Daughter of Daring

I used to keep track of and watch the Oscars. Now, I am barely familiar with some of the films. Instead, I read Daughter of Daring, which is not only a biography of a stuntwoman/actor, but a history of film and Hollywood (with a woman's focus) overall. 

I have also read her Creature from the Black Lagoon book. Both are good. Down-to-earth style, while quite detailed. Fun footnotes. 

ETA: One interesting tidbit is how cliffhanger serials and other films attracted women viewers as escapes and an example of women having agency, including for lower class women.

Barbie

The Oscar nominations have dropped. Years ago, I watched and kept track of the Academy Awards. Not so much now. I checked and am not too interested in the leading films.

Barbie is one of the top films that received a somewhat ridiculous amount of anticipation and attention. The other (on reserve) involves a biopic of someone leading the creation of the nuclear bomb. The two were like the two "must-see" films. Few had anything bad to say.

I am not here to dis the film. The Academy Awards nominators did that by not nominating the director or Margot Robbie (who played the lead Barbie, "stereotypical Barbie"). America Ferrera (not a Barbie) received a Best Supporting Actress nomination. "Ken" (Ryan Gosling) also received a Best Supporting Actor nomination. 

[Greta Gerwig, of course, is a big part of why the film was nominated for Best Picture. She also was nominated (with her husband) for Best Adapted Screenplay. It also has awards for production design, costume, and song.]

It is seen as a bit much that Barbie did not get a nod but Ken did. This is fair to a point. But, a woman did get a nod too. The message is that Barbie dolls are objects of others. These "others" in a fashion received their due here. 

[ETA: Upon further thought, I think the argument leaves something to be desired as to Margot Robbie. 

Ryan Gosling received a supporting nomination. A woman also did for this film. So, should Robbie (since "Ken" did) replace another Best Actress nomination? I can see how a close split resulted in someone else getting in there. It is not a sexist plot. 

This isn't the first time the director of a top Best Film was not nominated. Still, directing was an important part of making this film. 

Again, you would have to decide if someone else should be knocked off. She also received a writing nod, if shared. Was this a possible tie-breaker? Who knows.]

The film did a great job giving us a look at Barbie-Land and an imaginary look at Mattel HQ. It should get some sort of technical awards for this magic of the movies accomplishment. And, yes, ultimately, the director should be honored for the overall accomplishment.  

I liked the film as a whole. A good judge of this is that I was able to watch it straight through. I have issues with watching films straight through these days. It might be a result of the Internet or whatever. The acting was good, including America Ferrera, a mom who is actually the cause of Barbie's existential crisis. 

She added to the whole wonderland feel. The overall plot is good. It is not extraordinary. That is fine. It just is that some of the talk makes it sound like this is a classic film. I don't think so. It's a good film. It has movie magic. It just is not AMAZING as some make it out to be. 

Don't say I am not the audience. I liked AF's traveling pants films. I can relate to "women's" pictures (and it is appropriate things begin when the mom has issues; in a fashion, it's like Mamma Mia! for speaking to adults).

A charm of this film is creating a Barbie universe (including an all-women Supreme Court, which many girls playing with Barbie dolls won't think about ... some will!). It is also about the overall message. The director repeatedly has made films with strong women characters. 

Barbie suddenly is depressed (that's weird!) and has to find the "girl" who played with her to find out what is happening. Ken (who has his own crisis when he realizes his existence is all about Barbie, not himself) goes along. He is amazed at how men control everything. He goes back and Barbie-land is controlled by men. 

Until Barbie and company save the day. Then, Stereotypical Barbie decides she needs to be human. She becomes Barbara Handler. The film ends with her going for her first gynecological appointment! Talk about metaphors. 

Still, women can play Barbie. Or watch this film.

A Beginning's Guide to Japanese Haiku is the source of this quote. Haiku is short Japanese poetry with a naturalistic focus. It was interesting to read about it. Still, for me personally, a few short verses will do it. A book fill of them with short biographies of the poets was a tad tedious. 

Still glad I skimmed it. 

Sunday Odds and Ends

Ischia Bravo ran for city council (NYC) but did not win. I was given a colorful campaign card because at the time the early voting location near me was in her desired district (I assume).  A small version of this:

She has become the first Latina Bronx city clerk.  Sounds like she has a good sense of what is involved:

“People come to the get passports, naturalization paperwork, applying to be a notary, getting documents, notarized records,” said Bravo. “It creates awareness around participation.”

I went there myself to get my notary certification renewed. I did send a money order earlier but it got lost in the mail.  Charming.  

===

Film/TV

The Academy Awards are on now.  I checked the nominees and basically have no desire to watch any of the films.  

The Hallmark Channel movie starred a familiar face (Kimberley Sustad) but did not recognize the others.  Game of Love is about two game creators tasked to develop a game about love.  I liked it.  These things for me often are about pace and I liked how things were handled.  Actors were also good. 

The necessary complication felt a bit tacked on (and came late) but we got past it fast.  I can do without it -- oh look, she has moved on to someone who trusts her team but now second guesses herself & has an emotional moment -- but I assume it's in some "how to write a Hallmark movie" that such a scene has to be in there somehow.  It was relatively painless here.

I also saw another episode of East New York.  I saw a few episodes and found it pretty good.  Multiple familiar faces among the regulars and guest stars.  Oh look, it's the guy from Gilmore Girls and tonight we had Debi Mazar.  Nothing profound, but even time-passing series are something for me these days.  I still like The Way Home as well.  

===

"Spring forward" started at 2 A.M. today so it's really an hour earlier.  The whole thing seems a bit stupid.  But, with it the rules for so long, that's something you say, it happens, and you move on.  If ends, though, doubt it will matter much.  

===

Baseball

It is also time for the World Baseball Classic, the true "world series" of baseball.  The rules for national teams are somewhat loose but we still have a lot of minor league type players on a lot of teams.  Still, they sometimes play each other, and there is enough talent for some good games.  

I think the WBC is a good idea.  We have a Nicaragua team today playing an Israeli team.  Team Italy advanced to the second round.  Only caught some of the game, but something different. 

Baseball is promoted worldwide.  Somewhat related, the new schedule has teams play each other interleague.  All of them, not just one division (AL East, etc.)  each season.  The loss to divisional play isn't much -- sounds like four fewer games for each team.  No DH, players moving around, limited interleague play ... well, why not go all the way?  

The time rules are not in the WBC and I don't really see much difference. Maybe, they will help.  The countdown clock is a bit annoying.  Makes things feel rushed.  One thing that came to mind there was the throws over the first.  They are cut down.  They actually can get annoying. Even so. How often is that really a thing?  Oh well. Let's see how it goes. 

Joe's Eclectic Thoughts: Weekend Edition

Book: I saw the author of Smashing Statues: The Rise and Fall of America’s Public Monuments interviewed on C-SPAN, being interested enough to check out the book. (I checked it out of the library.) I read the Sandy Levinson book cited in this capsule review, including an update. I also read another book, talking about Confederate monuments. All three are somewhat of a piece, focused on what one might call "bad monuments."

All three are worthwhile (yeah, the other one slips my mind at the moment) in their own ways. The book here is a bit misleadingly named. The book is largely about Confederate monuments with a bit about others such as the knocking down George III's monument.  But, even in that respect, it isn't really comprehensively about bad ones.  The main focus in about Confederate monuments though there is (to be fair) a chapter on Christopher Columbus.  

[On that subject, there was traditionally not too far from me -- if I went to public high school, I was zoned for it -- a school called Christopher Columbus High School.  We also traditionally had a Christopher Columbus parade down the main block near me.  The school broke into smaller schools.  COVID made the parade not a thing recently.]

I would have liked a more complete book about monuments (celebrations) and memorials (mourning something).  Why not a chapter on some "good" monument, or at least one that has so far met the test of time, such as the Vietnam Veterans Memorial?  Or, something like the Statue of Liberty?  If the book is meant to be about those that are "smashed," even so -- this sort of thing will provide a comparison.  

Still, the chapters on various memorials -- to be fair there are ones on matters other than the Confederate monuments -- and monuments are pretty interesting. One thing of note is her argument that Confederate monuments partially was a way to stop rising labor unrest, especially when it was biracial in nature.  Bits like that adds new details.

===

Let's Play Ball! Injury to an ace and another try manager-wise? Check! Still, we have some reason to hope this year is a bit different, with a career manager in place, a stud ace signing, and some good additions. I think two time cheater Cano should have been gone, but early on at least (it is the Nats, the predicted NL East whipping boy) he seems to be a promising addition too, especially with the DH (boo) giving him more playing time.

The first two games of a four game series versus the Nationals already had some drama.  We had deGrom out, so Megill started (well), and then Apple TV (not too well apparently) had the second game.  And, as if that and Scherzer (vs his old team) was not enough, yet another hit by pitch had some drama (we got a bit of video on Twitter for those who wasn't watching).  

The game was delayed twice -- lighting issues and at the end (which could have been avoided perhaps without the first delay) some rain.  Mets 2-0, top of the NL East.  So it begins.  Nice to see GKR back and I listened some on the radio, which has its charms.   And, Howie Rose (cutting back apparently this season after a health scare) is getting pretty good at Twitter, giving the daughter involved in the biz a run for her money.

===

Academy Awards: I didn't watch, there was some drama -- as noted -- when Will Smith (who from what I can tell is not a "bad boy" type, but I don't pay much attention) hit Chris Rock for making a joke about her lack of hair (a result of a medical condition).  At the time, the Oscars let him stay, and Smith then came on the stage after winning an award.

That was not ideal.  But, if a tad late, the Oscars has penalized him by banning him from the awards for ten years.  Will Smith himself resigned from the academy, basically meaning he doesn't get a vote.  He can be voted for, since that is a separate matter.  That might confuse a bit, but it makes sense (mostly).  He did not somehow corrupt the acting process or something (such as if a director was caught abusing a cast member).  

I think the thing to do was address the matter in the moment. This is not totally bad though.  For one thing, the tradition is for the Best Actor winner to be a presenter the next year.  So, this sort of thing matters in a message way in that direct fashion.  (It matters more there to the degree his absence is specifically notable.)  

And, often -- though it is unfortunate -- it is hard to do things "in the moment."  Ideally, Will Smith should have left, though just what happened there is subject to conflicting reports in the coverage I saw.  Some talk of him being "asked" to leave, but not too strongly; maybe not?  Unfortunate there was not some more lag time, perhaps before him winning. 

Is ten years the right length?  Maybe a bit much, but you cannot handwave physical violence against presenters.  These things sometimes will include presenters or categories for things that might in some fashion will invite the unhinged to do something.  Plus, violence in general should be strongly rejected.  

And, we are not talking prison time here or something. 

===

Border Issues: One thing a repeat ask at Jen Psaki's daily White House press conferences (saw news she is leaving soon, but after a few questions -- which she waived off -- about talks with MSNBC, saw/heard nothing ... though she seems to be highlighting support staff more lately as if in preparation) is Title 42.  A bit of immigrant/COVID inside baseball.

I have not gone into the weeds too much here, but have seen some criticism of the Administration continuing a Trump policy here.  The idea is that there is a health need -- COVID (Big V) -- to be more strict regarding migrants wishing to come in, resulting in over a million (some duplicates, but it is still a big number) being blocked. Better be necessary, right?

The link provides some helpful analysis.  Jen Psaki basically had a mantra that it was a health measure.  But, the article argues that the actual health officials at the CDC never really thought it was necessary.  So, there is some idea that was a makeweight argument.  Now, there are plans to end it, and (shocker here) Republicans (and some others) are worried.

Republicans, of course, are regularly against any number of COVID restrictions.  When it is a border matter, largely involving Latin Americans, suddenly they change their tune.  Repeatedly, health experts are wary about the laissez faire policies of the Republicans in this area.  HERE, we have actual evidence (a recent court case reaffirmed this, though upholding the policy as a matter of law, excepting those at risk of torture or the like) from experts the policy is unnecessary.  

The reactions underline why the Biden Administration is loathe to have a more liberal immigration policy, even to the degree that in various respects would be a good thing.  JUST how much criticism they warrant is far from clear to me, but that sort of real politics reality also should be factored in. 

===

Blogger Issue: Twice now, for some reason, Blogger has blocked my  posts.  One, regarding the bike death of a media critics, was shortly thereafter found to be okay.  I didn't closely read the email to see what the alleged issue was.

Another, an earlier version of my latest SCOTUS post was allowed too, after a somewhat longer review.  The first time for some reason "spam" was the problem.  I then posted a short post summarizing it, with "Blogger" in the title and a link to the content policy. THAT was blocked!  

I reposted a new version, taking out a couple embedded tweets and some other formatting.  THAT was allowed.  A recent short Judge Jackson post had an embedded tweet.  I have been doing this since 2003 without one case of having something blocked, including linking to porn.  

I'm unsure why there is an issue here, but it's annoying, in part since there does not seem to be a way for me to simply ask Blogger what the issue here.  There is a "help" page with FAQ material and an option to post questions.  If I'm blocked, I rather have a chance to ask directly.

Burn Pits and More

One of the things available on C-SPAN was a press conference with Jon Stewart, my two senators (NY) and others promoting funding for health care of victims of burn pits. Jon Stewart has campaigned in support of 9/11 workers and this was a logical campaign for him and others who support that. One article notes:

More than 200,000 people who deployed to Iraq or Afghanistan believe they suffer permanent damage from exposure to burn pits, as the military’s notorious garbage-disposal fires are known.

The tricky problem is drawing lines here and that is not really my lane. We need good leadership and people in government that will make reasonable judgment calls here.  Proper funds and services for veterans, especially injured veterans, is clearly a prominent duty for government and society. President Biden, whose son was a veteran, is honestly concerned with protecting the troops.

By chance, the Supreme Court that same morning was debating a state immunity case involving a federal law providing an option for vets to sue state governments.  The person involved himself was a burn pit victim.  While Stolen Seat Guy, Alito, et. al. debated federalism with stupid hypos involving potholes, I think it useful to note what is involved.  

Also, that the text of the 11th Amendment is about interstate suits.  It might even be more limited (about diversity jurisdiction), but at the very least, it is not about suing your own state.  That is, if anything, some "10th Amendment" penumbra. Again, I think the text very well has "penumbras" to provide further limits.  I just want it to be applied consistently and correctly. 

===

President Biden also signed the Emmett Till Anti-Lynching Act.  I have already talked about this.  But, the general message is that -- after over 100 years -- we have a federal anti-lynching law.  And, on Twitter, I saw some people saying things like:

"The act amends the Matthew Shepard and James Byrd Jr. Hate Crimes Prevention Act and prior hate crime laws to define lynching as any conspired bias-motivated offense which results in death or serious bodily injury."

I'm not a law professor or something, but I read the law.  My general impression was that it did two basic things.  It provided a symbolic statement that the federal government has a law against lynching.  

The very name of the act, some of the support/reaction to it, and President Biden's statement after signing it shows this is important.  Laws often are at least somewhat symbolic.  Many laws have a sort of redundant caliber beyond that.  And, I don't begrudge this AT ALL though maybe a resolution of some sort could have functioned the same way.

The other thing it did was extend the penalty to "lynching" (note the definition; the usual understanding of the term would be narrower) to thirty years.  I am not really a big fan of that.  I think we already have laws on the books with long enough sentences.  From what I can tell, the top penalty for the existing federal hate crime law is ten years.  Since a person is likely to be guilty of multiple crimes, that seems enough for me.  

Still, the symbolism of thing matters. I think you will find various people strongly supporting the law (including black people), who will be wary about extending criminal penalties.  But, again, if the person is guilty of multiple crimes as is, net, I'm unsure what this additional penalty will provide at the end of the day.  How much will actual prison time extend?

ANYWAY, noting the phrasing of what the law does, my question (which I posed more than once on Twitter) is this: what exactly does the law actually do?  Are you saying the existing federal hate crime laws did not cover that?  Law professors and defense attorneys can debate, but I still think the point of this thing is symbolic. It is to say there is now a "federal anti-lynching law," after one hundred years. 

And, that is fine!  I am concerned about various things.  It still is important to remember certain basic things are still true.  Details do matter.  This doesn't erase that symbols and basic messaging does as well.  Senator Rand Paul held this up because he carped about details.  As if there was any real chance that without this law the things he worried about couldn't have happened or some more reforms would have.  Go at that! Do more!

Meanwhile, let us learn a bit of history, and remember that the federal government has a role to play.  "Federalism" goes both ways there. 

===

Academy Awards Slap: For the second time in a row, a woman director won the Oscars.  A movie about deaf people (CODA) won for Best Picture.   Dune won a bunch of technicals and a movie about Tammy Faye won for Makeup.  And, cool actress Jessica Chastain won for her role there.  Part of her message was pro-LGBT and "everyone is loved." Nice dream.  

The big news, however, is when Chris Rock (when did he get to be 57?!) was smacked by Will Smith, after Rock made a stupid joke about Smith's wife (who has a hair condition, explaining her so-called "GI Jane" haircut).  Will Smith then, a bit on brand, won Best Actor for his role as a  bombastic dad.  

He got an ovation (when he won) and did apologize. Rock (shocker) said he won't sue/call him to be prosecuted.  Some did strongly criticize Will Smith for using violence like that.  I basically agree with the sentiment though accept the limits of human frailty here given the situation.  

And, it is somewhat trivial, but what is Chris Rock doing introducing Best Documentary?  Seems a curious call.  Turns out -- the movie won -- he was in Summer of Soul, about the Harlem Cultural Festival.  Oh okay. Makes sense.

Some Arts Thoughts (TV, Books, Film)

Friends: I have been watching Friends regularly (including episodes on DVD) for a few years now. I still find some episodes and parts of episodes enjoyable. Some episodes, for some reason, are not run on the Nick at Nite rotation. They appear to generally be on TBS, which I do not pay much attention to (during the day) and I'm not aware of episodes being skipped on CW/local (NYC) Channel 11.  NYPL now has Season 1 on DVD.

[I also watched the series some when it was on though stopped -- as I recall -- when they had a to me forced bit leading up to the Chandler/Monica engagement.  But, watching it again in full a few years ago brought up various new things.  Plus, the DVDs provide bits, including the endings of episodes that Nickelodeon usually cuts, not on the reruns.]

For instance, in the Fourth Season, the very good "Chandler in a Box" (Thanksgiving) and "Joey's Dirty Day" (which introduces Emily) are not shown for some reason. I was annoyed, therefore, the latter was corrupted on my library DVD copy and I could only watch a few minutes. The Fourth Season provides Jennifer Aniston in particular multiple times to show her comic chops. 

Book: I saw Can We Talk About Israel: A Guide for the Curious, Confused and Conflicted  in the White Plains Library.  It is written by Daniel Sokatch, CEO of the social liberally minded New Israel Fund. The book provides a history of Israel basically from the mid-19th Century (with an introduction referencing ancient times) until 2021.  The second half then covers various disputes, such as Israel Arabs, settlements, and so on.  

The liberal minded Jewish writer has a point of view which basically matches my own without the special Jewish connection.  Still, I think the book as a whole (clearly with a point of view) covers a lot of ground in a fairly neutral way.  And, it is a brisk read with useful asides and an appendix to clarify various terms.  It is a good way to get up to speed. 

[There was a lecture in history on C-SPAN this morning that talked about the 1930s.  It turns out to be from a class at Bob Jones University, but other than a couple vague references, you wouldn't know that was the audience. I also see that university -- infamous for once banning interracial dating --  is in South Carolina.  For some reason, I thought it was in another state.]

I would just note one thing that stands out for me. Settlements are a poison. Now, maybe like some poisons, we are somehow stuck with them. But, they are poison to the peace process.  Settlements expanded like locusts (or wildfire if you want) with hundreds of thousands on a chunk of the West Bank.  There were much fewer in Gaza and Sinai, allowing Israel to get out of each (in a fashion).  How can you have a "two state solution" with settlements dominating a majority of the land in the West Bank?  

Finishing, also one thing not really covered in depth (though it is sorta alluded to) is the controversy about how "Jewish" the  country should be.  That is, specifically, the power of religion in a state that is in theory still one that honors freedom of religion.  And, some conflicts between more secular Jews and those who support more strict rules. This probably warranted its own chapter in the "issue" section. 

A basic issue is marriage.  Check out this FAQ:

With very few exceptions, Israeli civil law does not permit marriages between Jews and non-Jews within the state of Israel. The Israeli government will recognize marriages performed between Israeli Jewish citizens and non-Jews that are performed outside of Israel. Israeli law does permit marriages in Israel between converts.

They do recognize marriages that occur outside of Israel.  It is sort of like New York before Obergefell  recognizing same sex marriages while not actually performing them. And, what about marriages in occupied territories involving people not actually Israeli citizens?  This might be the most blatant case, but there are other issues where the power of religious leaders and religious groups (such as exemptions from military service and extremists in settlements) are controversial.

Academy Awards: Today are the Academy Awards, but (only partially) because of COVID, I have not actually been in a movie theater since early 2020.  I have not seen these movies and only want to see a few (The Ricardos being one that I might like).  As I noted in the past, the Academy Awards used to be much bigger for me.  Now, it is not really for me. 

I saw some of the Tammy Faye movie on DVD.  I think Jessica Chastain did a pretty good job, but got bored with it.  Cyrano (the big nose guy one if this time by a small guy) also looks interesting.  One best film nominee, Drive My Car (first time I heard of it), also sounds intriguing.  But, again, don't know or really care about these films. 

[Jessica Chastain and Drive My Car (for foreign film) both won.]

Perfect Pie: I was searching names and an early film of Rachel McAdams (The Notebook etc.), which also has another favorite of mine, Alison Pill also in a small role, popped up.  The two play the adult two women as teenagers.  This clip, which doesn't easily come up when I tried to attach it to this post via the video search option, is pretty good.  

A comment explaining the clip notes the two adult actors also played Susan in the television versions of the Robert B. Parker novels.  I actually watched some episodes of the series (if not the t.v. movies) and read many of the books (the character continued by others after the author's death).  

The books, and the author wrote this once in an article, was more "macho" than the series.  That isn't too surprising.  It did a better job than the V.I. movie, with Kathleen Turner simply not appropriate (if doing okay) for the role.

Saturday News: Academy Awards and Abortion

Rita Moreno is covered in an article that is part of various looks as we approach the Academy Awards. I used to be a big fan though as with my general interest in going to the movies, eventually no longer really paid it much mind. I have not really watched it for a while. It doesn't help that I see nearly none of the films.

Rita Moreno, who I saw on Colbert some months back (she is one of those actors around 90 who look great), was a pioneer as the first Latina who won an Academy Award. Sixty years later, she was involved in the latest version of West Side Story. It's on cable now, so maybe I'll check it out. 

The article is silly at one point by censoring a quote (can we allow a 90 year old to use a curse word?) with [expletive].  Come on.  

===

The Texas Supreme Court (the NYT article notes they are all Republicans -- hope Breyer doesn't cry) hold SB8 "ties their hands" and they just have to say that it does not allow lawsuits.  Private civil action alone is authorized. The argument was that in actuality various public officials are involved in one way or another, including health authorities. 

The 5th Cir. Court of Appeals, with the U.S. Supreme Court looking on, sent the matter back to them to settle this issue.  Or, something of that nature -- the article does not talk about this, but it sounds like the issue that was sent back to the state court to decide.  And, another article does cite that.  See also.

It all is bullshit to me -- the courts are being used (not purely private) and it very well changes the actions of multiple public officials, even if it is a creative lie that allows some bullshit claim of non-public involvement.  State officials can have their cake (hands off) and eat it too (this is a great moment for pro-life!). 

The article notes the courts have "failed," but I would say more than that.  I found this law professor as an example of the sort of not showing the right amount of strong reaction given the stakes.  

I realize the whole "wrong person on the Internet" issue, but it can also serve as a platform for a reaction.  My general reason for being upset at this person is that the whole thing seems like an interesting academic problem to him.  And, his blog comments are off even on that level at times.

He once compared it to the NYT v. Sullivan case (major libel case involving civil rights), which bothered me since the two things aren't comparable in a real world sense.  I note the person is an enthusiastic supporter of free speech, at times in ways that to me seem a tad overheated.  So, e.g., it bothers him rather much when a sports stadium wants to stop what is seen as offensive fan reactions.  That riles him up.  This is a sort of word problem.  You don't see the same reaction.  It's offensive. 

The case there was troublesome for the paper (and certain people who signed the ad in question) as the issue was litigated.  This is standard on some level.  But, it is not as if reporting of the civil rights movement stopped.  The threat on the ground to abortion services is much greater here.  Also, the libel suit was nefarious, sure, but in a basic way followed normal legal rules.  This case is upsetting to people in part since the legal system is being altered (the procedural road blocks in fact bother some on principle, aside from the abortion rights issue).  Again, the two are not the same.  It bothered me that he made the comparison. 

Data released in February shows that the Texas law cut the number of abortions in the state by 60 percent. Planned Parenthood clinics in neighboring states have reported an 800 percent increase in women seeking abortions. But that avenue, too, is likely to close soon.

For instance, Oklahoma (a bordering state) passed a six week ban. Missouri, as we have seen, is thinking about addressing out of state abortions too.  The best bet might be New Mexico and (rather ironically) perhaps Mexico, since its Supreme Court recently protected abortion rights.  The travel to other states underlines the national effects of such laws and why we should have one, equal, national right to choose.

And, we will soon have a ruling by the Supreme Court, a ruling that will be fucking illegitimate on a basic level.  The Supreme Court, however, with their sixth corrupt vote, decided to rush things along by letting Texas nullify constitutional rights.  It could not just hold things up, knowing they had the votes to do so in June, but do this.  It was patently corrupt. 

The courts alone did not fail us.  The Biden Administration did try, suing Texas.  The Supreme Court blocked the lawsuit without deigning to even fucking explain themselves. There wasn't even a fucking dissent -- Sotomayor dissented without opinion, using her spleen elsewhere repeatedly.  Which is great, but the issue of executive power to enforce constitutional rights was a separate issue that warranted comment.  

One legal journalist offered the idea of some sort of federal abortion doctors though I still don't know how it would have gotten around the Hyde Amendment.  No matter how cute, there would have been some sort of federal funds involved.  Letting abortions be performed on federal military bases or something simply is not allowed under the current law generally.  

The Democrats tried to pass a national abortion rights bill. Two didn't go along.  Collins and Murkowski, complaining about the size of a hose while the house is on fire, didn't support even debate.  Not that it would have mattered with the filibuster.  But, it underlined their lack of true concern regarding abortion rights in the face of the flames.

The sixty percent citation above is notable  Abortion, full stop, is not nullified as a right in Texas.  A significant amount of people have abortions very early in the pregnancy.  So early that, depending on the counting, they can get in within six weeks.  It is probably that a more closely enforced (including via lawsuit) law would reduce even that 40% number.  Still, Texas is the second most populous state. Even half of that is significant. 

SB8 is a type of slow burn -- the burning is taking over six months, but flames are apparent all the same.  Not enough was done in response, noting we do have so much more to keep our attention.  

While the Republicans rallying around symbolic end federal vaccine mandate votes (failing 49-50 on party lines the other day before an omnibus spending bill was passed), more and more efforts of involuntary servitude are being made.  

Some efforts are particularly bad.  They show the excited passions and excitement of the moment.  Meanwhile, so many fail to care. 

A couple of books

The big news this week was the Oscars (not much interest) and Biden's Address to Congress (see brief remark in Supreme Court wrap-up tomorrow).

I had various false starts book-wise and wound up re-reading Robert Kennedy's short book on the Cuban Missile Crisis (more of an uncompleted manuscript with an extended postscript commentary by two others), Thirteen Days. Years ago, I also saw the movie with Kevin Costner playing a supporting character. The book is a basic under 100 page account that would make good high school reading. The prologue written years later noted things actually was more on edge than was actually assumed at the time.

I watched Elizabeth Becker on C-SPAN discuss her book You Don't Belong Here: How Three Women Re-Wrote the Story of War. That subtitle might promise too much, but it is a well written account of three journalistic pioneers during the Vietnam War. In the process, we also learn a lot about the conflict itself. So, it's a two-fer. The author herself also eventually reported on an aspect of the conflict.

TV Update

I finished the first complete swing thru Friends DVDs last May, buying the last set since the NYPL was closed (also the first earlier since they don't have it). Now there is a later version out there with a bit more material. I'm on the second run now. Skipping more, but still enjoying it, both on a comfort level but at times still laughing or being touched.

Again, I think the last two seasons could have been one, and the Joey "marries" Rachel subplot was forced (also to expand the double episode to end the 8th season -- which I just watched -- they tossed in a "who cares" subplot involving Phoebe). If not as bad as the Rachel likes Joey subplot to fill space later. In a later 8th season episode, Phoebe reads tea leaves that she will find her true love. This happens (with a fairly boring person, which sorta fits her character wanting realiability, but is boring) in the 9th season.

The Sven movie was Gargoyles. The first hour or so was pretty good (it was actually a t.v. movie), but found the last third sorta lame. Today is also the Oscars, which when I used to steadily go to the movies, was something I often enjoyed. Haven't really cared for some time. The film (Little Women) I managed to watch last year before the Big V actually won something. This year? I am at best familiar with some of the movies. I'm sorta curious about Minari. Jon Batiste of Colbert [did] win for his soundtrack work.

Oscars

Seem early this year. I used to like the Oscars a lot including going thru the nominees though then used to go to the movies regularly too. No host alone seems off. And, look at this list that is supposed to show how there were a lot of good movies. Really don't want to see most of them though someone told me Parasite was quite good and I reserved two of them. Did enjoy Little Women and think Florence Pugh has a shot of winning for her role. The director should have been nominated. But, the field does little for me. So, really have little to say.

ETA: Laura Dern, who plays her mom, won but for a different film. Interesting Best Picture: Parasite, the first foreign language film to so win. On some level, not a gigantic surprise with the expanded selection, some dubious choices and it getting a lot of good reviews.

Bunch of News ...

(This was so detailed that for the first time ever I had an error message regarding using too many characters for labels!)

Some people badmouth Twitter, but it has value (various superior content) and you can have fun with it (celebrity accounts etc.).  A problem it has, but the same can be said about the 24/7 media cycle and blogs, is that you can be overwhelmed with things happening all the time.  Back in the c. 1990, I was a consistent reader of various publications (easy access via a convenient local library near my college) on a daily/weekly basis.  But, such constant updates wasn't a thing (did not even have CNN for a while).  The other issue are all those comments, many of them dubious, but it's amusing really that comments on a blog complains about something like that.

===

I admit to being addicted to this stuff -- again, I was a ready consumer of news when there was less of it.  Spend too much time on Twitter.  But, there is a lot of stuff happening.  For instance, the Virginia legislature this week ratified the ERA.  In theory, they are the final vote, but reality is a tad more complicated.  One place this was hashed over was over here, this being just one of many comments on the matter.  Simply put, the likely deciding factor here is going to be Congress.  And, it very well might be something that ultimately will be decided there after the elections, so this might be a factor in them to some extent. What you say Biden et. al.?

The question mark is the U.S. Senate and it isn't quite as dark probably as some might think long term.  There is also the question of what effect it will all have even if it is ratified. This sort of badmouthing of the effort is misguided. An amendment in bold type, so to speak, can help the efforts made in the trenches.  It also is an interesting question of "originalism" -- what would the congressional debate tell us?  Some think state ratification bodies matter as much or more.  Do the last three votes change the equation here, in part given they are viewing things in a "modern day" light with long Supreme Court equal protection precedents and current day conflicts in mind?  Or, maybe it is back to Congress, including the talk if they extend the deadline?

===

Of course, we have a more immediate constitutional moment: the impeachment trial began on Thursday.  The early moments underlines the whole thing is rather ceremonial, including walking the impeachment articles to the Senate (an argument can be made that this was necessary to "finalize" impeachment -- that is done though some use "impeach" to mean removal), Rep. Schiff (lead manager; Rep. Amash was not asked -- understand playing it safe but think he might have been a good addition to show it isn't just partisan -- though he was open to the idea) reading the articles to the Senate and escorting Chief Justice Roberts over.

I respect such ceremony though at times think we overdo this sort of thing and personally am not a fan of drawn out affairs.  It's a moot point, but if I was ever married, I would prefer a small ceremony if not simply eloping.  Impeachment to me is very important, including long term, and seeing Schiff read out those impeachment articles was somewhat emotional to me. There is a lie that Democrats are not patriotic or religious, but the evidence is ever present that they are.  As someone noted in this thread discussing VP Pence's Pence-like op-ed claiming being a profile in courage means Democrats voting to acquit (Sen. West Virginia nodding his head?), the true profiles in courage here were long term public servants (more than one leaning Republican) who testified and spoke out because of a sense of public duty.  That's a thing.  It isn't just smoke in this cynical world.

Pelosi handled this all rather well, including drawing out sending out the articles over to the Senate to play for time and put pressure on Republicans to show some credibility about making it an actual trial.  Not only did we have Lev Parnas "testify" on two national talk shows -- take his remarks with all the salt you want, but we should hear from him and it puts pressure on Republicans for more, he has receipts and there are ways to judge the validity of his remarks -- but a GAO report came out just on time to show Trump broke the law (other than you know bribery et. al.) by withholding funds.  I stick by my desire for a comprehensive impeachment inquiry that would have basically allowed the same thing to occur.  But, Pelosi is going to be a hard act to follow.  Women leaders, how about them?

Anyway, there is some hope that Roberts will somehow help justice along here, but that doesn't really seem his m.o.  Plus, historically, a presiding officer (remember for other impeachments it would be the vice president or their replacement, not such a judicial officer) here had little power.  Chase tried to push the envelope and was pushed back.  Precedent only takes us so far, but the whole ball of wax regarding interpreting the function here suggests it was valid. The nature of the presiding officer here does suggest something extra.  Roberts only presided over the swearing in ("impartial justice" separate oath) and the like on Thursday.  It was a bit weird to see him being sworn in by the Republican pro tempore.

The trial will come back on Tuesday and meanwhile both sides have time for briefs and such.  In that Pence thread, I summarized the Trump legal team, overstocked with troll bait.  The Trump side submitted more b.s. (starting with the "Honorable" Donald J. Trump heading) including calling the articles "constitutionally invalid." Usual overheated ("absolutely nothing wrong") rhetoric included in rather abbreviated form.  A certain level of disdain there.  Republicans want him in office until January 2025. Meanwhile, the House brief is an impressive over 100 page affair.

[A much longer Trump legal memorandum came out on Monday and from the overheated executive summary on is much the same basically including partisan potshots -- "House Democrats" (not "the House") are just making shit up as part of a partisan witch hunt -- mixed with the usual b.s. like talk of due process, ridiculously limited view of what impeachment covers and the inability to admit anything - "absolutely" innocent -- was done incorrectly.]

===

There were various things that occurred the last week that pop up in our continuing crazy news cycle.  A "fu" that underlines how horrible Trump being in power is and how it will poison us for years was a lower court opinion that was a gratuitous denial of a trans prisoner's request for female pronouns.  Friday this term also has repeatedly been a time to wait until mid to late afternoon to see what the Supreme Court did.  So, this time, before the holiday, it took three set of cases -- a personal jurisdiction matter, something involving "faithless" electors (and still no Third Amendment case?!  how about a grand jury incorporation case?)  and a third go-around on the contraceptive mandate (there was a 1B of sorts that included a strong Sotomayor dissent).  And, among the other "ugh" Trump news, a special owning the libs move on Michelle Obama's birthday (what? that's just a coincidence!).

===

Let's not just talk about politics.  The Oscars nominations came out (early February ceremony? seems a bit early) and the Best Picture nominations in particular seem more lacking than usual (plus other concerns like the Little Women director not being nominated).  I have not been into films in the movies for a few years now at least so the Oscars weren't really my thing as it used to be in the past.  But, 2019 seems to be something of an off year there to some degree looking at the options.  The reviews of multiple "best" films had a lot of middling reactions at the very least.  The only thing that really stands out for me is that I think there is a decent bet that the supporting actress in Little Women will win it.

Everything You Need To Know About The Current State Of Major League Baseball As Told By Mean Girls pic.twitter.com/2HrKoY0yJc

— Julia (@jquadddddd) January 17, 2020

Plus, there is the whole Mets (ugh their GM/owners) thing with Beltran being let go (after a drawn out secretive contemplation) given his role (still a tad hazy though I found an early report when it first came out that it was notable -- the report did single him out by name,  which is either unfair or a red flag) in the Astros scandal.  As I quickly noted earlier, some didn't care about the cheating, but personally appreciate some serious consequences occurred.  Beltran's stand-out role here to me makes it problematic -- at least right away -- to retain him as manager.

And, even Mets radio broadcaster Howie Rose's (and major Mets cheerleader/social media person) daughter said letting him go was the right move.  That video is impressive with a funny kicker that the person involved found amusing.  We are left to determining who will be the manager with pitchers/catchers coming in weeks away.  Probably will pick one of the back-up options with some connection to the team.  I prefer a veteran manager myself and at least one might fill in the Astros/Red Sox manager vacancies arising from this mess.

2020 starting well ...

Oscars and Supreme Court Watch

Didn't see the beginning, but the second half of The Oscars was pretty good and guess not having a host isn't a big deal. (Maybe, just have some representative introduce it briefly?) with many nice black, women, gay/lesbian friendly moments. And, then they had to ruin it by ending with Green Book winning? Oh well. Meanwhile, the Supreme Court in a brief per curiam (Sotomayor concurring without opinion) says you can't count a judge's vote after they died, even if the panel "decided" beforehand. Seems right though maybe merited a bit more contemplation. Also, district court held all male draft unconstitutional. RBG smiles.

ETA: I saw Juliet, Naked (no nudity) on demand and liked it. Rose Byrne very good. [To add two more.] Saw I am Not Your Negro on DVD; well, half of it -- it seemed a bit rambling and half of it gave a good feel of the general tenor. Good. Saw the lead of the foreign film Two Lives in other films (such as Nowhere in Africa) and that too was a half movie watch. Have less patience these days. Half was good; skipped to ending tbh. Felt a tad obligatory.

Band Aid: Good concept & film

Flipping thru the channels, saw this listed and then the lead actress (among other things!) referenced it during her appearance on Colbert. Free on demand; it was good, including her songs with a serious edge. BTW, a key moment was a big fight in the bedroom and she was topless. It was suitable for the scene; nudity sometimes is though so is male nudity!

ETA: I also read Gigi, Julie de Carneilhan, and Chance Acquaintances (my copy had all three) by Colette after Gigi was again on t.v. The first is like a condensed version of the musical and kinda a pleasant trifle told from various points of view. The middle is longer and in one p.o.v. and was tedious after a while. The last was something of a trifle and felt it could be half as long but it was pleasant enough (first person narrator based on author).

And More: Didn't watch the Oscars & not really into the stuff getting the most attention.

89th Oscars: No Really, Moonlight Won

It was Moonlight's night (insert joke about final f-up) though other films (including Hacksaw Ridge; Hidden Figures excepted, though good cameo by one of the actual women) received nods. Casey Affleck deserved his win though some thought Denzel Washington would get it; but darn man, it was fairly expected -- be a bit prepared. Jimmy Kimmel was a bland host and it's time for someone good, preferably a woman. Extra bits overall lame.

And Also: Think La La Land got a bit too much love and didn't like Zootopia (one of those early in the year films you forgot about); will check out various wins/nominations including Moonlight. Apt statement by foreign film winner; tbh, Viola Davis was a tad much.

Spotlight

Overall, liked this movie though it seemed a bit off at first -- like we were coming in a few minutes late to an ongoing investigation of the Church. But, that was okay and it was a good ensemble cast -- cf. this to The Big Short as a film, and you can see why it won an Oscar for Best Picture. Catholicism has a lot going for it, but it's pretty f-ed up too.

Where's All The Black People At? (apologies to Blazing Saddles!)

I used to consistently watch the Oscars but now watch much fewer movies in theaters, not a big fan of the host and the whole "they are all white" thing is a bit off. Won't watch them tonight though it isn't some sort of "boycott." Of the films, The Martian was disappointing, The Big Short good but didn't quite work with all that info as a movie and sorry was really bored with Inside Out. Opening to Bridge of Spies really bored me; decided to stick to the book. None of the other things stand out at first blush. Have yet to see Brooklyn though.

Update: The Big Short got a deserved writing award with Spotlight getting the picture slot in a film that sounds like it is better as a complete movie. Brie Larson got actress for a kidnap victim. Don't care about Leo's movie. This is ironic funny but sort of inside baseball (Stacey Dash is a FOX commentator, so a funny "black voice" to use and the type "they" would use.)

Saturday TV/Films

Yesterday, Today and Tomorrow is an Academy Award winning 1960s Sophia Loren film in which the leads play different roles in three stories. The first is amusing and overall well done (including in portraying a poor town in Italy) but found the other two somewhat lacking. The second is very talky and the leads not appalling. The final with the famous stripping scene is okay, but also found it overly talky and the finale is let's say interrupted. Talk about false advertising!  Overall, though I can see nominating either lead, the picture as a whole isn't really "best picture." 

Night of the Lepus is clearly to be put to a different standard, but it fails that as well.  This time we are dealing with a cheesy animals go wild film from the early 1970s (oh look! it's Bones from Star Trek as a somewhat long-haired college president).  "Lepus" as in rabbits.  The set-up is fair enough, including Janet Leigh looking a bit dumpy as a mom/assistant to a researcher who should keep better watch on her daughter.  The big rabbits look cheap, but that's part of the fun. The problem is that by about an hour in, there isn't much more to do.  And, various people look a tad bored. Perhaps, if it was like twenty minutes shorter.*

Rory Calhoun would later continue his bad film efforts by being in two Angel films in the 1980s, the first one at least again a disappointing effort even on a fun bad film level (star teen pupil by day, prostitute who apparently never really has sex at night; saw parts on YouTube, got bored). I watched parts of this film during the Svengoolie film partially since the one on was a rerun.  If they had the rights, this would be a good film for that old monster movie block though when I suggested this on Twitter, the host tweeted back that they didn't get it since "the rabbit died."

I checked the re-airing of the Good Witch episode though probably would have had a better time than watching the Mets game.  Well, it would have been less depressing.  Realize it is only the beginning of the season, but we already have injuries (though a couple youngsters had very good outings early on) and the closer is out for a 1/2 year (not just a few weeks because of injuries) because he failed a steroids test.  Lost a half year salary, but he assures us (though he accepts the punishment) he simply doesn't know what happened.  Oh, and he won't be qualified for the playoffs. Oh no!

Good Witch, after a somewhat promising start -- again, low bar, here as a pleasant Hallmark Channel experience -- has been something of a disappointment as a series.  There is not enough "witchy" stuff and plot generally -- it is generally boring though I like the overall set-up and leads enough that give it a lot of rope. Plus, again, you don't expect much, so not too much is needed to enjoy it for what it is.  This is true about various things and it is a shame when even lower expectations (to cite an old MADtv bit) are not met.  The lead's 1990s soft porn guest appearance was on the other night though.  Naughty naughty.

Two quick comments. Got bored of iZombie though can see some people finding it a pleasant enough time waster.  Also, disappointed in the new style of the second season of I Didn't Do It.  It was an at times rather amusing and fun show; now it is a basically boring teen show without its former flavor.  Let's see how Veep (now somewhat misnamed) does tonight.

---

* It is allegedly based on a great sounding book in which the messed up rabbits actually are only a subplot. The charm of these films often are how cheesy they are, but this has the case of the borings.

Still, there are highlights, like when our hero tries to flag down a car by waving a shotgun in the air (the father in the car sensibly sticks to a no hitchhikers policy, especially those with guns) and then tosses it away after the failed attempt.  Might want to have that with killer rabbits around.  There is also the time when a policeman warns people at a drive-in:

"There is a herd of giant killer bunnies coming this way, and we need your help!"

This being the early 1970s and all, this doesn't faze them any more than when the sheriff heard about the killer rabbits or apparently when the National Guard is called in -- "hey should we like check if this guy is for real? nah!"  A scene involving two leads going into mine armed with a not very good flashlight and shotgun also had "you are too stupid, you deserve to die" written all over it.  Still, got to say, got pretty boring.  

Academy Award Fodder? Yawn!

Okay, so I turned off both Zero Dark Thirty and Life of Pi, watching about an hour combined, bored in both cases. Still I could determine how the torture scenes were used in one (mixed message) and where he got his name in the other. So, it wasn't a total loss.

Academy Awards

Missed the first hour or so, but rest sorta blah. Some better moments: a cute one for Man On Wire (e.g., a coin trick), touching (Heath Ledger's family, makeup), nice (documentary short feature) and a real surprise -- Sean Penn winning. Good speech. The intro of the best actors and actresses was a bit much, if sorta touching. The host did not do much. Still don't want to see Slumdog. The Joaquin Phoenix bit worked well. And, now with previews!

The Reader (Spoiler)

And Also: By chance, the author of Greasy Rider went to the same college as the woman in this sad story.

The film has Ralph Fiennes (The English Patient/The Constant Gardener) and Kate Winslet (due for an Academy Award by now, huh?), a Holocaust subplot, an extended plot, and an oh so serious reason to watch Kate naked (a specialty for her), so why not nominate it for Best Picture? Sure, the movie unfortunately is not as a whole that good, but people said that for one or more of the other nominees too, right? It would have helped if boring Fiennes wasn't the true center of the film. Lena Olin, who in effect has a cameo, was more interesting. Blah.

[BTW, one of the several producers of the film was Sydney Pollack, who will not be up there if the movie wins for Best Picture. Except perhaps in spirit.]

The film starts unpromisingly -- an oh so arch setting of an egg in a holder and coffee being poured. Those English ... wait he's German ... hold their emotions in, huh? Well, if you slept with a Nazi war criminal as a teenager (even if you didn't know it at the time), you might have had problems too. The movie's sexy side does pop up when we soon see the nice backside of his current lover. Who we never see again. Great role, that! I reckon if you had Kate Winslet, even if she was in that life an illiterate ticket clerk, as an instructor, you'd find good mates too. Even if you were something of a cold fish.

That part of the film, whatever the symbolism etc., is -- let's be honest -- teenage boy fantasy material. Now, I'm all for serious portrayals of sexuality, and good for Kate to have taken some chances on that front. But, still, I could not totally take the teenage boy / thirty-something woman affair too seriously. It didn't help that even the guy who played the younger Michael Berg character was just not that interesting. I glanced at the book, and it was not just a first person narrative (the movie has a few scenes just of Kate, but it is clearly Ralph's show), so we get a window into her perspective more so than here. OTOH, this movie focuses too much on a somewhat boring character, his story going in fits and starts aside from the key plot points.*

The book and movie clearly has various messages about evil, emotions, reading (some sort of metaphor that she learns how to read in prison as compared to be read to earlier, probably, but the movie didn't really sell it that much) etc. that has promising dramatic implications. I plan to read the book, so might determine if it did a better job (it was originally in German). But, though the movie has some good stuff -- the affair has some spark, the court and prison scenes do as well etc. -- it does not work as a whole. Some really didn't much care for it. I would give it a mixed grade. Definitely slips later on.

Probably worth watching, especially for fans of Kate Winslet (not just her body), but not Best Picture caliber. Wall-E would have been a better fit for the fifth spot or maybe some lesser known film of the "nice enough to be nominated" category. This seems more of the "hey Ralph Fiennes is in it and its oh so serious!" category. Too pretentious.

---

* For instance, suddenly he is divorced with a small child. Then, he starts sending audiotapes to Hannah in prison. We really don't know why. Oh, a key decision by law school Michael also was a major weenie move. Even if understandable, it added to the character's blah quality.