Sweet Judges are Made of These

For the second time, President Bush has nominated someone to fill Sandra Day O'Connor's seat on the Supreme Court. Once again, the country was abuzz with rumors that the president would select a female or minority candidate. And once again, the president surprised everyone by choosing neither. Even more surprising to me was the fact that I immediately recognized the white guy he picked this time: veteran goth-rocker Marilyn Manson.



Many have criticized the president for choosing someone with no experience as a judge. I couldn't disagree more. A washed-up, middle-aged, drug-addled rock star will bring the kind of fresh perspective this court needs. And Manson is no stranger to the inside of a courtroom: Just ask the male security guard who he sexually assaulted and faced criminal charges from.

As with Roberts, Democrats will be charged with the difficult task of trying to pin down Manson's judicial philosophy. But while Roberts had generated thousands of pages of legal documents, Manson's written record is pretty much limited to the little booklets inside the cases of his CD's. Nevertheless, I think these documents can provide a window into his legal reasoning.

For example, in the song "Sweet Dreams", Manson sings, "Sweet dreams are made of these. Who am I to disagree?" This line clearly suggests a strong deference to established judicial precedent, and it should give comfort to those who fear Manson will be a right-wing activist looking to overturn prior rulings on civil rights and abortion. On the other hand, conservative supporters of Manson could counter that "Sweet Dreams" is a cover song, and that it more accurately reflects the judicial philosophy of The Eurhythmics than of Manson himself.

Ultimately, it will be up to the Senate Judiciary committee to figure out what kind of judge Manson will be. But is that easier said than done? At his confirmation hearing, will Manson display the same command over constitutional law that Roberts did? Or will he simply display his genitals and call it a day? If he does, will C-Span be able to cut away in time?

These are the types of questions the American people deserve to have answered.

Did You Get That Memo?

The AP reports that 38,000 pages worth of documents that John Roberts wrote while associate counsel in the Reagan administration will be released today. I think this revelation raises some very important questions about this man, such as, "What kind of person generates 38,000 pages worth of 'documents'?" For the love of God, that's a lot of paper! Can we assume at least that it is double spaced and contains liberal use of cover pages? Was generating 'documents' John Roberts' full time job during the 80's? Did they set him up in his office with a desk and a computer and then drop a big box on the floor and be like, "Okay, John, why don't you go ahead and fill this puppy up with paper."

I predict this will be the point where the confirmation battle really heats up....

"John Roberts has cost this country $2736 in toner cartriges and counting. How much is too much? John Roberts: No friend of brevity"

Sweet Neo-Con?

Mick Jagger denied that a song entitled Sweet Neo-Con, off the Rolling Stones upcoming album, is directed at George W. Bush. This raises a number of interesting questions, such as "Wow, the Rolling Stones are still releasing records? I thought they were dead."

AHHHH!!! That man is clearly being kept alive by some unholy alliance between modern science and the supernatural. But hey, at least they haven't lost their songwriting edge...

How come you're so wrong? My sweet neo-con,
Where's the money gone, in the Pentagon.

Over There

So much to talk about with FX's new original series Over There (FX, Wednesday 10 pm EDT). The hour long drama from producer Steven Bochco (of NYPD Blue and Hill Street Blues fame) is, as far as I am aware, the first piece of televisual/cinematic fiction to deal with an American war (or "armed conflict") as it is going on. The first episode begins with a group of marines "shipping off" from their base in the US headed for Iraq. They are immediately cast into the fray of a standoff outside of a mosque being held by an insurgent leader. It ends with their convey rolling over a mine which claims the leg of what the audience had assumed would be the main character. The second episode mainly revolves around a checkpoint where the new marines are forced to gun down a young girl and two Syrian teenagers who are being used as decoys/bait/cannon fodder by another insurgent leader trying to smuggle himself out of the area.

As a piece of dramatic fiction, the show has some major problems. The main gigantic and unavoidable issue is the atrocious writing. Most of the dialogue is so profoundly un-subtle that noone can take it seriously. Instead of characters being introduced through scenes, they simply announce themselves in dialogue that is just far too contrived for a 21st century audience. These lines might be acceptable in another context but they don't fit with the intense realism of the show's action. Furthermore, there is an African American character that is absolutely unforgivable. He does nothing but spout racial cliches in an effort to offer "the Black perspective," something the screen writer has clearly not put any effort into uncovering.

Where the show really shines is in cinematograpy. If you turned the volume off, you might be convinced you were watching a movie. But we don't tune in each week to see stunning shots of the Iraqi (Californian) sun's descent. We react to character and story... so I'm not sure if Over There is going to cut it.

What's more interesting than all of this coffee-house talk, of course, is the political impacts of watching a depiction of a war that is going on as we speek. The right and left are no doubt going to town already. I'll let them hold down that fort for now. Unless anyone out there has an opinon ;-)

Uh oh...

Early polls show Ricky Santorum trailing prospective Democratic challenger Bob Casey in the 2006 Pennsylvania Senate race. What's the State Treasurer got going for him? I would guess he has an impecable track record of "not being Rick Santorum." I would love for their TV debates to have nothing to do with "the issues" and be just about Rick's prior public statements. "Mr. Casey, do you feel that women in this country should have their own careers, or stay home with the children, preferably spending most of their time in the kitchen? You have 90 seconds"

Cain, Abel and Seth

So the president thinks that Intelligent Design should be taught in public school science class. What's the harm in letting children be "exposed to different schools of thought", after all? Here's another school of thought I happened upon in the great eye opener that is the internet. At this site, you can read in depth explanations of how the earth is a few thousand years old or how the third generation of humans must have come about through Cain marrying one of his many sisters. I feel like I can remember wondering about who Cain married when I was 7 years old in Sunday School. It provided the perfect opportunity for my Mom to explain the difference between literal and symbolic meanings in the Bible. I was unaware this was an ungoing question in the "debate" over human origins. I was also unaware that Cain and Able had a brother named Seth. I guess if you're not involved in a fratricidal rock attack, you just don't stick in people's minds the same way.

Oh, you can also find some interesting articles debunking Apemen.

Smash the Stache

The New York Times is up in arms about Bush pushing John Bolton's appointment as UN ambassador through while Congress was in recess. If you ask me, they're pissed off for all the wrong reasons. I don't understand why everyone is dancing around the obvious issue with the Bolton appointment: his huge, freak-show, puts-Tom-Selleck-to-shame mustache.

Good lord! I mean, look at that thing. How can we exptect any serious diplomacy to happen with that giant cookie-duster swinging around? Is this really the face we want to represent our nation at the UN? (Well, what little face there is peeking out around the edges of that enormous shag-carpet welcome-mat he has guarding his nostrils.)

What does that thing say about Bolton's ability to present our nation in a favorable light to the rest of the world? After all, the man gets up every morning and looks in the mirror, knowing full well that he will be filmed and photographed all day, and that those images will find their way into millions of homes around the world through television and in print. He takes in his ghastly visage, which gives the appearance of his nose having vomitted hair all over his upper lip, and asks himself, "Hmm... is there anything I should change about my appearance today? Nope. Lookin' good, John!" Does this really sound like a man who sees all sides of an issue? A man suited to advocate? I think not.

Moreover, the 'stache will be a logistical nightmare. When Bolton is dining with foreign dignitaries, we will have to hire two people to stand on either side of his face to hold his mustache back during the soup course so it doesn't get wet. And every day he shows up to work, guys with haz-mat suits and machetes will have to climb into his mustache to make sure he isn't hiding WMD's or harboring terrorists in there. The cost to tax-payers will be astronomical.

The New York Times is right to be concerned about Bolton, but let's all be honest about the real issue here. We shouldn't even begin to discuss his temperament and management style until somebody has taken a rider lawn-mower to his upper lip.

Who are you and what have you done with Bill Frist?

Wow. I was completely floored when I read about the speech Bill Frist gave on the Senate floor today, a fact that isn't all that surprising. What is surprising is that for once it was the good kind of floored.

Frist threw his support behind a bill to expand federal funding for stem cell research. This raises some obvious questions, like "Where am I?", and "What kind of weird science fiction bullsh*t is this?!".

In all seriousness, I am extremely impressed for two reasons. First of all, I have always maintained that the restrictions placed by the president on stem cell research in 2001 were one of the more tragic decisions of his presidency. While Frist's comments obviously were not as forceful as I think the issue warrants, any step towards undoing the damage the president has done is a good one.

Even more remarkable are the political implications of the stand. Frist, considered an '08 presidential hopeful, probably dealt himself a huge political setback with this decision. Whether or not a candidate can win the presidency without the support of conservative Christians is debatable, but certainly weathering a Republican primary would be damn near impossible. To think that a politician may have carefully thought through an issue and made a decision based on reasonable principles, even to the detriment of his political ambitions, is pretty reassuring. And especially to do so now, less than a year after Americans resoundingly voted "No" in 2004's referendum on rational decision making.

Maybe I'm just so downtrodden by watching the Dems get kicked around these past few years I'm overreacting to mere table scraps from the right. But I don't think so. Hearing Bill Frist say "It's not just a matter of faith, it's a matter of science" was like being in the twilight zone, but in a good way. His words certainly stand in stark contrast to fellow '08 hopeful Mitt Romney's sudden and politically convenient religious awakening.