Did you ever notice that people seem incapable of discussing politics without going to an extreme? Of course I'm constantly aware of this. I live in one of the most left leaning portions of the country... And yet Newspaper editors still feel the need to try and reword titles to make them serve an agenda. For example in the Metro which I read on the train every morning (Its free), the same Associated press Article from CNN titled "Miers tapped as O'Connor successor" is titled "Bush nominates loyalist to Supreme Court". Now if you read just the titles.. you think Bush.. that bastard, all he thinks about is his agenda and rewriting American Politics. If you are one of the folks who doesn't just turn to the entertainment section to find out what Brad Pitt and Angelina are doing... you'll find that political analysts were generally surprised by Miers because she isn't viewed as a hardline conservative. Yes, she was an advisor to the President, however Colin Powell was also W's Secretary of State.

I just don't get it... I guess people like to be angry... and if you can get the choir you are preaching to, to join together on a nice hate fueled hymn.. I guess that gets people reading newspapers.

Political parties in this country just can't simply disagree... they have to loathe one another. Its this mentality that has gone a long way to create the Tom Delays (divisive politician), Trent Lotts (divisive politician-closet case racist), and Tom Dashcells (ex-divisive politician). Those politicians that don't have an ounce of individual thought. Well except for Trent Lott... there aren't a whole hell of a lot of people that seemed to have fond memories of Strong Thurmond's policies of old.

Tom Delay will go as far to disagree with what he championed a month ago if the other side suddenly decides it seems like a good idea. Do I think Delay's dilemma is a politically motivated scheme? Of course I do! But you know... the guy has greasy, slimey hands. He is the definition of the crooked politician. He was instrumental in numerous politically motivated witch hunts in the past (Even Newt!)... and I say good. Give him a taste of his own medicine. Right now they are bringing him to court for money laundering... from what I've read about this it sounds like they may have a case too. Hopefully he's gone. I'm sure some other slime ball... maybe even a protege will rise to take his place. (Did anyone realize that Delay actually was an exterminator who got into politics because he was against the EPA? You really can't get much lower than this guy.)

The whole Supreme court judge selection process really churns my gut. First off... it seems to have been accepted by the masses that the House and Senate have a right to decide who should serve on the court based on their political preferences. The legislative branch is supposed validate whether the person is capable of serving not whether they like the person's political views. And the judge's personal views should not be an issue because Supreme Court justices are supposed to up hold the constitution and written law. This same principal should also apply to federal judges. Of course... lately there is no shortage of federal judges who appear to have an agenda other than the written law. For the most part, Supreme Court justices seem to be less inclined to play politics which is the way it should be. This may be because certain Federal judges have jurisdiction over large areas, where the Supreme court judges must work as a group and answer to each other.

Anyway, seeing the criticism of John Roberts, because he would not divuldge his personal opinion on various social issues was rather amusing. Had he any opinions at all.. he would have been royally screwed as there is no longer any middle ground (or common sense) left in American politics. Either the left would have been furious at his "radical right wing agenda".. or the right would have called him a Godless liberal.

I listened to my fair share of the Q & A sessions in front of the Senate. Ted Kennedy already had decided he wasn't going to vote to approve him before the evaluations/interrogations even began. He would ask a question, and not even give Roberts the time to formulate a response. These Senators get to go out there with complicated questions about numerous historical judicial events over the past 20 years... which mind you are all totally prepared by their interns. And Roberts is on top of it all...miraculously.

Anyway... now we are going to get to go through it all over again with Miers. Really if these people are willing to put up with the b.s. torchure sessions of the legislature, they should just get these jobs by default. I'm not quite sure how much they'd have to pay me to endure even 30 minutes of that scrutiny, by people who can barely face themselves in the mirror.

Bottom line is the point of having the legislature approve is to make sure they are fit to serve. In other words, do the abide by the laws they govern? Are they educated in law? It isn't supposed to be about whether they are God fearing Christians or Marxist atheists. Its pretty simple really, are they practicing lawyers? Yes or No.... are they criminals? Yes or No? If they are law abiding citizens who passed the bar exam then they should be appointed to the position they are nominated to.

My predictions for the this evening: Matt Clement (Red Sox Pitcher) is somewhere getting really intoxicated right now, The Angels live up to their name, and somewhere out there a baby awakes crying.

By the way... for the one person keeping track, French fries. The answer to the question was French fries.


Good night.