Monday, January 16, 2006

A Post in which Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Richard Hatch are Compared

Those of you who thought I was capable of only one post comparing the Alito hearings to Survivor were sorely mistaken.

In both cases, there remains an unresolved question regarding the proper basis for one’s final vote.

On the basis of alliances – be they buffed tribal alliances or sadly non-buffed party alliances?

On the basis of competence or gameplay – however these things are determined?

On the basis of ethical character?

On the basis of “you have to vote for someone, however repulsive that someone may be”?

On the basis of how much the votee sucks up to you?

Although I will certainly admit that one of these situations has substantially more import than the other, I think in both cases the answer is competence/gameplay. Maybe. If so, though, (a) Alito should be in and (b) Boston Rob was screwed.

Actually, perhaps it is because this question of the basis of the vote remains so undetermined that both confirmation hearings and final Survivor juries are so boring. In neither case is it quite clear what exactly the questioners are supposed to be doing.

5 Comments:

Blogger Unknown said...

"Hello - I'm OleNelson, and I'm winning awards left and right. I bought a medium-sized rickshaw to carry them all in."

12:26 PM  
Blogger Stacey Pelika said...

Hee!

So, Ole, do you get any plaques or trophies or sashes for any of these honors? I'm hoping for sashes, personally.

2:10 PM  
Blogger OleNelson said...

Only bejeweled crowns.

2:16 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

No scepters to go along with those crowns?

2:53 PM  
Blogger grrrbear said...

All the bling would be nice, but the real question is do these awards come complete with toadies, lackeys, or hangers-on?

After all, what's the good of having power if there's nobody around to lord it over?

8:05 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home