New England Clam Chowder

Sweet Judges are Made of These

2005-10-04T17:54:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-08-18T07:18:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-08-11T09:52:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-07T14:06:00.000-07:00

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...

2005-08-07T08:20:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-03T06:40:00.000-07:00

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

2005-08-02T07:38:00.000-07:00

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?

2005-07-29T19:00:00.000-07:00

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.

Bass Ackwards

2005-07-22T09:04:00.000-07:00

The recent flap over Grand Theft Auto has me baffled. Apparently, the game includes a scene with explicit sexual content that can be unlocked by downloading an internet hack (a "mod"). Pressure from Hillary Clinton caused the ratings board to change the game's rating from "Mature" to "Adults Only" which will bring sales of this current version to a screeching halt. A number of things blow my mind about this affair:

1) Aren't there more important things that the United States Senate should be dealing with? If Hillary Clinton ends up being the next Democratic presidential candidate, I certainly hope this is not the typical magnitude of her legislative record.

2) This game doesn't even need a rating. Parents purchase this game for their kids, and certainly must be around when their kids are playing it. It's named after a felony, after all, and a cursory reading of the box should lead one to the conclusion that it's not about law enforcement. It involves running around car-jacking people, shooting them with automatic weapons and buying and selling drugs. But the game is rated. "Innappropriate for children under 17" is printed right there on the box. Why can't parents admit that they are simply unwilling to pay any attention to what their kids are watching or playing and set their own rules about it?

3) Why did it take the revelation of sexual content in the game to cause a national issue? The content known all along renders this one of the most violent and morally corrupt games of all time. This is the game, after all, where you can steal a car, drive to the top of a parking structure and shoot at police officers with a sniper rifle to watch their heads explode. When you hold that type of constant game play up against a single "scene" of two computer generated characters having sex, I don't think there's any comparrison. The American public seems to regard the sex as more objectionable. God forbid little Timmy saw a boob! Seems to me that any kid with enough computer savy to locate, download and install this "mod" is undoubtedly already wading around in the depraved world of internet porn. How out of touch are these parents?

Too little credit...

2005-07-21T09:29:00.000-07:00

I guess I give the Internet too little credit. JN informs me that Newsweek's most recent Rove ripping article reports that Rove was in fact fired from Bush Sr's re-election campaign for leaking information to Bob Novak, a story I regarded with skepticism the other day. In the words of Dave Chapelle, "If it's in Newsweek, it must be true."

Majority Rule

2005-07-20T11:38:00.000-07:00

Don't let a ruling by the Supreme Court of the United States of America stop you. The anti-affirmative action forces have rallied the troops in Michigan and are attempting to get an initiative on the ballot ammending the state constitution to prohibit the use of racial preferences in state intitutions and universities. The balloting commission may defer the question of whether to allow the vote up to the courts again, amidst allegations that Black voters may have been duped into signing a petition they thought was in support of affirmative action. I wonder why, when the group is called the Michigan Civil Rights Initiative?

Obviously, whatever happens in the court is of secondary importance. The group has over a half a million signatures when they need three hundred thousand, and I think it would be relatively safe to assume that the measure would pass if put to a statewide referendum. This raises the question of whether these "grassroots" ballot initiatives / referendum's / state constitutional ammendments have a legitimate place in our democracy. There's a reason we have elected officials, and there's a reason we have courts of law. One of the many principles our country was founded on is that you don't just grab the torches and pitchforks and head down to the county courthouse to make some laws.

Public referendums have the danger, among other things, of being susceptible to disproportionately loud voices. I would surmise that half the people in the state of Michigan wouldn't change the state constitution if it was up to them. But once you put it on a ballot it's as easy as punching a hole. "Oh by the way, do you think people should be discriminated against on the basis of race?" In this situation, as well as with the question of Gay marriage, most of the battle is being won or lost based on the language that phrases the question, and how and when people are presented with the question. Perhaps these issues are complex enough that we should defer to the institutions we have in place that are less subject to the public whim, and not go running off to try to change the constitution whenever something doesn't seem to go our way.

Have his cake and Edith, too?

2005-07-19T19:06:00.000-07:00

Okay, I'll be honest... I was planning that headline all day, when I thought the nominee would be Edith Clement. How did we get thrown for such an incredible loop? For the past weeks, we've heard a constant barrage of talk of Bush cementing his legacy by nominating the first Hispanic justice. Will it be Alberto Gonzales? Emilio Garza? Then today, the media practically announces that it's Edith Clement (unless it's Edith Jones). After all, the first lady said she hoped the nominee would be woman. What happens? BANG! White man. Where's Nelson when you need him?

So I don't know who this John Roberts character is, just yet. One thing I do know is that announcement ceremony sucked. With all of the misdirection the American people have been subjected to for the past weeks, you would think they would be able to keep the nominee's name secret. I was expecting Bush to come out there, keep everyone in suspense for like 15 minutes, and then say, "And so... the nominee is... John Roberts!" And then he would bust out of some door with a little entrance music and maybe some pyrotechnics. Talk about a let down.

A more red-state friendly 24?

2005-07-19T17:51:00.000-07:00

Looks like we're getting another couple of seasons of 24.

I thought I'd take this opportunity to call attention to an interesting trend I noticed in the writing for the show this past season. Was it me, or did the show's overarching messages take a decidedly right-wing turn? It was almost as if Rupert Murdoch himself was tired of having a show on one of his networks (the show airs on Fox) deal with terrorism without staying "on message".

I'm not just talking about the obvious stuff, like the fact that, after three public-service-announcement-free seasons, Fox was compelled to air a PSA about the portrayal of Muslims in the show after just 4 episodes of Season 4. The season was peppered with more subtle examples. Here are my favorites:

In their plot to blow up a city, the bad guys compromise a person close to the Secretary of Defense. Who does that person turn out to be? The Secretary's hippie war-protesting son. But how, you ask, did the terrorists get close enough to the son to get the information they needed? You guessed it: gay sex.

Late in the season, the good people of LA's Counter-Terrorism Unit are on the cusp of foiling the terrorist plot. All they need to do is deal out some good ol' fashioned tough-love interrogation to a sleazy bad guy. What stands in their way? The fictional organization "Amnesty Global" (read: transparent allegory for the ACLU). That's right: The terrorists are trying to blow up a city, and those damned human rights lawyers are helping them do it.

Finally, my absolute favorite example. The icing on the cake, if you will...

Kiefer Sutherland, the star of the show, changes his pronunciation of the word "nuclear" to nook-you-lar for Season 4. I'm dead serious. Now I understand that many people, our Commander in Chief among them, have trouble saying this word. The remarkable thing is that Kiefer somehow managed to pronounce the word correctly in Season 2 (a fact easily confirmed with the help of a DVD). That means at some point, somebody made the conscious decision that Kiefer's character, great American hero that he is, needed to start mispronouncing the word "nuclear" just like the president.

I'm really curious as to how this last one happened. Did the writers spell out the word phonetically in the script this season? Did Kiefer decide to do it on his own in some bizarre display of patriotism?

I'm thinking he probably pronounced it correctly the first day, and in response the director yelled, "Cut! Umm... look Kiefer. It's nookyoular. I know that fancy elitist "new-klee-ar" crap might have flown back in acting school, but we're trying to fight a war on terror here. Now take it from the top."

Now you see it, now you don't

2005-07-19T08:52:00.000-07:00

Supposedly, Bush may make his Supreme court nomination today. CNN quotes an anonymous administration official as saying "Bush's timetable appears to have been accelerated..." Really? Why would they want to do that? Don't they know that the nomination is sure to launch the media into a whirlwind of fiery op-ed pieces and spirited shouting matches between various blowhards that might not let up for months? Why would they want to set that off, right in the middle of an investigation that is, in fact, ongoing? They should really take into account the fact that my attention span only allows me to hold one political battle in my brain at a time before making these types of "accelerations."

Anyone who has commited a crime?

2005-07-18T19:32:00.000-07:00

If the Party could thrust its hand into the past and say this or that even, it never happened—that, surely, was more terrifying than mere torture and death

An interesting rumor that is apparently whipping around the internet has Karl Rove being fired from Bush Sr's 1992 reelection campaign for leaking information to, of all people, Bob Novak. All of the sites seem to cite the same two sources (magazine articles) which are difficult to track down. It's my guess the "mainstream media" hasn't been reporting this because it's "probably not true." Amusing, nonetheless.

Why won't the Globe print my letters?

2005-07-18T12:59:00.000-07:00

Is it possible that they're afraid of what I've got to say? Now that I've got my soapbox set up alongside the information super-highway, I guess there's nothing to hold a brother down anymore. Here's a letter I wrote last Thursday about Ricky Santorum.

I was disappointed to read the Globe's editorial regarding Rick Santorum's comments blaming Boston's "liberal society" for the clergy abuse scandal (Santorum’s Slur, 7/14/2005). By putting together a cogent argument refuting Santorum's claims based on tangible evidence, the Globe's editors elevate a remark as asinine as it is offensive to the level of legitimate debate. The tone of the editorial gives the casual reader the impression that there are actually two sides to this "question". Are the results of various studies really needed to call these types of statements what they are?

The Globe's editorial space would be better used in a discussion of this remark in the context of Santorum's general political extremism. Why is someone so far disconnected from reality continuing to serve as the third ranking Republican in the Senate? Who elected and then re-elected this man, and do they feel he is still representing their views with these types of insane positions? Does Santorum think before he speaks? All of these are legitimate questions. "Do liberal social views lead to sexual abuse" is not.

Unfortunately, it's still sitting in some summer intern's mailbox, while they've printed about 5 other letters on Santorum's comment (none that are critical of the Globe, of course). I would think that when you get a chance to use the word "asinine" in print, you jump at it... but what do I know.

Can someone explain the Iran Hostage Crisis?

2005-07-18T11:30:00.000-07:00

I will almost certianly betray my tender young age and complete lack of qualification for comment on worldly matters with this question, but nonetheless, what's the deal with the Iran Hostage Crisis?

After the Iranian revolution, the new government takes 66 citizens from the Embassy hostage. President Carter's response is to freeze Iranian assets in the United States, botch two "rescue" attempts, and then lose the election. It seems like a better response might have gone something like this, to borrow from the Family Guy:

Carter: "I demand that you release all the hostages immediately."
Khomeini: "Oh yeah, you and what army?"
Carter: "The United States Army"
Khomeini: "Oh... that's a pretty good army..."

We were able to mobilize an invasion and occupation of Iraq based on a painstakingly constructed facade of "links to terrorism" and the question of whether Saddam posed a threat to us. Weren't the events of 1979 a legitimate act of state sponsered terrorism, as well as an act of war? Seems like an easy sell to me. I can think of 3 possible reasons why we didn't go to war

1) Going to war would have likely resulted in the deaths of the hostages
2) Democrats just don't have the sack for this sort of thing
3) The Cold War

Number 3 seems the most viable to me. You couldn't just bring the military stampeding into any old country back then for fear of upsetting the delicate balance with the Soviets. Especially a country so close to the USSR. Nowadays, when our biggest concern is whether the Russian President jacked Bob Kraft's "finger bling", we don't have to procede quite as cautiously when deciding where and when to roll in the tanks.

If you're in an Iran Hostage Crisis mood, check this out for something that will really blow your mind...