Outside of terrorism and foreign affairs, the most pressing pieces in Congress under full Republican control is the pending Medicare and Energy Bills. Both are flawed, rushed, and seen as fundamentally necessary for the political future of the President. This results in a general mess that I rail about here. Seriously, the substantive problems with the legislation aside (too much in this mega-legislation even for me to handle, really), the process and political motivations involved are what really trouble me. Similar things can be said about the whole judicial appointment mess.

---

David Brooks manages to sound crass even when he is basically on the right side. His latest column puts forth the conservative (yes, he puts himself in that camp) case for same sex marriage, which also is contemplated via a somewhat different perspective here.

You get a feeling this column might be a bit off early on: "Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations." Okay, David, do you have exact numbers here? How about if you have two partners? Will three lead you down to the road to perdition? Now, spiritual suicide might be deemed worth it and all, but just curious.

He also gets a dig at liberals, who apparently see the issue as one of economic benefits or just another civil right entitlement program. Brooks, however, takes a somewhat strong view: "We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity." At some point, this all becomes not just unsavory, but just plain dangerous. It is quite nice that Brooks sees that quite a few things threaten marriage today, same sex unions is at best at the bottom of the pile, and marriage is a quite beneficial (better yet fundamental) institution. All the same, this mandatory marriage sentiment is just too much. Marriage is not always great Brooks, and you and your conservative pals do not have the right to insist on how people live their lives.

---

Blue Gate Crossing, a teen drama from Taiwan has a timely subplot. The film concerns a triangle formed by two best friends, one of whom likes a boy on the swim team, but is too shy to tell him. This leads to complications when the boy thinks the other one likes him, which is fine with him, since he likes her. Unfortunately, not only doesn't she (at least romantically), but she secretly likes her friend. A basic little story told in a gentle and thoughtful way with very good performances by all the leads. It is unfortunate that more teens are not liable to go to a film (if they could find it) with subtitles, since there are not enough films of this sort for teenagers. Oh, we do have the WB, but this film actually has a real life feel to it.

---

The FBI is worried about anti-war protesters. I'm worried about the First Amendment.

"Rational Basis" is the test that the Massachusetts Supreme judicial Court [as compared to its Supreme Executive Court?] argued that the ban on same sex marriages did not meet. See, for instance, the discussion in this debate on the subject currently found in the New Republic. The reply is that it is "reasonable" (if not necessarily correct) or "rational" to argue that special benefits to heterosexual couples (e.g., marriage) further the states' interest in advancing the best way to raise children (i.e., via a man and a woman, preferably by natural means). I think this makes a valid point, but obviously, it depends on what you mean by "rational basis." Clearly, if this was some law regulating widgets, the test would be less strict.

Let's be honest here. Justice Rehnquist sometimes asks when an advocate talks about how a law is "irrational," if s/he means the legislators who wrote it were basically crazy or something. The comment is not only used by conservatives; John Hart Ely (recently deceased) also often noted that it is rather hard to think of a truly irrational law. The only reason a law is not "rational" is because certain interests are deemed illegitimate or the burden inflicted is deemed to harm a protected class or fundamental right. And, this is exactly what is at stake here: classification by sexual orientation and sex/gender is treated differently than classification by say intelligence, and marriage is fundamental civil right. So, the obstacles the state has to climb over might not be "strict" (really hard, as if free speech was at stake), it is more than "rational basis." I'd call it (no, I didn't originate the term) "rational basis plus."

The habit of pretending or assuming things are less complex than they really are is not just present in cases like this. For instance, many think the President's general practice is to act irrationally. This leads to people arguing that on subjects like invading Iraq that there is some method to his madness. And, the critics look silly. The better path is to show that your opponents' arguments are on balance unreasonable or problematic. For instance, if you think a "compelling" case is needed to go to war, maybe the case was mixed, but not compelling. You need not exaggerate either side (those totally assured of their validity are leading themselves to the path of ruin or the misguided assurance they denounce in their foes) to win in the end. In fact, you very well might do a better job not doing so.

And, so would be the case in the same sex marriage case ... yes, in some way perhaps the discrimination is rational or enough so that the courts should not second guess the legislature. All the same, given the interests at stake, this is not enough. A closer, but not even a very close, look will show the state's case is a bit too weak to pass muster. Or maybe not ... but this is what is really being done here, and it is misguided to pretend otherwise.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is a documentary concerning a coup attempt in 2002 against the controversial populist leader in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. The film does not really do a great job putting the coup in context, though it does give you an idea why Chavez was so popular (the documentary was originally going to be about Chavez himself, but then the coup happened while they were down there). The official site alone supplies a timeline of the coup that suggests a complexity not supplied in the film itself. All the same, the documentary gives one an amazing "you are there" look at how the government was seized, misinformation sent, and (this appears to be rare overall) the official government was able to seize back power in the end. It must have been amazing to be a part of it all.

And, though the movie just hints at it, it was not a high point of the Bush Presidency when it at first made noises supporting the coup, accepted (according to the documentary's take) misinformation, and was not that concerned that a democratically supported government was overturned. This probably did not invite good feelings when Chavez returned to power a couple days later.

Thoughts: More on the Same Sex Marriage Decision, Feith Memo on Al Qaeda links (link to Talking Points Memo, see also, BTC News today), a response to comments on juries determining sanity, and to thoughtful comments on dividing the Ninth Circuit and judicial nomination wars per se.

[Update: I got some interesting replies to my Same Sex Marriage Post, many in opposition, leading me to try to defend my case. I was clearly annoyed with some of the arguments, since they went much further than the case at issue, and were on some level just plain wrong. Still, I understand the argument against judicial involvement, but basic equality is at stake here. The argument (or fear) that the net result will be a backlash is understandable as well, though is not the state involved more liberal than most? And, back in the 1940s, a California court struck down a miscegenation law, long before the Supreme Court did. The sky did not fall. Perhaps, the public debate (yes, even in an election year) this forces is a good thing.

On the other hand, another reply reflected the fact that many are deep down willing to accept equity for homosexuals, but are hesitant to "legitimatize" them. Thus, perhaps, "marriage" is a too culturally laden term, and the Vermont "domestic unions" path is a better way to go. Cultural acceptance cannot be supplied by the courts, only legal rights, and "marriage" is as symbolic/cultural as it is legal. I hope this would be acceptable to the court, especially since their is rumblings of a constitutional amendment to overrule the decision.

Finally, one reply supplied an interesting reason against the ruling ... I didn't buy it, but interesting all the same. It was a natural law argument, but that can be used to support the ruling too. It is only selective argument that allows natural law or religion to only be used to oppose this sort of thing.]

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Ban on Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional: "Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law." (ruling) (see also here and here (Nov. 18) and some good news articles here)

How do we judge such a decision? One important thing to do is to note that it is a state law decision, one that factored in state constitutional commands and practices. For instance, other states do not have similar anti-discrimination laws and acceptance of same sex couple adoptions. Or they might have explicitly anti-homosexual clauses in their constitutions (as Hawaii, recently amended, does). Likewise, there is a fear that such rulings will spread, like some kind of contagion (horrors!). Thus, the latter link argues that it will encourage a federal marriage amendment (aka a federal marriage discrimination amendment), which will inhibit legislative and societal change. Of course, there is no guarantee (especially given the Defense of Marriage Act) that other states will have to accept gay marriages authorized by other states, and even Massachusetts can amend its constitution to stop state decisions of this sort. But, yes, hysteria is a possible consequence, especially in areas where anti-gay religious sentiment dominates.

Rulings such as these make sense and use reasonable application of basic constitutional themes. The best way to go is a "take it slow" technique, and the Court did give the state six months to respond. Furthermore, Massachusetts is a fairly liberal state (Vermont, where this also basically occurred, is libertarian; Hawaii is liberal as well), so it has that going for it as well. Still, it is troubling when a major change of this sort occurs via a 4-3 ruling, the minority arguing that child rearing concerns are valid enough to justify the classification and that equal deprivation is not a violation of equal protection (both men and women must marry the opposite sex and no matter what sexual orientation you are, you can marry). I find such reasoning a tad bit specious (to put it mildly), but remember Loving v. Virginia (laws against miscegenation are unconstitutional) was unanimous.

We also have the "slippery slope" sort of arguments that we heard when the Supreme Court barred laws against homosexual sodomy. Mostly tedious though broadly reasonable in a "taken to its logical conclusion, if the world actually worked that way" way. For instance, "see, anti-discrimination laws, including the ERA, can be read to justify and/or assist homosexuals, including homosexual marriage." Yes, one stone of the wall and only the concurrence focused on equal protection of sex/gender. The concurrence was correct to argue that discrimination by sexual orientation usually results in discrimination by sex, partly because the latter is based on sexual stereotypes. It is not a broadly accepted view all the same.

As to the argument that now multiple marriages and incestuous marriages, explain to me how discrimination by sexual orientation is valid comparably as discrimination by those two criteria. For instance, where is the acceptance and anti-discrimination laws of such conduct? Yes, some religions (such as dissident Mormon sects) support polygamy and some forms of incest are rather tenuous (how about fifth cousins?), but it does not take too much to differentiate them from same sex relationships. Many support a basic right of privacy or individual liberty, even those against homosexual marriage, even though it might taken to its logical conclusion involve consensual use of drugs. Protections would be mightily limited if slippery slopes ruled the day, no matter what side you are on. [For instance, if you are against abortion, why allow it for woman's health?]

Massachusetts' constitution logically was read to ban discrimination. The state was given six months to adapt, though apparently (see today's discussion of the case here) there is not enough time to amend the document, which is troubling. All the same, the ruling was a good one, though the response might not be. All the same, naive as it might be, I share the sentiment of the concurrence:

"I am hopeful that our decision will be accepted by those thoughtful citizens who believe that same-sex unions should not be approved by the State. I am not referring here to acceptance in the sense of grudging acknowledgment of the court's authority to adjudicate the matter. My hope is more liberating. The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. As pointed out by the court, their professions include investment advisor, computer engineer, teacher, therapist, and lawyer. The plaintiffs volunteer in our schools, worship beside us in our religious houses, and have children who play with our children, to mention just a few ordinary daily contacts. We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do."

[Update: Looking at the news coverage, we find out that: "President Bush denounced Tuesday's ruling. 'Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,' he said in London. 'Today's decision ... violates this important principle.'" This was not surprising, but even if you agree with it, look at it a bit closely. Is it really the state's role to determine what is "sacred?" I don't think so. Does the President think those religions that do feel same sex marriages are 'sacred,' are wrong and have no right to be honored by the state? Does he have a set of guidelines to determine what is and is not sacred? Just curious. As the ruling said, when it boils down to it, we are talking about a licensing statute. The sacred nature of the marriage is a private religious matter, one arguably often not present is marriages today or in the past.]

Republican Dissent and Rumblings re Iraq: Michelle Goldberg has some good comments about the abyss possible (or rather existing) in Iraq in her recent Salon column about her presence at a Republican retreat. Said one member:

"The premise that people would want passionately to be rescued is of course in question," he said. In fighting the Iraq insurgency, "We're going to kill a lot of Iraqis and restrict their movement. We may well become a guerrilla-manufacturing machine."

and ...

"Our goal is not a free Iraq," Pipes continued. "Our goal is an Iraq that does not endanger us."

The operative word being "us."

[I list Slate on my list of links because I find its content, especially it's reader comment section ['the fray," which often is more useful than the actual articles ... BTC is authored by a consistent contributor] worthwhile enough that I focus an unequal amount of my time there. Salon actually also has a lot going for it, but it is not quite free -- you are required to get a "one day free passe," which is inconvenient, but relatively painless, and can be done repeatedly. Current content suggests that it should be.]

Need to find a church? Well though the Catholic Church has a new trick or two up it's sleeve to determine marital compatibility, the Beer Church has a lot going for it:

"For each and every one of you, your own appreciation of beer is something deeply personal. The appreciation of Beer is also something that is universal. Beer Church is about the relationship of the two; your personal affection for beer, and humanity's overwhelming love of Beer. Beer Church is a celebration of Beer (with a capital "B"). Beer Church represents the "something larger than yourself" to which you belong by virtue of your very personal love for beer. Beer Church is about the one thing that we all have in common, regardless of all of our other differences. Something we all believe in. Beer.

Any gender, any sexual preference, any nationality, any shoe size or hair style; beer drinkers of the world are all part of something much larger than themselves. They are part of a loosely connected, diverse social group of countless individuals all around the world, with at least one thing in common. Beer. And sure, someone might be able to say the same thing about cheese, or coffee, or many other things, but we didn't. We said it about beer. And because you know the difference, you are one of us. You are Beer Church."

Anyway, mixed reviews aside, Looney Toons: Back In Action was a fun movie. I could do without the twelve minutes of "pre-show" entertainment, which included five commercials, five previews, and about a half minute of theater (no talking, etc.) stuff. The current practice of commercials, overproduced and expensive they might be, is surely one of the nadirs of current movie going experience. I am not totally sure why we need extended end credits (this one has a closing joke afterwards for those who stuck around, like I always do) with details such as catering and on the set tutoring, but commercials is a bit too tv for me.

As to the movie itself, Brendan Fraser was right ... this is no Space Jam. Its energy level and mentality is consistently on the cartoon level with many nifty in jokes for adults (who grew up watching this stuff, after all, more so than the children they take with them). Fraser and Steve Martin (as the head of the Acme Corporation) are very good, though Jenna Elfman is rather stiff. There was a bunch of cameos, including some genre favs (Leo Rossi has a nonspeaking role as an Acme lackey), but Wile E. Coyote isn't on screen enough, I think. Joan Cusack has another zany role, the sort she does best. The "inside paintings" scene is a wonder to behold, but more importantly, more often than not, the scenes are fun and loyal to the characters. The final battle scene between Bugs and Daffy vs. the Martian was fun as well.

Much better than a full length takeoff of shorts has any right to be, especially with the mixture of animation with live action. Fun stuff.

Giants lose ... do I hear hammering? Yes, the nails on their coffin. Bengals do it ... they are the ones who give KC their first loss, like the lowly Giants did a few years ago when Denver was but a few games from a perfect record. A day of toughly played games (outside of Philly and Cleveland) so far. Buffalo had the "don't see this every Sunday" line of 2 3 3 2, two safeties and field goals.

And, the Jets' defense again cannot stop 4th and Goal at the line, adding another collapse at the end of the Half. This sort of play is why I can't relax today! See here.

Sunday News Items: Telling families soldiers have died, the death of a loyal fan, and the charity of a leader of the team for which she rooted.

A few of my own comments. The first piece is an eloquent piece that can be read no matter what your position is, though it's easy to use it in an ant-war way. I heard the fan in question on talk radio, and it was sometimes hard to take given her illness and hacking cough. Sad case, she died too long, but it is a good human interest story of an ordinary person getting her little chance to shine. The final story regards Al Leiter, surely one of those athletes that makes caring about adults playing children games worthwhile. It is unfortunate (lol) that he is a Republican, since I can easily see him going into politics some day as he himself has admitted is an interest of his.

The Weekly Standard leaked a memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee that suggests there is strong proof that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida has had strong connections over the years. This would dispel the consistent criticism, one that even President Bush has basically admitted was accurate to some degree, that such links were exaggerated. Or were basically "lies." My philosophy in areas like this was that speaking in absolutes were a bad idea and that the ultimate test was twofold: (1) were the connections not just present (the organization so diffuse, I think some connections or meetings could have existed) but significant enough to be considered "major" and (2) on a cost/benefit level, was the choices made to go to war correct?

The reply to the article was tentative, but many doubted the source, argued the evidence was rough, that the Defense Department and others on the Senate Intelligence Committee weren't impressed, it serves as an example of the selective concern of the administration for secrecy, and that other countries still had much more major connections anyway. See, for instance, here (Nov. 15) and here.

My overall philosophy, though I agree with many of these concerns, is that you got to be careful with absolute attacks and do more than making personal shots at the sources. It is easy to do so when the other side basically taunts you by exaggerating, misleading, lying, and bullying as they make moves that substantively you feel are often at best misguided, at worse dangerous. Still, let's not make the mistake of trying to make shades of grey into black and white. I think this might be such a case ... no connections? I'm doubtful. Major connections? Doubtful as well. Somewhere in between that still was twisted by the administration for their own ends while simplifying a complex situation? Yes ... after all, it seems to be their de facto position on most matters of this sort.

I wrote this as I read some news online while the NY Giants bungled their way through another half. I missed their one score (a field goal on an Eagles mistake), but saw their inability to score on First and Goal on the 1, after quickly getting there once the Eagles fairly easily went up 14-3. Yes, this is not a game worth watching without doing something else. Meanwhile, the Bengals (a player of which guaranteed a win this weekend) are tied at the Half with Kansas City 3-3. The Bengals is a bad team actually showing some life, while the Giants are a mediocre team with the potential for more that has found more and more ways to look pathetic. So it goes.

The Giants have came back from the dead (only to collapse again in the post season) enough times to be more cocky than they really have a right to be. They are really pushing the envelope here, aren't they?

Thoughts: Suggesting the benefits of online message boards, I questioned and got information from others regarding Dean/Kerry and Clark as well as providing a summary of the judicial nominations wars (ending with some proposed solutions).

Talking about judges ... Barnhart v. Thomas (11/12) was the first ruling handed down by the Supreme Court, striking down a lower court ruling that was in conflict with other circuits. No, it was not a Ninth Circuit ruling (which was cited for its consistency with other circuits on the matter), which was a prime target during the Senate talkathon. The true breadth of the "liberal" nature of the circuit is suspect, of course, when it hands down a ruling that production of machine gun parts is not a matter of interstate commerce, written by one of its conservative wunderkinds.

Anyway, back to the ruling. The ruling involved a federal disability case involving an claimant that could not get a job because the profession she was able to do in her current state was basically obsolete (manual elevator operation). Justice Scalia, writing for an unanimous Court, argued that a literal reading of the law could reasonably mean that being able to do a job is all that is required, not that the job actually exists. [Again, we see that federal legislation is rarely a wonder of clarity and courts disagree on their "obvious" meaning.] The alternative, he suggests, would be to open up the path of people refusing to work or something. Or perhaps make it harder to enforce the law.

The lower court logically noted that the ruling sets up an absurd situation of depriving her of benefits because she is able to do something that doesn't exist. And, yes, as Justice Scalia notes, being able to do the job might serve as a proxy of ability to work at all. The problem, however, is the result here is a Catch 22: being able to do the job, even if it doesn't exist, stops the process. All the lower court gave her was a chance to go to the next step, which would determine if she could work that was available.

This literal, hard nosed, and ultimately unjust reading of public benefit law reminds me of the unanimous ruling against innocent public housing tenants. It also suggests what happens when you do not have even one true liberal in the mode of a Justice Douglas, Brennan, or Marshall.

Master and Commander: I did not read the books, so I cannot say if the movie do not follow their spirit. All the same, I am with Christopher Hitchens on the point that the movie is missing something. It surely does sound like the books, partly because they are 'R' rated in spirit, has more bite. Furthermore, the movie was rather boring for long stretches. Long stretches at sea and (though it might look great) not much interesting period or sight specific sense of detail in the telling. The movie has various stock themes, Russell Crowe's character is actually a bit boring, and a few times it is a bit confusing to tell what exactly is going on. Thumbs down.

I caught Jessica Lynch on Letterman. She looked like a deer caught in headlights, which is a bit surprising since she did have nationally broadcast interviews already. One thing that might have unnerved her a bit was the studio audience, who gave her a standing ovation when after she came on (on crutches), something you don't see every day. Letterman basically had to lead her the whole way, but you can tell he deeply respects people like her (another person he sees in this light is Sen. McCain). And, as Richard Cohen recently said in a column, I respect her as well. She, understandably given the usual propaganda of war, has been used as a "hero," (she calls herself a "survivor") but no matter how much her story has been mischaracterized, the fact is she is a hero. And, she has made an effort to not help spread the more fictitious stories.

[Update: As noted by Salon, this low key, taciturn interview style has been her style, even with the more obtrusive Diane Sawyer.]

Lynch might have been used by the administration and its supporters in a cynical way, but that is no fault of hers. She just went over, served her country, and nearly died in the process. One reason she did not, and Lynch reaffirmed this on Letterman, was that Iraqi medical staff and others helped her. Her best friend (a Hopi) was not so lucky; she died over there. It is the harm to people like these that truly is why I am so appalled at the missteps involved in this damn war. I too applaud your efforts ... damn if our leadership doesn't serve us as well as you do.

Talkathon Over ... nothing changes. Oh, Sen. Zell Miller ("D") made an ass out of himself, comparing the effort against Justice Janice Rogers Brown to a lynching, but his support for the re-election of President Bush (like come on man! Sen. Lieberman is running!) made him persona non grata to many Democrats anyway. In the end, it is like the Republicans made themselves look foolish, given they again failed to get a cloture vote and the whole thing looked liked a staged waste of time. The big show of bringing out cots beforehand suggested as much:

"Republicans very much wanted the cots [which in the end were not really unused], with their implicit message of physical discomfort and commitment. On Wednesday, in the presence of a large press contingent, they had 10 cots installed in the Strom Thurmond Room, named for the South Carolina senator who in 1957 famously held the floor single-handedly for 24 hours 18 minutes to oppose a civil rights bill, a record still unmatched."

I also do not think any reminder of Strom Thurmond in this context was a good thing, though again, the conservative sorts this whole thing was primarily meant to satisfy might have appreciated the symbolism. For those just annoyed at the Democrats getting a small victory by blocking the nominations (something Republicans used to do quietly via the now revoked power to hold up nominations in committee), having to stay around for forty or so hours while the Democrats repeatedly railed against them, probably did not seem worth it given the net result.

More on the C-SPAN talkathon. The Senate Republicans figured that thirty hours of repetitive politically motivated theater was not enough, so even after thirty hours, they are still at it. On the other hand, maybe the Democrats are getting a bit tired. Assistant Minority Leader Sen. Reid (NV) a little after midnight was down to citing the number of suicides that occurred during the whole thing, one more thing they could have been talking about besides this whole affair. When he noted his own father committed suicide, well, that might have been one of those "too much information" moments.

Reviews: West Wing was quite good tonight. Matthew Perry again was excellent, suggesting the "Ainsley Hayes" conservative slot on the show should be used more often. One reason why it was good was because it something going on beside malaise. It had that, but it had more too, including a good subplot about the Chief Justice that was a payoff of repeated references sprinkled into various episodes about his slow mental disintegration.

On the other hand, In the Cut was ridiculous. I liked or respected past films by Jane Campion. Meg Ryan looks pretty sexy nude and did pretty well with the material with which she was dealt. It is rare to find a film with even a hint of a penis (admittedly, female frontal nudity generally stops at the chest) and Campion doesn't disappoint there. Also, I'm sure the film was meant to have some deep, feminist, and/or intricately psychological point of view about sexuality. So be it. The movie was boring, pretentious, stereotypical, and ridiculous. It annoyed me because the presence of serious portrayal of sexuality is rather rare in wide release films and this effort did not do much to help that.

A halfway good analyst could probably write a social thesis using the film as a subject and the film wasn't total garbage. All the same, it was a waste of the potential to actually say something about the issues while telling a good story. On that level, it was akin to run of the mill straight to video late night thrillers, which also tend to be explicit, have some lame stereotypical supporting characters, and seem attracted to the seedy underside of things. They also at times even provide a useful message or two, the surprising artistic value especially nice given it was unexpected. You expect more of this sort of fare, though perhaps, the pretentious aspects of Campion's past work made it not totally surprising.

"Rookie" of the Year: Two sportswriters left off Hideki Matsui's name off their 2003 AL Rookie of the Year ballots, thus paving the way for Angel Berroa of the Kansas City Royals' to win by a hair. [Matsui would not even had to be first place on both of their ballots, given the winner was determined by four points.] Their reasoning was that someone who spent ten years in Japan, was a multiple MVP over there, and was hired by the Yankees for that very reason was in spirit not a "rookie." This caused some controversy, since technically Matsui is a rookie, given this is his first year of playing American ball.

Oh please. Yes, technically he is a rookie, but also, technically, sportswriters need not vote for the player with the best stats. Like a juror, they can vote their "conscience" so to speak, and cannot be penalized for voting for other reasons. And, one of the two argued that he didn't know if Matsui would be his choice anyway. Sure. It is notable, though, two others left Berroa's name off, so there was some kind of parity in sense all the same. Anyway, Matsui is not a rookie. He is not just an experienced player, he was a superior one, and did so with an elite team in his league. Thus, the true rookie should have an added edge, since he played basically at the same skill level without years of experience to guide him.

A final argument is that this would mean that Jackie Robinson would not have properly been a rookie of the year, given his years in the Negro Leagues. First off, the ability of a pioneer such as he to adapt to the majors is just not comparable to a Japanese player joining the majors years after other Asian players did so, and in a totally different racial climate. I leave aside comparing the skill levels of Negro and modern Japanese baseball, though given his wartime service, I believe Robinson was not in the Negro Leagues for ten years like Matsui was in his league. Finally, if his baseball experience was comparable, no, in a sense, Robinson was not a "rookie."

Gilmore Girls was excellent tonight. Sometimes I find the show annoying or the characterizations a bit too simplistic (last season had the lousy idea of making Paris' losing her virginity serve as a way to totally embarass her, while Rory shined as the innocent and supportive one), but the basic power of the writing and characters continue to make it eminently watchable. All the same, there seems to be a few episodes in which special effort was given to the screenplay, and the excellence of the writing particularly shines. Tonight was one such night, especially two extended dinner scenes where the wit, characters, and fast pace nature of the show's dialogue truly stood out. I could imagine it being in some witty play. It is one of those moments where television actually seems artistic, lol.

Rory also seems more mature these days, as portrayed by Alexis Bleidel (btw she is only a couple years older than the character, as compared to the actress who plays Paris). This adds to the show, I think, because it takes us in a new direction, making us see her in a new light. Since the mom/daughter relationship is so central to the show, I was wondering how they would handle having Rory away at Yale. The way to do this is to continue to have the two together a lot, which is reasonable since Yale is a fairly close driving distance to her home (as compared to Harvard). All the same, we get a few shades of college life as well. It's working rather well thus far.

The upcoming (Wed Night) "talkathon" or "anti-filibuster" sponsored (so to speak) by the Republicans in the Senate to show conservative activists that they care that Democrats are making a fuss about a few judicial appointments is pretty amusing in a way. It sounds like the making of good theater and something to watch late at night, given the dearth of good repeats and late night porn. It is a cynical power play of sorts all the same, of course, and I give my .02 over here. All the same, I find the average person does not care much about it, or is tired of the whole thing. And, I had trouble finding much about it (it starts tomorrow night after all) in the blog universe. Oh well, let's see how it goes.

My Veteran's Day post.

An excellent essay about Sylvia by someone who did not see the film at the time of writing it can be found here. Readers are well advised to use the "more by user" feature, since there is a consistence excellence to his writing and reasoned thought that is often remarkable.

Chicago acted to settle a long standing lawsuit involving panhandlers. The problem: "Currently you can't have a blanket ban on panhandling like that," said Jennifer Hoyle, spokeswoman for the city's Law Department. "It's considered a limit on commercial speech." Those who have been ticketed can obtain $50, arrested $400. Of course, when dealing with this group, it is hard to deliver.

I would suggest going around and putting money in their cups. Panhandlers also can milk the settlement: promote their newly obtained status as fighters in support of the First Amendment. Panhandling is as popular, after all, as another group whose commercial speech rights are being threatened: telemarketers. Seriously, panhandlers have always provided an important resource -- putting a human face on the ills of society as well as allowing us to personally and directly attempt to deal with the problem. I do not think giving panhandlers money is always the best way to help them (but damn if the city, as NYC does through advertising, suggests I cannot decide to spend my money thusly), but covering up the problem by basically banning them (selectively enforced, of course) is not the solution either.

A nod, a bit early, to all those veterans out there, including those in active service. The LA Times had a pair of valuable stories on those currently fighting the imperfect fight in Iraq today. One gives a measured look at the morale of the troops, basically it is better than one can expect, and troubled in some ways as is understandable. Another article discusses those injured, a group we rarely hear about, many of whom owe their lives to improved battle armor. Veteran's Day is scheduled on the official date that WWI ended, a war with many tragedies for often worthless ends. Thus, I think it proper to honor veterans on this day while still remembering how much a mess war all too often turns out to be.

Thoughts: The presidential caucus/primary season is but a couple months away, but it still seems too early to start worrying about things. These things do tend to come up and bite ya, if you aren't careful though. I add to the discussion here, arguing that a new rule change might not only lead to a brokered convention, but might help Kerry (someone else responds, continuing a theme of his, and arguing otherwise).

I also suggest that libertarians (and others) might support a Democratic win because the Republican opposition would better serve as a check. This makes sense, since those friendly with the Democrats are accused of unfairly criticizing this administration selectively. This might be true, but other than the Republicans being in power now, it is only natural to be more harsh to those you trust/disagree with less. This is the value of a "loyal opposition." This is hard for some to accept, as shown by the replies which basically write off the whole Republican Party for what I believe are the wrongs of one wing of it. This tendency to demonize the opposition, shown especially on political message boards, troubles me, and I'm no evenhanded soul myself in that department.

Football: Beware of games in which you are heavily favored, especially if you are going against desperate teams. The Giants played horrible against 1-7 Atlanta, who beat them last year without Michael Vick, and beat them this year as well (now they are 2-7). This game unfortunately did not knock them out of contention, so fans have to bear with them some more, waiting for them to again show their talent, so they can again mess up for one last time. The Jets beat Oakland, but it took a 21-10/24-24 turnaround in the Fourth Quarter to do so, and this time the kicker did his job. An overtime win is always nice, but the history (and early whipping in this very game) between these teams made it even more sweet. The Jets might be 3-6, but fans still have a reason to watch the games -- pride and games like this.

Movies: I am not really a big fan of poetry, since I tend to enjoy poetry in prose more, nor do I know very much about Sylvia Plath. One thing I did learn when I read about the film Sylvia was that those who study her are often divided into two groups: those who are more sympathetic to her, and those who are more sympathetic to her husband. This involves those trying to determine why she committed suicide at a young age, which I found a bit strange, since given her history (she tried to commit suicide before she met him), it appears that Plath had some predilection to it either way. Blaming either, unless somehow their general flaws or decisions were so different from typical of the era to warrant notice (I have my doubts), seems silly. Of course, I know nearly nothing of the background, so who am I to say?

Not knowing much about the background is actually useful in a way when you watch a based on reality film such as this. I do think that films have some responsibility not to twist the truth too much, especially since many do formulate their views on reality from them (unconsciously or not), and knowing the background story does affect how one accepts a film. To take an extreme case, no matter how superior as an art form JFK might be, conspiracy theory twisting of fact such as that bothers me.

Anyway, the thing that stood out about Sylvia was the Oscar nomination worthy performance of Gwyneth Paltrow, who had a bit of an uphill battle given the film seemed underwritten and without a full picture of the characters (mainly Plath and her husband, Ted Hughes). This made the film somewhat flawed, but Paltrow's performance as well as an excellent sense of mood and place surely made it worth watching.

As some reviews note, the screenplay leaves open a lot of questions, even in the limited area of the film (mainly the couple's relationship and Plath's slow loss of control, which the film implies were somewhat closely entwined, especially at the very end), so it is an imperfect work. Also, I too think's Palthrow's real life mother shines in the one scene she is in, playing Plath's mother. Jared Harris as a literary critic and Michael Gambon as her neighbor are also very good in small roles. Finally, is that her in the nude scenes? I wonder. [Plath's sexuality is apparently key to her personality; it is said to be strong and more daring than others of her generation in the c. 1960 era of her adulthood.]

The penchant for the critics of the administration and its supporters (and de facto syncophants, such as those who let him invade Iraq and pooh pooh about the problems involved after the fact, but then vote for his $87B funding bill, only to let it be passed via voice vote so they aren't too public about it, and so forth) to lash back is understandable, but still somewhat troubling.

"Lies," Memory Holes, and Whitewashing touches upon this fact. For instance, I quote someone who specifies what exactly he means by "lies," which turns out to be broader than a common definition of the term might involve. This adds fuel to the other side, but it's not necessary, is it? The "lies" in many cases quite arguably are that; other times they are misleading enough to be wrong on that ground alone. Let's not fall into the trap of being as simplistic as we accuse those we criticize of being.

The same by the way, and I know politics is all about turning up the sound sometimes, in other battles. For instance, Justice Janice Rogers Brown is the latest controversial nominee to be opposed by the Democrats (came out of committee 10-9). Clearly, her tone, strong views (which she publicly promoted in speeches using language meant to excite), and strategic importance (selection to the DC Circuit, possible short list to Supreme Court) all give Democrats valid reasons to oppose her.

One needs not use hyperbole, such as railing on her guarded support of Lochner v. N.Y., a controversial early 20th Century ruling that honored economic rights, here the right of a bakery employee to work over ten hours or so. This line of cases also struck down minimum wage laws, union protection laws, and many more instances firmly supported these days. All the same, the ultimate core of the decision was honoring property rights via a higher standard of review. Quite arguably, property rights sometimes are slighted these days, and some of the controversial cases where Justice Brown honored property can be defended, and were not solo dissents. You can disagree without going the route of Senator Schumer and suggesting any support of Lochner was basically totally unreasonable for a judicial nominee.

'Places I Never Meant to Be' edited by Judy Blume is an excellent collection of "Original Stories by Censored Writers" for teenagers. It suggests not only is teenage fiction excellent as literature, but is not just for teenagers. Each writer had their work censored in some fashion and follow their stories with a little essay about censorship. On the Fringe edited by Donald R. Gallo is also another excellent collection of short stories concerning teenagers in crisis, this time not critical moments per se, but outcasts who each have their own story and burdens to bear. Both are a good way to take a taste of many writers and get some insights about teenagers in the process.

[Ironically, given the theme of the first book, two education majors who reviewed it on the Amazon.com site didn't like the second one because of the bad language in it! It makes you fear the future of education or wonder if they don't curse down in Mississipi.]

In the News Update: The UN took Door Number Three ... the cloning issue was punted for a couple years. As to partial birth abortion, a major abortion provider was given a temporary restraining order by a NY federal district judge, which makes two in what is likely to be numerous ones of the kind. Of interest in the ruling is a statement by the government that Congress did not suggest there is no medical debate on the "health" need of the banned procedure. This is important because it read the Stenberg v Carhart ruling that overturned a state law to mean that serious debate in the medical community that the procedure was less risky was all that was necessary for it to be constitutionally required as an option.

Also, there was an article about the use of lingerie in France, which noted: "Lingerie is so important to a French woman's sexual self-esteem, it seems, that only 3 percent of French women believe they are seductive in the nude." Amusing, but actually it is a generally accepted concept -- nudity per se is not as seductive as clothes that hint but don't totally expose sexuality. It is because certain body parts are hidden that makes them so sexual. The seductive nature of breasts in a society in which they are always exposed is likely to be low. Also, the normal person has flaws, and just laying them all out is not really that sexy in many cases. This means even a little bit of fabric can lead to a more sexual result than total nudity.

Thinking about presents for the holidays? I got an advertisement in the mail that suggests tooth whitening would be an excellent Christmas present. I think not ... the guys I know do not care that much about their teeth and the women might should be a tad insulted if I implied that they needed it. Some ideas (since, like it or not, the time is approaching): money boxes or trees (I got one for my nephew last year ... little kids love money), food (early on, my mom just loved English Toffee, as did the rest of us who sampled it; my sisters like coffees and teas), gift cards or certificates (boring, but some people are too hard to buy for or even like them), books (excellent, including those cute bears, some of which have chocolate in their backpacks), cute catalogue thingies (catalog shoppers know of what I speak), and calendars (loads of themes, including the small desktop daily ones ... for instance, each day I have a For Better or For Worse cartoon to read).

btw I'm getting a bit tired at the continuing sense of anomie on West Wing. It's getting boring and truly depressing. Yes, it is honest and accurate in the wake of the kidnapping of the President's daughter and the "lame duck" blues, but it has to be laid on a tad less thick. Please.

In the News: Some stuff in the news caught my eye, so let me briefly comment on them. First off, one ongoing thing I have commented on is the partial birth abortion ban (see, e.g., Oct. 23). It was signed into law and immediately a temporary restraining order by a Nebraska federal judge (an arguably quite similar state ban in Nebraska was struck down by the Supreme Court). So, I ask, just what is the point of it all?

Meanwhile, Bush is pushing the UN to totally ban cloning, as compared to just banning reproductive cloning. An alternate plan would leave the decision of therapeutic cloning up to individual nations or just do nothing for a couple years. It seemed shall we say (if we want to be nice) a bit ironic that the U.S. wants to push the U.N. to set moral restraints that are surely not universal, given the second option is supported by nations such as Great Britain. After all, in areas such as international justice, the environment, and even trade the U.S. is loathe to join such conventions because they threaten our sovereignty and force us to go along with the wishes of others. Or perhaps they try to do too much, such as conventions to support women that might in some way conceivably support abortion rights. This does not seem that, shall we say consistent, does it?

Is it "a political triumph political triumph for the anti-abortion movement, a reflection of its influence with a Republican-controlled Congress and a Republican president" and "a validation of the movement's long-term strategy of incrementalism, restricting abortion step by step?" If so, if it is just suspended by the courts, what is the ultimate point? More heat? More of the same? A symbol that helps push along less emotional restrictions or other symbolic measures? One thing it does not really seem to be is a path to a constructive middle ground. Legislation with a "health" exception would have done that. But, perhaps, a middle ground is not what those in power want.

CBS also decided to not air a Reagan biopic that conservative critics, from what they saw and heard about it, soundly criticized. As the NYT noted yesterday: "CBS's decision to hand the program off to the Showtime cable channel will leave it with a far smaller audience. Cable TV seems to have become the home of any programming with the least hint of political controversy. Meanwhile, the networks grow increasingly brave about broadcasting shows featuring lingerie models parading in the latest fashions, and ordinary people competing for cash by eating live insects." Not to worry, though. The story about the rescued female service woman, a prime propaganda event for the administration, will be aired. How about just not watching what you do not like? I believed that was the idea around here. See also, here.

William Safire on the same page as the CBS comments quoted above had a column on Putin's current selective campaign against Russian mafia that threatens his political power. He ends with this comment: "Which side to root for in the struggle for Russia's political soul: oligarchy or siloviki? Which door: the Lady or the Tiger? I remember the same choice in the war between Iran and Iraq. We can root only for both sides to lose." It made me think ... we actually did not do this. We rooted for Iraq more, helping Saddam increase power and prestige, and continued to assist him when we knew he was killing Kurds. Our selective memory now forgets this fact, blaming him for invasion and genocide as if he didn't have help.

Some interesting stuff: abortion's loaded language (written by the paper's ombudsman, an excellent concept), just how conservative is the Pledge?, and the book Food, Inc. by Peter Pringle. It is about genetically modified foods and besides being quick reading, it is evenhanded -- concern with guarded optimism about its potential.

Legally Blonde 2: Red, White, and Blonde recently came out on video and DVD. It was derivative, wasted the talents of such people as Bob Newhart, but did have a few good lines. Three of the lesser supporting cast members did the DVD commentary, and this is the way to watch the film ... at home, where you can make fun of it ala Mystery Science Theater 3000. As a time waster, this is the best way to go. Oh, they left out Elle's friend's dog. They put in a cameo for her husband and son, but leave out the dog, even though the film is about Elle going to DC to fight animal cosmetic testing [the film is a victim of the "not serious enough to carry such a serious theme" disease, Distinguished Gentlemen is also a victim]. This is a bit annoying.

Happy birthday ... literally ... Harry Joseph Letterman. From AP: "Letterman, 56, said the baby - his first child - is named after his father, Harry Joseph Letterman, who died at 57." The news just came out, though we first found out about it when Paul Shafer guest host on the show last night because Dave was otherwise engaged. I did not think Regina Lasko was that far along. Anyway, the report said it was born "late Monday Night" ... a late show, hmm? [It was born 11:58PM last night. That baby has a sense of timing!]

Conan O'Brien's wife recently gave birth and Letterman was nice enough to welcome her into the world. I guess it's a good time for late night hosts to have their first child. [I just saw his first night back. Dave is great when he is on, and he was tonight. In honor of the birth, he brought on his "special guest," Regis Philbin, who he clearly respects highly, and made it apparent tonight. This sort of show suggests why I think he trumps Leno, ratings aside.]

Reflection: The way to survival in this world, especially on bad days, is not to take things too serious or at least find some humor in it all. It is good, for instance, to appreciate at least the irony or basic stupidity even in the worse things in life. You might laugh sadly, but laugh you do. I find that each day is likely to have some nice moment, a moment of pure joy, which makes even the most mundane day have that little bit of shine. Now, most days have more than one of these moments, but even one makes life worth living, not to be too melodramatic. I feel deep sorrow for those who lives are so bad that they truly do not have such moments or the moments are so overtaken by other events that it amounts to the same thing.

One fun way to enjoy life is the idea of double meanings to generally innocent events or comments. For instance, I used to listen to a radio show in which there were many "in" code words and images that made the audience seem to be like one big family. Part of this was to avoid censors; for instance, oral sex was said to be giving or receiving an "atta girl," arising from one poor soul who got in trouble for saying that to his g/f after she did the deed. This also happens, of course, in our day to day life with friends, family, and loved ones. An ongoing joke with a friend of mine led me to laugh out loud about a line about a butterfly's habits.

Thanks ... to the author of BTC News (see links) for the link to my humble blog ... yours is a worthy addition to the blog universe.

Happy birthday Michael Dukakis (b. 1933).


What was he thinking moment: The Jets fumbled/intercepted their way to a 31-28 overtime loss yesterday, while the Giants are undergoing their now annual November/December game of catch-up, which might be a bit harder given one too many bad losses early. Luck is also going their way ... last time it was a blocked punt that was retrieved and ran in for a first down. This time it was a two point conversion attempt that was actually successfully converted. And, good for them, since the Jets came back from a two touchdown deficit late. The Giants missed a 39yd field goal attempt in OT and time was running out with a tie seeming more and more likely.

And then, the Jets did something else that was stupid ... this seems to be an ongoing theme for them this year. Chad and company scored twice in the last six minutes or so, tying the game with less than thirty seconds left. They were driving again, given a second life after the Giants kicking team performed up to par (that is, below it), and it was Fourth and a few yards. Their kicking team was nothing to write home about would have to convert a fifty one yarder ... the last time the guy (who missed two extra points last year for the Vikings) made a comparable attempt was years ago. The worse that could happen if they went for it would be that the Giants would start on around the 30 yard line. This really is not good field condition, and a failed kick would only mean they would have it better. Oh, and the Jets already made two fourth downs.

Of course, they decide to go for the kick. And, take their sweet time about it. Thus, they don't even miss, but have it blocked, looking bad doing it. In a way, this was better, because the ball wound up farther away than the spot of the kick, but it gave new life to the Giants and took the air out of the Jets. At 2-5 (at the time), why not risk the Fourth Down, given the kick was unlikely to result in a positive outcome? In a somewhat similar position, the Houston Texans went for a risky win at the Goal Line instead of a tie (or 7 instead of 3 later when they played the Jets), and feeded off the success. Playing scared, like Fassel did when he didn't let the time tick away vs. Dallas (giving them time to score) because he remembered what happen to the kicker in the playoffs turned out to bite them. And, I just knew it was a stupid decision at the time.

It was one of those WHAT WERE THEY THINKING moments. Oh, and, assurances otherwise aside, Bobby Valentine did take a job managing the Chiba Lions. Sports figures and contracts are akin to politicians and re-election decisions.

Thoughts: This weekend and today provided me with some fuel for thought. File sharing and safer elections, Leno v. Letterman, and Dean and the Confederate Flag are some things that I found interesting.

Movie: Bubba Ho-Tep is an off the wall little film that suggests you can find serious material in some of the least likely places. The film concerns a soul stealing mummy invading a Texas nursing home, and a pair of residents who find out and fight back. The serious undertone comes when the film deals with the struggles of the elderly residents, sick, alone, and wistful. One would not expect such complex material when one finds out that the protagonist is Elvis Presley (he changed places with an impersonator) and his backup claims to be JFK (painted black ... Ossie Davis plays him). Bruce Campbell of Evil Dead fame plays it totally straight , the dreary view of the nursing home is well portrayed, and the movie on the whole is really a serious work, putting aside some of its silliness. The movie at its heart is a character study and deserves wider release.

Thoughts: How To Tell Your $20 is fake, John Hart Ely RIP, Paper Trails in Touchscreen Voting, and Justice Janice R. Brown.

The NY Knicks started their season with an overtime loss, after blowing a ten point Fourth Quarter lead. Join the NY loser brigade, guys!

As to tv ... Norm Macdonald was great on Conan O'Brien earlier this week, rambling on and on with his convoluted (and ultimately hilarious) stories. His humor had less edge on "A Minute With Stan Hooper," (FOX Wed 8:30PM) which the NYT feels is unfortunate, but I found the show often very funny. This is not as easy as it sounds given most sitcoms today. It was good that I saw it, since this week's "West Wing" was totally depressing and felt as long as the last class before vacation. The show really needs some work.

NY Losers and Winners ... Mainly Losers: The fact that the NY Giants managed to beat the previously unbeaten Vikings, even after making a few mistakes, is typical ... they have what it takes, but aren't consistent enough to show it week after week. Since the Eagles beat the NY Jets (17-14 at the end of the Third Quarter, 17-24 at the end of the game, not helped by Chad's first drive ending with a fumble in the Red Zone near the end of the First Half), the 3-4 Giants might not have enough to show their potential and get to the playoffs. Anyway, the Jets loss was a bummer.

The Yankees World Series loss in six was a bit surprising (I thought it would go seven, but the Yankees failed to show enough life even with their back against the wall) but deserved. Three straight losses, ending up with the other team celebrating at Yankee Stadium might just be what it takes for some serious changes to occur. It's time.

As to other subjects, Dana Priest's book The Mission: Waging War and Keeping Peace with America's Military argues that in the current world the US military is more and more the guiding force in its foreign policy, even if it is not the best group for the job. The book's theme however is not given an extended discussion per se, since Priest (Washington Post reporter whose bylines top critical Bush administration piece after critical Bush administration piece) uses military actions throughout the world (especially Kosovo) to tell the tale for her. And, this is how a book of over four hundred pages becomes a page turner, able to be enjoyed as a sort of adventure story as much as critical look at the military mission today. The book was written before the Iraq War, but as its approach was clear, and is all the more telling as time goes by.

Meanwhile, I caught "Intolerable Cruelty," which in my opinion explains the effect of this movie on the audience. The movie is advertised as a "romantic comedy," and though it is barely a romance, the comedy is mainly of the "oh, I see how this is supposed to be funny," and not even that much can be said at times. The Coen brothers are known for some quirky classics and some that are just quirky, but worth watching all the same. This is truly a failed effort, so much I was amazed at how bad it actually turned out to be. It began with a totally unfunny first scene and ending with a totally lame ending. Where was all the "sparring" of the two leads? A key trick is not to be believed and the response less so. I don't know why this film even got so many good reviews.

Afterwards, our party (lol) (we all disliked the film, each with different tastes) went out to eat. Annoying exercise. I might be mistaken, but I do not think I'm too fussy when it comes to restaurants. I do dislike bad service, including waiting to be seated and waited on (dining room around half empty). I would not like to wait around fifteen minutes or more to get my appetizer or finish my dessert before my coffee comes. And, this is partly bad luck, if I will get a steaming hot pasta dish (unlike my companions), serving my meal last is a bad idea. The food was pretty good, but the selection of Italian dishes was somewhat mediocre. Finally, though I cannot really do so, I will mixed in the fact that right after I left, I found out the Jets lost by one score.

Maybe, I am fussy?

World Series: Not going according to the Yankee script, huh?

Roger Ebert annoys me again: I respect Roger Ebert's talent and as a fan of movie reviews (reviews are like editorials, they try to condense and express what you believe into well written phrases) I often enjoy his material. All the same, he annoys me, which is nothing special, I guess ... commentators seem to annoy me more than I use ellipses in my remarks. Still, Ebert at times goes into pretentious mode or (perhaps worse) does something that other critics at times do as well -- make comments that lead to believe they really didn't see the movie.

An example of the former is his reeming of the remake of "The Texas Chainsaw Massacre," which he gives zero stars. He likes this film as much as Gregg Easterbrook liked "Kill Bill" (Ebert really enjoyed the movie). I checked the Rotten Tomato website and determined about one out of three critics gave positive reviews to the movie. I presume some of the rest felt it was bad, but not REAL bad. This leads me to argue that Ebert is a bit full of himself, and just doesn't like the sort of film involved here. His snide comment about the past employment of the director suggests this.

My problems with his review of Pieces of April is a bit more nuanced. It involves various comments found in the review that are not really based on opinion but on fact. A major thing that annoyed me is his discussion of the closing montage, which he suggests might be a result of the movie (a small independent effort) ran out of money. He basically misses the point, in my humble opinion, given the title -- "Pieces of April," snapshots of April, get it?

I also do not know what else was required in the film. The mother already had a telling moment in the bathroom. The family got to NYC, April had various dramatic and humorous experiences, and the dinner was done. Did he want some tacked on "conclusion" involving the family eating dinner and so forth? For what purpose? The fact they didn't interact much at all adds to the film. You want family interaction, see What's Cooking? The movie in my view was a good length, though perhaps a bit more time with the boyfriend might have helped. I agree with Ebert that his story was undeveloped. On the other hand, it was throughout, so extending the film itself might not have done much good.

I am also somewhat in disagreement with him on the boyfriend. I felt the subplot was a bit amusing, a "shaggy dog" story of sorts, that put him in a good light. I don't quite know how we are supposed to understand he is a middle class, unless some asides suggested as such, especially given where they live and all. Also, if he was middle class, would his "errand" be done in that way? It felt more that he came from a poorer family, thus finding a cheap suit would be special if a bit problematic to carry out gesture on his part. This might be a matter of undevelopment, but this is not surprising (but somewhat annoying, since if you set up a black boyfriend, why not give him more of a role in the story?) since the movie is mainly about her (original) family.

I also agree that the joke Ebert finds distasteful is somewhat "half-baked," but I did not take it as negatively as he did. Also, we already know he is a good guy, and why he looks like that. Why a comment on when "we find out" this out? Also, not only is it a realistic thing for the family to be scared (are they supposed to realize it is the boyfriend who looks like the dad?), it serves as an advancement of the plot. It is the direct reason why the family at first doesn't go up to April's apartment. Is this not relevant?

A couple other things. A whole scene is based on there never being a moment when April was a good daughter. Therefore, when we she the "good" daughter? The reason the youngest is annoyed is that she knows this not to be true, so feels April is wrong to force the family to go eat dinner with her. The grandmother really does not have many "perfectly timed zingers," and in fact the mother implies that she knows more than she lets on. This might actually be true; it is an intersting comment all the same. And, I do wonder if the next film made under less pressure, etc., will truly be better. After all, I found this film pretty good, and more money and time often only gives you the same flaws, just with a bigger budget.

Partial Birth Ban: Symbolic? Vague? Misleading?

World Series: The Yanks won Game 3 vs the Marlins' ace, Josh Beckett (whose 9-8 regular season record is apparently a trick), so the "okay, it's basically over" comments started. Then, Clemens (in his last start, apparently) gave up three runs early, and Carl Pavano (great in relief, decent starting) went eight innings and only gave up one run. The Yanks scored two in the ninth to save Clemens (who held firm and went seven, not adding to those three) from a loss (he also got a hit, unfortunately not when the bases were loaded). When Weaver came in, it was just a matter of time ... the game winner came in his second inning of relief.

I thought this series would go long ... at 2-2, it becomes a best of three, and a Game Seven is far from unlikely. Just ask the Cubs.

Thoughts: Buckley and the Cuba Embargo (article), WA Post and Boondocks, Justice Stevens speaks, and Case For Impeaching Bush (reply).

Sports: Jets are 2-4, and the playoffs are just a matter of time. So, it seems to be the sentiment of the team, now that Chad is due back next week. Anyway, it was nice to see them come from 14-0 behind, even if it was against the Texans. The scare from the final kickoff return to the 27 yd line was not appreciated, but at least the Jets actually stopped it before it lost them the game. KC barely escaped as well the next day when the rarely used Oakland backup drove from their own 6 to the KC one in the final ninety seconds or so, after barely stopping KC from getting the First Down that would have ended the game. This year, MNF actually is exciting again, though the announcers are dull.

Skin, the new Monday Night Romeo/Juliet show involving a struggle between a politically ambitious DA and a porn king and their teenage children, who fall in love, was a bit dull. Oh, and Coupling (American rip-off) was pre-empted last week. Bad sign, but a good one perhaps, since thus far it looks pretty lame. I do hope that Miss Match (pushed back an hour) is not on its way out, since I do find it has promise. If anything, the new time slot is worse, since already there are two shows on Friday Night at nine that I could be watching, three if JAG actually still is good (doesn't sound like it). Just how big is that time slot's audience, anyway?

It's Official: The Giants Are F-ing Losers.

World Series Begins: Game One suggests that it will be a challenging series for the Yankees, who continue to play games without a big margin of error. They eked out two runs, gave up three though one might very well have been cut off at the plate with a good throw, and thus lost the game. David Wells, after pitching to three batters on Thursday, pitched a good game (seven innings), but the Yankees missed opportunities and overall will not win like this. It was just plain tedious to watch, like one of a ton Mets games this year, but sadly not too atypical of their play at times.


Pieces of April was a little gem, which was good because I just recently watched (at same theater in fact) "Demonlover," a film I had to walk out of because it was so tiring. Nothing much really happens for most of the first half, except for some stereotypical characters (the ice queen, macho chauvinistic French guy with a few days growth on his face to prove it, cocky American who smokes pot [Gina Gershon overacting again], and so on) who spend more of the time mostly negotiating a merger. Some growingly unbelievable stuff occurs as well, but the second half must be rather good given some of the high praise given for this film.

I speak about Gregg Easterbrook's controversial column on media violence here.

"I actually think the Marlins might have an edge ... they have stellar pitching and a bit more offense. The Cubs bullpen is questionable; the Marlins bullpen has shown their stuff repeatedly vs. the Giants." [October 7] Unfortunately, I was right, though when they were up 3-1 or 3-2 and six outs away, I thought differently. Some do feel it's a good thing that the Cubs/Red Sox match-up was not to be, while Dave Barry is more sarcastic (and hilarious) than usual in rooting for the Marlins.

Sorry to say, he is right, the Cubs choked, though a fan might have helped them out. [I didn't see it, but pictures seem to imply that the ball was out of field of play, so technically it was not interference.] As to the Red Sox, I am relieved, since it would have been really sad if they got in without the Cubs. First and third, no one out, and the score is already 4-0 with Pedro pitching, I admit I wasn't very optimistic. Mussina came in relief (first time in his career) and just shut them down for three innings. Redemption. Wells (Game 1 starter for the WS) gave up a home run in his 2/3 of an inning in the eighth, making it 5-2, but once it was 4-2 and Pedro was due to leave, I had hope. Pedro stuck around too long (like Mark Pryor), the Yanks tied it, and Mariano pitched three innings ... until Boone hit a home run off Wakefield. The Yanks finally got to him. A team effort and good preparation, since the Marlins won't be easy. At all.

Scott Turow was on Governor Ryan's (Illinois) commission to investigation the death penalty in that state and wrote a little book reflecting about the death penalty. It is a little over a hundred pages and is basically an extension of his magazine article on the subject. Well worth reading and can be finished in a few trips to the office. Al Franken, of course, wrote his own book on a political subject ... it is analyzed here. John Edwards, who I like but think is too young and inexperienced (more the latter) to win, is having problems. On the other hand, if Ashton Kutcher, Dennis Hopper, and Aaron Sorkin (former producer of West Wing) is on his side, he's doing fine, huh?

Thoughts: As and "harmless error," doctors talking to their patients about marijuana/state rights, and Cheney and Halliburton (response to this article).

Note: Out of Time is discussed below and the ending (though not expressly described) is discussed. Consider this a possible. spoiler alert.

The Cubs are one game closer to the World Series for the first time in nearly sixty years, but not quite there yet ... the Marlins finally had a truly excellent pitching performance, making the series 3-2, Cubs. The Jets, unlike the Giants, finally had a good game ... no, a very good game, beating the Bills 30-3. Every dog has his day, and Jets fans deserved a laugher after the drudgery that had to bear thus far. Meanwhile, Carolina beat the Colts (under ex-defensive coordinator of the Giants, John Fox) to regain unbeaten, coming from behind to do so as did the Kansas City Chiefs (KC has a reason to smile still). Dallas beat Philly to retain their surprising early division lead. Thus, three teams are unbeated, one team (bye week San Diego) has no win.

Buffy the Vampire Slayer was one of the few cases where the television show was better than the original movie; Legally Blonde was one of those times when the movie was better than the book. Amanda Brown's (formerly a blonde law student, but of Stanford, not Harvard) original was easy reading, but lacked some of the depth of the movie. For instance, the enjoyable supporting character (the manicurist) that might not have been her social equal, but was her emotional one, was only a trivial one in the book. Elle Woods also had it too easy in the book (perfect LSAT? in the movie she had to get a certain score, doing so barely, to enter) and the "diversity" concept (she was chosen as a sort of "blonde" representative) was lacking. Also, no love interest. Brown's second novel, Family Trust, was also easy reading (perfect for plane trips), but even more trivial. All the same, one can get rich on such fare.

The book did have a good bit about Elle's idea of a "Blonde Defense Fund" to protect the interests of blondes everywhere ... great idea for a comedy bit. She also defined the true blonde: "True blondes, whether natural or not, could be identified by their inner light of buoyant, charmed confidence." The airy tone, on target satire of law school life (done rather thinly all the same), and pleasant story saved the book from being dreck ... and bits like this shows the hints of intelligence there. All the same, material was rather thin. The movie had its trite touches (the trial lawyer of the book was not a sexual harasser like the one in the movie), but it had more meat to it, which overall made it light, but still left you content after consumption.

As to movies, a word about the end of Out of Time. It was too easy, but fairly typical of the genre. My general annoyance is that such endings allow things to be tied together in a bow without the messiness of real life. Real life messiness is not pleasant, so this is sometimes not a bad thing, but sometimes the ending forces us to give something up along the way so how easy is it? Just how pleasant is it to have our hero finish up as he did, but having to do what he had to do to get there? I leave the blanks in place given the recent vintage of the movie, but the viewer can decide.

Friday: While on the subway today, I had to deal with one of those annoying performers, this one a heavyset black guy who apparently was doing some sort of magic tricks along with his cheerful banter. Said banter was appreciated by a few people on the train, but it was annoying to me, trying to read and/or not be bothered by someone trying to make a living sponging off train passengers. I apologize if I sound bitter, but though I am loathe to forbid people from giving money to such individuals, it is not enjoyable to be kept as a captive audience. Furthermore, these performers spend more time annoying passengers than your typical beggar who is in and out in more of a hurry.

"Miss Match" was pushed ahead an hour (bad sign), so I had a chance to watch "Joan of Arcadia." I had to shut it off after around twenty minutes. The parents, especial the mom (Mary Steenburgen) did seem to have potential, but the children (including Joan, perhaps) were pretty standard ... the smart aleck little brother was annoying. The use of a psychic in the police subplot (father is the police chief) was annoying (I'm a cynic, I admit it). The use of cutesy "God" gimmicks (God comes in the form of various people) was annoying. And, yes, God having her do weird things (e.g. learning chess) was annoying. Heck, the mom not wanting to accept the son is paralyzed permanently was even annoying. Maybe, I was in a bad mood. On the other hand, maybe gimmicks, standard plot devices, and the like is just not my cup of tea.

I only saw part of one episode, so I can not get a true sense of the nature of the show. All the same, why cannot we have a show that has a focus on religion and God without gimmicks? "You Can Count On Me" dealt with religious themes. "Seventh Heaven" is preachy, but from what I have saw of it, it really isn't supernatural or anything (as compared to "I'm an angel sent from God" deus ex machina proceedings in "Touch by An Angel"). Real life does not involve God coming in the form of various people (with witty banter), telling you what to do (sure, if God came that way, you'd know it's God), and at times even explaining things to you. I understand that this is a dramatic exercise (partially a "Joan of Arc" takeoff), but we can also use an examination of religion (and even religious experience) more real life. It's an important part of our culture and deserves more than this sort of thing.

For now, I will stick with "Miss Match" or whatever else happens to be on at the time. Today the Cubs/Marlins game was on, another exciting affair that lasted eleven innings (Game 2 was a blowout, Cubs up 2-1). Yesterdays, the Yanks won (shock), tying the series 1-1. Next up Clemens v. Pedro at Fenway. I shall repeat myself ... Pedro doesn't quite impress me. He keeps on getting hurt, missing chunks of games, and being treated as a hurt sparrow some more ... leading to games where he goes only six or so innings. The games he does play, he is often match up with front end starters, thus it turns out to be a pitching duel ... this is often the case in playoff games. The net result is that the elite teams can often stalemate him and since he rarely goes much more than seven, it's up to his flawed pen. This results in Tim Wakefield being as dangerous in the long run to the Yanks.

Frontline had a good somewhat cynical special on the war in Iraq (I watched in today; it was on Thursday night) ... I should watch more of these things, especially since the series is said to have somewhat of a liberal bias. If so, given that I kinda do as well, it would be easier to take my documentary medicine, lol.

Thoughts: Quick/Easy Voting with A Muffin To Go; the recall: groping, Arnold Supporters, and postmortem: and Cubs get trash delivery.

The Yanks/Red Sox have played nineteen times already ... let's root for the Cubs/Marlins series. Game 1: The Cubs score four in the first, Marlins five in the third, each score twice in the ninth to go into extra innings 8-8, and Marlins win in extras. We all want excitement, right? Just look at the winner of the recall!

I spoke about it already (see above), but honestly, you choose him? Yet again, the people cry out: give us a leader, someone who can fix things, and doesn't give us the same old sh*t. And, they grasp toward the inferior new voice out there. And, yet again, we see where desperation takes us. I didn't want to believe an actor, one who turns out to be a boor, would upset someone just re-elected last year. Someone who has no political experience, seems to have came out of the blue, and isn't really as independent (or able to push for change) as much as he implies. The signs were there, the result really wasn't a surprise ... just a tad bit of a travesty. The sky will not fall, out with the old/in with the new will probably bring some fresh air, but it really isn't a great way to play a ball game. It just isn't.

Out of Time with Denzel Washington as a small town police chief who gets into a tad bit of trouble and races against the clock to get out of it was a good summer flick. It took a bit too long to get going, but the lead is great, the story fun, and the atmosphere (the "feel" of a movie is core to my enjoyment) well crafted. Deep down its standard stuff, but most movies are ... not as many do it this good.

Baseball: It's official ... Oakland blows. They are the new Atlanta squared of the AL West ... yet again they get to the playoffs and lose in the first round. And, yet again, they win the first two, but drop three (this happened less often, but even once it's rare ... but twice?) and are eliminated. They couldn't win Game Three because of their own incompetence. Game Four because the pitching matchup finally caught up with them (starter out after one). Game Five ... they were destined to lose. Pedro started and left after six ... 4-2, Sox, on a four run inning. The As got another run in the eighth. They got first and second with no one out in the ninth. Second and Third with one out. Couldn't do it. So sad.

Many are hyped for a Red Sox/Yanks matchup ... they played close to 20 games already. I personally am bored with these guys ... they will be some exciting games, pitching and hitting duels. Pedro will be matched by Yankee pitching and might very well have a stellar effort [seven innings or so and an average of three runs is not really stellar ... suggesting a key to the team's problems]. Each bullpen is questionable but has shown itself to be stellar in key spots (the Red Sox pen in latter games vs the As surely did so, when push came to shove). And so forth. The edge, as it usually is, is slightly on the Yankees' side. If they lose, it would be special -- Red Sox v. Cubs or Marlins -- but really nothing special. Just things going their way, as it sometimes does, though not at the end.

The Marlins/Cubs matchup seems more interesting. I actually think the Marlins might have an edge ... they have stellar pitching and a bit more offense. The Cubs bullpen is questionable; the Marlins bullpen has shown their stuff repeatedly vs. the Giants. The Cubs won the season series, but only four of six, and it is almost meaningless given the greatly changed situation (and belief in the Marlins mind ... actually, they won more games! They are the underdog only because they won the Wild Card, not a division). And, unlike the Red Sox, the Cubs never quite was in this position before.

Weekend: I caught a fun movie that rocked, literally, School of Rock with Jack Black. The movie had a fun trite touches, including a bit forced scene where he talks about how he really cares about his kids ... kids he tricked into serving as his backup in a Battle of the Bands competition by taking over for his roommate (played by the wonderful Mike White, who also co-wrote) in a temp teacher position at a snooty grade school. It was criminal as well that Sarah Silverman was wasted in a role as the bitchy girlfriend. Still, the movie took a standard plot idea, built it around a role made for Jack Black, and took advantage of the general fun of the genre done right. And, new how to appreciate rock while also making fun of it.

Sports was a mixed bag. The Yanks did what they had to by beating the Twins and moving on. The Cubs did what it didn't do for about a hundred years and won a playoff series (admittedly in the past, it didn't have an option to play three sets until its third attempt in 1998) via another great effort by Kerry Wood. The As, likely helped by a bad umpire call but much more so by their own bungling, lost their best shot at advancing. They lost their second shot (helped by Hudson, pitching on short rest, leaving after an inning) and have to face Pedro (on full rest) their third and final shot. The Marlins blew a four run lead (after Dontrielle Willis got a triple on his third hit ... he might have been a tad too pumped up), but survived. So, the Giants and Braves, way ahead by mid-Summer, are eliminated. Oh, and the Giants (football) played shoddy football to drop into last place.

Harmful to Minors by Judith Levine got a lot of criticism around a year ago (feels like that, maybe I'm a bit off) because she had some good things to say about child sexuality. Her main focus was more on children learning about sexuality, playing around with it in safe contexts, and how attempts to "protect" children from sexuality often are counterproductive. She wrote the book right before the Catholic Church scandals came out, but her basic themes still hold. Someone who influenced her (and vice versa) is Sharon Lamb, who about the same time wrote a book entitled The Secret Lives of Girls: What Good Girls Really Do -- Sex Play, Aggression, and Their Guilt. The two can be read together and are both worthwhile at least for perusing, be it for parents, educators, or the regular reader.

Lamb's book is split into two parts, sexual play and aggression. Her overall theme is that both are and have long been (her interviewees range in age from literally eight to eighty) part of the lives of girls, though many seem to feel that they are weird or even bad for taking part. Lamb is not as blase as intersexual sexual contact itself as Levine at times is, but same sex playing is seen by her as important as a way to play around with sexuality, learn about it, and even to provide pleasure. A few intersexual incidents are discussed, but same sex/more balanced in power players seem more attractive to her. Likewise, she wishes society to face up to the fact that girls too deal with aggression, not just boys, and sometimes it might even be good for them (especially in sports, useful also as a way for girls to "take up space" and for "good girls" to be proactive).

The sexuality of children, though addressed in some cultures, is seen by many as dangerous. The fact is that children are in some sense sexual beings, and there are safe ways for them to examine this part of themselves. The same applies to aggression; and when aggression is excessive, it should be seen in a balanced way. Would it be as bad (or even bad at all) if boys were involved? Likewise, yes, some sorts of sex play (especially actual sex) might be deemed troubling, but it should be put in perspective. This is a crosscultural work ... one difference, though in part it is a matter of class, is that black girls more often play sexually with other boys (and are more likely to be deemed bad girls by nature, though white girls are sexual as well). Pretty quick reading with short chapters throughout ... good way to get a feel of a controversial societal topic.

Thoughts: Joseph Wilson as Enemy, Post Season Politics, Why Jet Blue Exposing Customer Info Matters, Hidden Punishments, Perfect Spy (Wilson's wife), and Barely Managing (Bush as manager).

Sports: I only caught bits and pieces of many of the games, but so far the playoffs have had some good ones. The best might be a 12th inning affair between Oakland and Boston with a ninth inning rally, a top of the twelfth save, and a game winning bunt. Unfortunately, after losing Game 1, the Braves showed some of their old magic vs. the Cubs. Hampton survived a bases loaded, no one out, two in, first inning. And, the Braves survived a blown Smoltz save (in the eighth), and got two RBI with two outs (after the pitcher barely allowed Smoltz to lay down a sacrifice on a 3-2 count). The Marlins and Giants also split with each having a chance to shine. The Yanks was totally messy, wasted a good Mussina effort, and good defense stopped a ninth inning rally. They won Game Two though ... only the Red Sox didn't manage to tie things up 1-1.

TV: The second episode of "West Wing" was disappointing; it was like the latter half of an extended episode, which always tend to be an attempt to stretch limited material over an extended amount of time. Not much action, a few cliches, and suddenly the daughter is found. It did take a chance to make fun of itself (fast walking). The second episode of "Coupling" was better, though it again was basically a replay of the original, just with a more annoying soundtrack and less skillful actors. It does seem like they are fitting into their roles. I also caught the theme song -- same song, just not as good. Sounds familiar.