Sotomayor

In my continuing quest to tank any future judicial appointments for myself, I've got some opinions on this whole Sotomayor confirmation process.

First of all, boo-fucking-hoo to all the Republicans who want to take issue with Sotomayor's "wise Latina" comments. Yeah, she rather obliquely disparaged some old white male judges. You know what group has made some really terrible decisions in the past 2 centuries? Old, white male judges. I'm not saying that a "wise Latina" would have necessarily made any better decisions, but she certainly has a perspective that some of those old cantankerous bastards could've used.

If I were her, I'd respond to questions about this comment by saying, "You know what? I AM better at making some decisions than some of you old white bastards. Yes, you, on the Senate Judiciary Committee. My heritage doesn't control my decisions, but it informs them and it does a damn sight better than your whitebread upbringing. Next question."

"But why..."

"NEXT QUESTION. Don't make me come up there, Sessions."

But then maybe that's why I'll never be on the Supreme Court.

Second of all, that New Haven Firefighter case is not controversial. Yes, it was struck down by the Supreme Court. FIVE TO FOUR. That means that four judges of the Supreme Court agreed with Sotomayor's ruling. It is beyond asinine to say that she was way off the reservation when four of the most esteemed legal minds in the world agreed with her.

This is posturing by the Republicans to an insane degree. Only Lindsey Graham seems to see the writing on the wall: unless Sotomayor starts disrobing during testimony or firing shots into the air, she's going to get confirmed and there's absolutely squat the Republicans can do about it. She should have more confidence and tell them to go to hell.

So Much! Too Much?

Man, I step away for a minute and like, 15 different things happen. Let's get into it.

The King of Pop is dead. Long live the King? There is much gnashing of teeth and hand-wringing about how to "celebrate" the life of such screwball. On the one hand, he made some great music. This is an area in which if you disagree, you are Wrong. Sorry, but while you don't have to like the music (that's called taste) you have to appreciate what MJ put together. I can only somewhat recall, because I was so young, the fervor with which 80s-era kids loved the man. But some of those songs are eternal.

But, he was a whacko. Ultimately, I have no problem expressing remorse at his passing because, despite the messed up life he was leading, death is it. It closes the door on any redemption or the possibility of a turn-around. MJ will never call a press conference and say, "Jesus, I was pretty messed up, wasn't I? I apologize to my fans for so much screwy behavior." And even if such a statement was super unlikely, I can mourn for the lost opportunity. It is a bummer.

Senator Stuart Smalley. Not too much to say about this because Franken should have had this months and months ago; but I'm glad to see the rule of law win out in an election scenario. Coleman may have been a good man before this mess, but his inability to let it go when absolutely nothing was in his favor has lessened my opinion of him quite a bit. I don't know what kind of senator Franken will be, but it will definitely be interesting. 6 years! And away we go.

True Blood is Entertaining. But it got a lot better after the first few episodes. It's really like an adult-themes Twilight, though, which isn't so hot. Because Twilight is horrifically stupid.* But it's still pretty hokey at times, and the characters are teetering right on the edge of being too stupid for words. If Jason Stackhouse ends up sleeping with the preacher's wife, for example, and without clear explanation how it got to that, I'm gonna be pissed.

There is a piss-poor method of character development that hack writers use to establish that someone is "lusted after" or "sexually adventurous." Basically, you have the character meet the eyes of some hot young woman (it's almost always men that need this development) and then immediately cut to them having sex. Californication does this ALL THE TIME, and it's really, really lame. No explanation of how they got to that point, or the woman's motivations for doing so. It's actually a hugely sexist and misogynistic form of character development that feeds the adolescent male fantasy of being an irresistible sex machine. The women don't matter at all; they're just tools to show that this guy is "totally awesome and the chicks can't stay away!!!"

To be fair, Jason Stackhouse has benefited from better writing during his own escapades. He has only had sex with one random chick that I can recall, and that was because he was high on vampire blood. But the show is dangerously close to the "lusty eyes -> immediate sex" cut in his interactions with the preacher's wife, and it makes me wary. The fact that people are "amazed he didn't screw that Christian singer AND the wife by now" (as mentioned in my office) just shows you how close to ridiculousness his character has been.

*I've been told. Have not yet been so bored that I actually need to read those books.

The Tigers Give Me Ulcers. Jesus they win like, 7 straight and then lose a series to Houston? The ASTROS, Detroit? Come on. They're suffering from the same problems that always plague them: power outages at hitting and unreliable closers. If you include the fact that they've only got 2 or 3 reliable starters (and just one really good and reliable pitcher) it's hard to see how they're even in first in the division.

But, they are. Improbably, amazingly, they are 3.5 games ahead of Chicago. They have a chance to win the series with Oakland today (here, in Oakland) but by all objective measures they probably should have swept the lowly, last-place A's. We'll see. I will try and keep the faith.

Oh but did anyone see that Baltimore-Boston game last night? The O's came back from a 10 to 1 deficit to win! I dislike the Orioles most of the time but that's just impressive, especially against Boston.

Needless Update: Apparently blog posting is a jinx. The Tigers are sucking it up and losing 4-1 in the 6th as I write this. Verlander just gave up a homerun to freakin' Jason Giambi, who is batting .195 this year. Pathetic.

The New Draconian Recycling Plan in My Office. We now have 4 different types of trash. It includes Compost and "E-Waste" but me and my juris doctorate cannot figure out where to put the Starbucks cup. I mean, the top is plastic (Mixed-Recycling) but the cup is paper (Compostable?) but the sleeve is cardboard (Recycling?) and there's a slight bit of food still inside.

Seriously, it could not be harder to decipher if it was written by Soviet-era Russian intelligence. Candy wrappers are "Waste" but waxed cardboard cups are "Compostable" but cardboard is "Recycling". The office needs a recycling czar.

At the Movies

I will spare you all my pithy reviews of recent movies. I've seen a bunch, including Benjamin Button, The Promotion, The Proposal, Drag Me To Hell, The Brave One, and (shudder) Semi-Pro. By the way, that was in order of my enjoyment.

But let's let talk upcoming movies. It's summer, and we're in full blockbuster craptacularness mode. Starting Wednesday is the altogether unwanted Transformers 2, which faces little in the way of competition this weekend. But nobody cares about Transformers 2, in large part because Transformers 1 was largely incomprehensible and the action sequences were so loud and confusing that it doesn't bear re-watching at all.

I've long said--to, ya know, people who ask me these things--that Transformers only succeeded because of the massive amount of nostalgic goodwill it invoked. I saw it in the theater, even though I was 98% convinced it was crap. But I got goosebumps, briefly, when Optimus Prime spoke with that same gravelly voice he used in the 80s cartoon. I loved Transformers back then, man.

But nostalgia only takes you so far. In the case of Transformers, it took me about halfway through the first film. I suspect the rapid drop-off will harm Transformers 2, which will undoubtedly win the weekend (it's only up against a Lifetime-esque movie about some little girl who is conceived to give her dying sister vital organs or something). But I bet you dollars-to-donuts that the drop-off next week is substantial. It faces Ice Age 2 (meh, but the same "meh" as Transformers) and Public Enemy, which so far sounds like a much, much better film. I mean, it's John Dillinger vs. Batman.

So there you have it, my random thoughts on your upcoming cinematic offerings. For those who want to plan further ahead, the big releases after July 4th weekend are Bruno (July 10) and the next Harry Potter (which will stomp the life out of every other film on July 15th). But also watch for 500 Days of Summer, which could be good because Joseph Gordon-Levitt is an amazing actor, and District 9 which is produced by Peter Jackson.

I will not see G.I. Joe: Rise of Cobra unless terrorists call and tell me that my family is strapped to a bomb that will go off if I don't provide a ticket stub from the movie.

Just Jettison Zumaya

Baseball post incoming. Ignore if you like, there is also some angry ranting.

...

The Tigers have had a "power outage" for a couple series now. They took 3/5 from the White Sox, in Chicago, which is great but given the White Sox inability to do anything right, they should have taken at least 4. Today was the 5th game.

The Tigers, predictably, had little offense and for most of the game were behind zero to two. Zero! Against a mediocre Chicago pitcher! They finally scored one in the last few innings, and then in the top of the 9th, Curtis Granderson hits a home run with a man on base to tie the game (the Sox had scored another, it was 3-1 at the time).

Your regular baseball fan might celebrate this. Your 2009 Tigers fan knows this is a dangerous situation, because now the Tigers have to rely on the bullpen to send the game into extra innings.

I love Jim Leyland (the manager) for what he's done with this team. But sometimes, I cannot fathom his thought process. Today, he decided to put in the utterly useless and almost ALWAYS disastrous Joel Zumaya. Zumaya was on the disabled list for awhile this season, and since returning has shown no ability to work an inning with any semblance of confidence.

He promptly allows two men on, commits a throwing error, and walks the bases loaded with no outs. In the bottom of the 9th. Then, oh so predictably, he gives up the game winning single and that's that.

I know that you have to look at all aspects of the team when assigning blame. The hitting was pathetic today, with only Ryan Raburn providing an RBI against the starting pitcher. Raburn is good but he should not be the go-to guy for hits. Cabrera and Ordonez went hitless. Pathetic against a pitcher with a 5.0+ ERA.

But then, putting in ZUMAYA of all people, to hold the lead? Zumaya needs quite a bit of rehab work first. He needs a 6th, 7th or 8th inning where the Tigers have a 5-0 lead or better. And at this point, I think he needs to get this from another team.

Fernando Rodney's meltdown the other night (he walked the bases loaded, which you really shouldn't do as a closer) has brought the Tigers back to the sad 2008 season, which featured lukewarm hitting and absolutely no reliable closers. Somebody needs to take a hard look and do some housecleaning in the bullpen.

/rant off. It's just so depressing.

So Oblivious

I am trying to be more understanding of people, in general. I have a touch of the road rage, because there is so much inattention and stupidity on the roads.

I realize, and am fairly egotistical in this regard, that I am more aware of my surroundings than the common man. I say this not to imply a superhuman quality on my part, but after many years of watching people act like morons.

People who are walking down the street, oblivious to the fact that there are cross streets where, egads, they don't have the right of way. They act as if this is the first time they have ever seen a "Don't Walk" sign, and often even step into the street to cross without looking both ways. Weren't they children once? It's right up there with not taking candy from strangers.

People who stop at the top or bottom of the escalator to get their bearings, when an escalator full of people are right behind them. Then they get all flustered when someone (usually not me) yells, "Move!" because the escalator folk are about to start trampling each other.

People who put their seats back in an airplane. I know, this may be controversial and isn't really indicative of idiocy, but it bugs me. We all have so little space. You are not so special that 3 extra inches you get are worth the inconvenience to the person behind you. The mere fact that the seats CAN go down is not a license to do so. I don't believe the majority of people who put their seats back even think about the person behind them, which is why I put this in the same category of obliviousness.

But getting older has made me realize that these people are being purposely stupid. Sometimes, people just don't know. Or they don't pay attention. It is not a good thing, but it is also not a crippling personality defect. Since I will never see most of these people again, why let it bug me?

I think this is the "Anti-Larry David" approach. Although I still think Curb Your Enthusiasm is great, it is not a good way to live for real.

Moment of Clarity?

Last night, as I was debating whether to get fast food for dinner, I had a minor revelation. It wasn't about fast food, but about health in general. I did the math and realized that if I had a child tomorrow, he or she would turn 18 when I was 49 years old.

To me, at 31, an 18-year-old isn't very old. I remember being 18 and not knowing squat about zilch. And if I have kids, I'd really like to be around to help them out with that kind of thing.

I haven't given much thought about having kids, except to assume that at some point I will. But I have never considered whether I will be around to see them become adults. Given my family history of leaky heart valves and other such things, I am already at a slight disadvantage. The fact that I outweigh my father by 10 pounds is another bad sign.

So this "revelation" became a personal charge to myself. Healthy is better. I am still plenty young enough to change my habits, and in fact have already been doing that. No more fast food (not even "only once in awhile"). More running--daily when possible. Less couch potato-ish activity.

Part of this is because I finally realized how I can accomplish this. It's less about saying "never eat unhealthy again, ever" and more about saying: tonight, do I need a hamburger from Wendy's? And the answer is always no. Baby steps to the elevator, yo.

I don't have kids yet. Hell, I don't even have somebody who wants to birth any of my children.* But I'll be damned if I'm going to let my laziness in 2008/2009 screw me over in 2027.

*This is just shorthand. I am entirely in favor of adoption. Please don't yell at me about skyrocketing population or something.

Brief Update Regarding Two Items

First -- and I hope that this is the last I will say on this -- I'm going to talk about newspapers failing again. Mostly because Weingarten discussed it in his chat today.

I think it is fascinating to watch reporters, even humorists, try and argue that the news should cost money. They know it's their livelihood at stake, so I don't begrudge them one bit, but think about how often we associate reporters with "the truth" and "getting to the story". They don't regard capitalism as a reason to keep information hidden, unless it's THEIR capitalism, in which case suddenly the question becomes, "How can we charge people per story?"

But let's all just breathe a moment. Weingarten posed the question (paraphrased): why do people think the news should be free? I'd have thought the answer was obvious. We have never paid for the content; we pay for the medium.

We pay for a television set; a radio; a computer; and a stack of dead trees. These items allow us access to the news, but we don't pay for the content. We pay for the access. The newspaper is just a very old version of a cable-modem, or a television set. The sooner newspapers realize this, the quicker the solution will make itself known.

What's the one news source you can think of that has no advertising, but survives? National Public Radio (and local equivalents) and the Public Broadcasting Service. PBS mixes entertainment in, but is still akin to NPR. Newspapers are going to have to go non-profit if they want to survive. And the old guard is just going to have to accept it, if they want to live.

Item Two! I'm headed back east for a few days to watch one of my sisters do something academic. I'm pretty sure the middle one. Don't miss me too much while I'm gone!

The Slow Death of the Newspaper

From the Washington Post's weekly chat with media man Howard Kurtz:

Howard, could part of the problem be that because consumers already pay for online access that we don't also want to pay for online content. I spend $50/month for online access. I can't see myself paying any additional $ for online content. To say that everything online is free is not quite accurate. It's just that the service providers are the ones making the money, not the content providers.

Howard Kurtz: Fair point. Everyone pays for Internet access. But that's like saying you already paid to buy a TV set, so why should you now have to pay for cable? (And look, some people don't.) I grew up thinking television would always be free, and now people pay cable providers--and pay extra for premium channels--because they think the content is worth it. Computers and online access aren't cheap, but content also costs money, and iTunes is but one example of how people are willing to pay for what's important to them.

Kurtz, I love ya, but this is way off.

The television is analogous to a computer, not to the content ON the computer. The most accurate analogy is: "That's like saying you already paid to buy a television, so why should you have to pay for cable?" We all pay for cable (illegal connections are a side note and not relevant to the analogy). We all pay for internet access.

What we don't pay for are television shows that come as part of cable. That's the analogy; paying for newspaper content would be akin to me paying for The Daily Show on Comedy Central. I already buy my cable, and there's no way I'm paying twice for both delivery and substantive content. I already hate that Pizza Hut does the same thing.

I don't know what the newspapers will do. I don't have a solution. But they've tried a pay-for-content model and it doesn't work. The reason? News is free. News is news, which means it almost immediately becomes worthless. It becomes "old news", and then it's just information, and not something you should have to pay to get. The 25/50 cent charge for a paper is tiny and has long represented a minor convenience charge for being able to take the news with you. You can still go to the library and read the paper, after all.

iTunes is not an accurate model. You can't just pick one of the few successful pay-for-content endeavors and copy it. iTunes is perfect for what it serves: music. Music is not ephemeral; unlike the news, it doesn't become instantly irrelevant the next day. Okay, well, this may not be true for some bands, but you see the point. You buy a song, it's yours. I don't want to buy an article about the White House's position on climate change as of Monday, May 11, 2009, at 12:30 pm. It has no permanence.

I still believe that advertising can, and should, work to support the newspaper industry. I firmly believe in reporting and journalism, and agree that blogging and twitter do not provide a significant alternative. But this talk of charging people for content is just plain crazy. People will not pay for something that has historically--even if "historically" means 15 years--been free.