He's tan, he's rested, he's ready.
So long to a quiet summer here in Washington.
BTW, I love this bit in the CNN story:
She wasted little time building a reputation as a hard-working moderate conservative who emerged as a crucial power broker on the nine-member court.
"Moderate conservative." Isn't that a little like "waterproof sponge"? I wonder, would that make Ginsburg a "moderate liberal"?
I don't recall hearing this CNN promo.
The Governator here.
I can't believe how gay this one makes Patrick Stewart look.
Keep this one quiet.
This one might make you hurl.
And this is my favorite of the bunch.
Okay, one last one: you saw Vader on a rollercoaster, but have you seen Vader's new friend?
Yeah, you may have seen it up on The Corner, but if not, here's Nancy Pelosi, talking about the Supreme Court's Kelo decision at a press conference Thursday:
Q Later this morning, many Members of the House Republican leadership, along with John Cornyn from the Senate, are holding a news conference on eminent domain, the decision of the Supreme Court the other day, and they are going to offer legislation that would restrict it, prohibiting federal funds from being used in such a manner.
Two questions: What was your reaction to the Supreme Court decision on this topic, and what do you think about legislation to, in the minds of opponents at least, remedy or changing it?
Ms. Pelosi. As a Member of Congress, and actually all of us and anyone who holds a public office in our country, we take an oath of office to uphold the Constitution of the United States. Very central to that in that Constitution is the separation of powers. I believe that whatever you think about a particular decision of the Supreme Court, and I certainly have been in disagreement with them on many occasions, it is not appropriate for the Congress to say we're going to withhold funds for the Court because we don't like a decision.
Q Not on the Court, withhold funds from the eminent domain purchases that wouldn't involve public use. I apologize if I framed the question poorly. It wouldn't be withholding federal funds from the Court, but withhold Federal funds from eminent domain type purchases that are not just involved in public good.
Ms. Pelosi. Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well. Sometimes the Republicans have a problem with that as well. But forgive my digression.
So the answer to your question is, I would oppose any legislation that says we would withhold funds for the enforcement of any decision of the Supreme Court no matter how opposed I am to that decision. And I'm not saying that I'm opposed to this decision, I'm just saying in general.
Q Could you talk about this decision? What you think of it?
Ms. Pelosi. It is a decision of the Supreme Court. If Congress wants to change it, it will require legislation of a level of a constitutional amendment. So this is almost as if God has spoken. It's an elementary discussion now. They have made the decision.
Q Do you think it is appropriate for municipalities to be able to use eminent domain to take land for economic development?
Ms. Pelosi. The Supreme Court has decided, knowing the particulars of this case, that that was appropriate, and so I would support that.
As NRO's Ramesh Ponnuru points out, Pelosi twice misunderstands the question. Sheesh, open your ears, lady.
Nancy Pelosi: Orator of Genius.
Everyone in The Corner highlights the absurdity of Pelosi's statement regarding the Court's authority: "So this is almost as if God has spoken." What they failed to note is that, earlier in her comments, Pelosi said this:
Again, without focusing on the actual decision, just to say that when you withhold funds from enforcing a decision of the Supreme Court you are, in fact, nullifying a decision of the Supreme Court. This is in violation of the respect for separation of church -- powers in our Constitution, church and state as well.
There, finally, we have all the proof we needed. Liberals pray to the courts, and are willing to defend the separation of powers between their God, and that of conseratives, the legislature (i.e. "the state").
Or, she could have just been talking funny talk, and forgetting that she's speaking to people on Earth, and not her homeworld.
Hey, we all have bad days. Lord only knows-- excuse me, *Court* only knows that our President isn't the most eloquent or precise of individuals. But the Democrats keep reminding us how smart they are when compared to their opponents across the aisle. I'm still waiting for evidence of this.
Nancy Pelosi sure ain't providing it.
This posting was made on my personal computer.
Is apparently in Oregon.
Oh, that's right, the analysts said they didn't study major urban areas when preparing their report.
Because if they did, they would have realized that D.C. traffic is effing insane.
I'd like to know when this area went all to hell. The traffic has always been bad here, long before I lived here. Yet, in recent years, Washington traffic has taken on biblical proportions.
Day after life-sucking day.
I can't say D.C. is unique here. It seems to me that traffic in most cities is getting worse. I remember Chicago being a relative dream compared to Washington, but now whenever I visit the Windy City, traffic is getting worse there too.
Want an idea of how bad Washington traffic has gotten? I've routinely found myself stuck in traffic. . . in the middle of the night. I remember that being a big part of living in Los Angeles ("Welcome to the 405, see you next week"), but now even Washington is getting that bad.
Of course, to listen to the city, county and state governments, the solution is always to build more public transit. Never mind that public transit doesn't go where people need to go. Also, never mind that the cars aren't going to magically disappear off the roads just because there's now a "Lexus Lane" option. All that means is that you've blocked off yet another lane of traffic.
Yeah, that's always been my favorite schtick with the Washington carpool rules. I-66, for example, requires two people in each car during rush hour. . . for every lane of the highway, from the city limits out to Fairfax County.
Well, guess what happens? All the traffic that *must* get home still has to find a way to get home, so they are forced to the sidestreets. You want to get to Falls Church on Route 50 during rush hour? Yeah, good luck with that. Hope you packed a meal.
I honestly don't know what the ultimate solution is here, but I do know that whatever it is, it will inevitably involve new or expanded roads. Not only is it unavoidable, it makes sense.
The overwhelming majority of traffic jams in the D.C. area is *NOT* caused by too many cars on the road, but poor road design combined with even worse drivers. Most of the bottlenecks in the area could be eased considerably with redesigned merge lanes and increased use of onramp stoplights. Meanwhile, spending some time educating people on proper driving etiquette-- particularly concerning lane changing-- will go a long way.
Alas, new merge lanes employ union workers and county analysts for a few weeks, while more city buses employ those union workers and county analysts for years.
Methinks I know who wins that argument.
This is an old list, but I had to share again. I mean, c'mon-- these photos are pretty ridiculous.
Oh, and another thing: the guy in pic #5 simply *must* be related to Balok, that alien disguise Clint Howard used to intimidate Kirk and crew in Star Trek.
Which also means that, by extension, my brother is in also in a black metal band.
Take my advice, Thom-- lose the goatee.
. . . but can someone please explain to me how Pearl Harbor sucked so much?
My MP3 collection is on random, and it came across music from the Pearl Harbor soundtrack, which reminded me that the Pearl Harbor trailers are among the best previews I've ever seen, and remains my "gold standard" against which all trailers are judged.
Of course, the trailer ended up being better than the movie tenfold.
Seriously. . . how did they screw this up? Ben Affleck isn't *that* bad! Kate Beckinsale is hot! WTF?!?
I wish someone would throw Michael Bay and Jerry Bruckheimer into a woodchipper.