behind the Rizzak, who remembered me from when I took the photograph that ended up in this post, then on Curbed.

It's not like I'm trying to hide my identity though. Hell, I wear my spinachdip nyc neighborhoodie practically everyday.

Q: So what do you think of the bag searches in the subway?

A: To put kindly, utter bullshit, which isn't surprising when you're talking about the MT to the motherfuckin' A. Let's agree on a few things here first.

1. An attack on the subway is near-inevitable. At the very least, we'd be foolish to think an attack isn't being planned.


2. An airport-style comprehensive security check in the subway is impossible, or at least highly unreasonable


3. "Random" bag checks will, at best, inconvenience terrorists. They will find a way to get around the bag checks

Look, I'm okay with a few inconveniences for the sake of security. But this is just a foolish waste of resources when you consider the benefits.

If money and manpower were no object, maybe I wouldn't mind having my bag searched every time I pass through Grand Central But money and manpower are a consideration, and they're using resources that can be put to better use elsewhere.

I'd rather that law enforcement be prepared when/if the next attack comes like London's emergency response teams were.

So yeah, this whole things is for show, to create the illusion that the police are being proactive, and this is going to die down once London disappears out of the news. As I said, I'm okay with a little inconvenience. But it better be for good reason, and I don't see one except the NY police covering their ass.

Maybe they can get all non-terrorist arab to wear this t-shirt:


Q: Why so bitter?

A: I don't mean to come off bitter since I'm generally a happy guy. It sucks I didn't find much time to blog since, there's so much more to talk about, like Deeeetroit Basketbaaaall, the stupid Grand Theft Auto fauxtroversy and Joss Stone's underaged booty. There should be a big music post coming too.

Have a good weekend kids. I need a nap.