"it's all uphill from here"

I don't think I've ever heard that exact phrase. I've heard "it's an uphill battle" (meaning, it's difficult), and "it's all downhill from here" (meaning, the hard part is over).

Oh my god, I want one of those.

Me too. I was surprised at how cheap they are.

NEver used one of those, nor has lori. But we still want this [link]

The Bay in Halifax stocks other items made by this company, and I keep hoping that this will show up.

I like MicroCenter. They actually carry a good selection of parts and cables and such and some of their prices are decent. CompUSA is better located for me, but they value their cables too much and don't always carry simple parts. I remember going in CompUSA one time for a SATA drive cable and after looking in what seemed the logical place I had to ask someone only to learn they don't carry SATA cables at all and I was all WTF?

They're going to have a seperate entrance for the wine store -- unlike the Whole Foods at Columbus Circle which had to close theirs.

That's smart. I am surprised that they haven't done that here with Wegman's (our area giant grocery store), as I know they have a department dedicated to getting wine in the stores!

When you say "it's all uphill from here" are you meaning it's a good thing or a bad one? Is it about the easy trip or the vantage point of your destination? I just heard someone else flip flop between downhill and uphill, and I was wondering how clear it was.

Agree with Jessica. It should be "it's all downhill from here" but actually I think that might be good or bad depending on the context. But I think the mixed metaphor with uphill battle means that "it's all uphill from here" is supposed to be pejorative.

Interesting. I thought the expression always meant "it's a good thing" and the phrase was uncertain. Instead, the phrase is locked, and the meaning variable.

That's even more confusing.

You know what bothers me lately. It's people who defend the wiretapping of citizens without a warrant by saying that Clinton did the same thing. First, that don't make it right. Second, if Clinton did the same thing I somehow think that the congress that spent years and millions upon millions of dollars investigating some possible shady accounting in a land deal that went down a decade before he became president, might, just might investigate something like wiretapping citizens without a warrant.

It's the "he hit me first" defense. Which stopped working, for me, when I was about five. I don't know why it still works in politics.

It's people who defend the wiretapping of citizens without a warrant by saying that Clinton did the same thing. F

Not only is this untrue, but it's a blatant lie, a blatant attempt to confuse people.

Here’s Attorney General Alberto Gonzales on the Larry King Live show last night:

I would say that with respect to comments by the former vice president it’s my understanding that during the Clinton administration there was activity regarding the physical searches without warrants, Aldrich Ames as an example.

I can also say that it’s my understanding that the deputy attorney general testified before Congress that the president does have the inherent authority under the Constitution to engage in physical searches without a warrant and so those would certainly seem to be inconsistent with what the former vice president was saying today.

The issue with the Bush’s warrantless domestic wiretapping program is that it violates a federal criminal law, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. Despite what Gonzales is implying, the Clinton administration never violated FISA and never claimed they could violate FISA. Here’s why:

1. Prior to 1995, FISA did not cover physical searches. (With Clinton’s signature, the law was expanded to cover physical searches in 1995.) The search of Aldrich Ames home occurred in 1993. It did not violate FISA.

2. Deputy Attorney General Jamie Gorelick testified in 1994 that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches, before FISA required physical searches to be conducted pursuant to a warrant. Gorelick was arguing that the President could conduct warrantless physical searches in the absence of Congressional action. At no time did she suggest that, after Congress required the President to obtain a warrant, the executive branch could ignore the law, nor is there any evidence the Clinton administration failed to comply with FISA.

The fact that the Attorney General of the United States is resorting to such obvious deception shows that they have no real answers. The administration is getting desperate and grasping at straws.

Fucking wankers....

[link]

Second, if Clinton did the same thing I somehow think that the congress that spent years and millions upon millions of dollars investigating some possible shady accounting in a land deal that went down a decade before he became president, might, just might investigate something like wiretapping citizens without a warrant.

Yes, but they got sidetracked by investigating the blowjobs, remember.