I'm not a player...
- Wedding Crashers: Welp, I saw “Wedding Crashers” last night with the dudes Lowbeezy and bo blizzardry and it’s officially hilarious. Let’s get the obvious criticisms out of the way: it’s the same old unbelievably unbelievable story of guys-who-like-to-fuck-and-have-no-intention-of-
settling-down meet girls-who-make-them-realize-they-want-love-
and-not-a-perpetual-fuck-fest thing. Blah, blah, blah. Yeah, yeah, it’s stupid, overdone and unrealistic (and might even be partially responsible for perpetuating the age-old “Girl likes asshole” syndrome all of us nice fellars despise so), but the movie doesn’t purport to be much more than a laugh-fest. The fact that it’s the same-ol’ bullshit story and you know how the film’s going to end before it even starts winds up working in its advantage however. After all, since the film is so predictable and the happy-ending is pre-prackaged, the focus of the movie is instead on the performances of and chemistry between the stars Vince Vaughn and Owen Wilson, who are both pretty damn flawless. Basically, the shit is just fucking funny. Go see it.
- No Mo’ Tuesdays: My Tuesday weekly DJ gig with Low Budget (Hollertronix) and Dan the Swede (my “White T’s and White Belts” partna in crime) has been put on hold until the Fall because there ain’t nobody in Old City on a muhfuggin’ Tuesday night. Sowwwwy!! Come back in late August/early September. We’ll make the fucker jump-off
- Judge Roberts: So, I’m kinda scared about Judge Roberts’ potential Supreme Court appointment, but at least he said this: "[Roe vs Wade is] the settled law of the land… there's nothing in my personal views that would prevent me from fully and faithfully applying that precedent." Ugh. I’m still scurred.
- Toonces: Awwdamn posted some funny SNL movies of Toonces the Driving cat on a messageboard. Here: 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5.
- Fuck: If you didn’t see this dunk yet, click now. Lil’ dude gets called for an offensive foul, but who gives a fuck? This shit is redonkulous. In other basketball news: good for the Sixers, bad for the Sonics.
- More Ebonics Discussion: For more on the Ebonics/Black Vernacular English (BVE) stuff, read the comments from yesterday. I also describe my basketball game in 50 words or less.
- Saved by the Bol: Yet again, Byron Crawford saves me half an hour of my life. Shit is better than watching the shit.
-e
posted by emynd @ 6:47 AM
8 comments
8 Comments:
I'm sure that your trepidation about Judge Roberts is justified in your mind. Maybe you or someone else that reads this blog could help me to understand something. Why does it seem that the vast majority of the "left" (I'm uncomfortable with the term but I use it for the sake of brevity) use a candidate's stance on Roe V. Wade as a sort of Litmus test for their suitability to hold a federal judicial office.
I get the impression that the view is that if the candidate accepts or agrees with the current ruling on R V. W then s/he might be an ok choice, but the rest of their record of rulings must be referenced to come to an adequate opinion about the candidate. If the candidate is opposed to the current ruling on R V. W then s/he is automatically a myopic racist misogynist theo-fascist that barbeques babies on the weekends. Bare in mind that I'm not accusing you of jumping to this conclusion, I just have a feeling that this fear underlies your trepidation.
Why is R V. W THE issue. I mean I'm not really interested in debating the moral virtue or vice of abortion nor am interested in engaging in wrangling about the government's ability to legislate such an issue. I find that abortion is one of those issues where normally rational people license themselves to lose their shit and not even attempt to make rational arguments, so there is no point in arguing the issue itself. I'm interested more so in why it seems (at least to me) that people hitch all the complexities of their political matrix to this one issue. I have a suspicion but I want to see what other people think.
- Cola
Just real quick since I'm not at work right now and am making real world moves, my R.v.W. comment was only made because it's the only thing I know about the dude. Be back with more tomorrow.
-e
Roe v Wade is THE issue because it is a lazy way of determining whether someone is "conservative" (i.e. "bad") or "liberal" (i.e. "good").
Also, you shouldn't discount the fact that Roe v Wade is one of the few issues that is likely to affect all Americans (at least sexually active ones) regardless of social or economic standing on a fairly frequent basis. We all know people that have had abortions (and I'd be willing to bet that most of us pro-choicers would agree that the people that had the abortions are better off for it). So, at some level, Roe v Wade is so important to us because it's an issue that will affect all of us in a very personal, direct, and obvious matter--which can't be said about all political issues.
But, the real reason Roe v Wade is THE ISSUE is because the general population is lazy as fuck when it comes to politics. Me especially.
-e
Roe v. Wade says that a woman's right to choose is protected by the constitution (privacy right). Therefore, if Roe is overturned, it doesn't mean that abortion will become illegal, it just means that the states will now be the lawmakers on this issue.
To me, there is a much broader issue which overshadows abortion. That is...do we want a Supreme Court that is overpowered by ultra-conservitive Justices???
O'Conner was a republican, but she wasn't a robot like Thomas or a radical like Scalia and Rhenquist. Roberts seems less likely to swing like O'conner- he is a member of the (extremely conservative) Federalist Society, but on the plus side, he's not a moron like Thomas, actually, he will probably be one of the smartest judges on the panel.
Bottom line- we elected Bush president and we are getting what we deserve. could he have done worse than Roberts?? HELL YES. At least Roberts knows the law, the man argued in front of the Supreme Court ...and was successful. Best Case scenario is that he is conservative, but does not stray outside the constitution in his rulings (i.e, Gore v. Bush).
Emil--
The overturning of Roe v. Wade actually isn't something that is likely to heavily impact all Americans across class lines. Abortion would not be automatically outlawed; instead states would again be empowered to outlaw it, which we could expect to happen throughout the bible belt. However, an affluent Georgia resident who finds herself dealing with an unwanted pregnancy will always have the option of flying to New York or California to deal with it. As with so many other elements of the right's agenda, it will be the poor and marginalized--say, the Arkansas teenager living below the poverty level who has been impregnated by her abusive stepdad--that end up bearing the brunt of this.
heavily impact these balls. Emil eats donkey burgers.
I eat donkey burgers. I also eat Bison burgers. For real. I had one the other day. Shit wasn't bad.
Here is everything you need to know about Judge John Roberts. Looks like dude's biggest problem is his overwhelmingly pro-corporate stance (i.e. as my dude, B.Dolan says "he's a card-carrying member of The Federalist Society")
By the way, thanks for the schooling on Roe v Wade. I'm an idiot.
-e
roc-
i believe that this issue is at the forefront of the debate because the composition of the court is such that it(roe v wade) could be overturned with one or two new justices.
i think this issue is so tough to discuss because the pro and con arguments are inextricably connected to people's religious beliefs.
secular liberals worst nightmare is laws being affected by christian's religious beliefs.
and don't expect either side to ever have a productive discussion when god's pronouncements are introduced as foundations for one's arguments. you might as well put a religious zionist and palestinian in the same room.
you, my friend, are a bitch.
Post a Comment
<< Home