Sotomayor Day 3

Same as Day 2. Same questions, same answers, same same same.

Just confirm her and get this over with. I'm bored.

(I'll of course be listening to every minute of today's testimony, just like yesterday and the day before and the day before).

Sotomayor Day 2

Today was Sotomayor's first day of answering questions from the Judiciary Committee, and I think she came off very well. She was articulate, thorough, relatively forthcoming and obviously intelligent (if pretty nervous).

I think, though, that she didn't answer the Ricci questions sufficiently. Sotomayor was on a panel of three judges that heard the Ricci appeal, which involved a question of "reverse discrimination." Instead of writing a detailed opinion in the case, the Sotomayor panel simply released a three-paragraph unsigned opinion affirming the lower court. Sotomayor subsequently voted to deny rehearing the case in banc (by the full Second Circuit Court of Appeals). The vote to rehear failed by one vote. If Sotomayor had changed her vote, the whole Second Circuit would have heard the case and, presumably, released a full opinion on the merits.

I don't think she explained (1.) the summary opinion affirming the lower court; or (2.) voting to deny rehearing. The case was important, reaching questions of first impression on the Second Circuit. Aside from the fact that she should have written an opinion, or else voted to send the case to the full circuit, she didn't really explain why she didn't take either step. She said that Second Circuit precedent compelled her decision, but that doesn't adequately explain why there actually was no Second Circuit decision either by the three-judge panel or the full circuit. I feel like there should have been.

I also hated how Lindsey Graham turned into an undergraduate speechwriting professor in his own mind. Sotomayor doesn't need to be told how to give a speech, which wasn't as bad as everyone is trying to make it seem (wise Latina), nor does she need to be lectured to by a pompous senator about what's appropriate for a judge to speak about. But I guess that's how these confirmation hearings go.

Anyway, I really enjoyed listening to her give substantive responses. She clearly knows what she's talking about, and I think she would be a fantastic addition to the Court. She strikes me as a humble person who would bring a much-needed diversity of background to the Court. And yes, that's a good thing.

Sotomayor Day 1

I streamed much of the first day of the Sotomayor hearings in my office today. Lindsey Graham (R-SC) wins the award for most realistic Republican on the Judiciary Committee. He told Sotomayor that her confirmation was essentially a given as long as she didn't choke, and he hinted that because he thought presidents deserve deference regarding their judicial picks, he might be a Yes vote. (I agree with him. If I were in the Senate, I would have voted at least for Roberts, and maybe for Alito.)

Other Republicans spent the afternoon telling Sotomayor how she is a bigot and a racist and that her biases might be too much to overlook when deciding how to cast their vote--this in front of her mother who worked two jobs to put food on the table.

But here's the thing. The Democrats have 58 active senators right now, excluding Byrd and Kennedy. That is enough to secure confirmation. I understood the reasoning behind the bluster about opposing her nomination in the build up to today's hearing: to raise money for conservative interest groups (even at the expense of sacrificing some Hispanic support for the GOP). But I don't see why they persist now that the moment is at hand. She's in, guys. Bullying her today in front of the cameras and in front of her family was incredibly self-defeating, and it made her look even more sympathetic than she already did.

A Numbered List About Bruno

Ok. Bruno. Shallower observations first.

1. As a lot of people have noted, Bruno's premise is much like Borat. Crazy foreigner infiltrates middle America and exposes their latent (or blatant) prejudices. Sacha Baron Cohen is of course a fantastic character actor, and I'm sorry to anyone who talks to me on a regular basis, but I'll be saying things like"Schting" and "und" for a very long while.

2. SBC is also pretty hot in this movie. He definitely has been hitting the gym, and he has a fabulous gay coif--although the highlight patterns leaves something to be desired. It's amazing that this is the same guy who played Borat. It's a complete transformation (which was probably necessary since Borat was such a hit).

3. A lot of this film seemed staged. I know the same was true in Borat, but there were a few times when you could totally tell everyone was in on it. I really don't like faux-candid things.

Alright.

4. I have a feeling that SBC is going to need to do something else if he's going to make another movie. Borat was hilarious, but Bruno borrowed a lot of set-ups and plot devices from it. I still laughed, but not quite as hard (more on this later). A third movie doing essentially the same thing would be too much. It's like that Simpsons episode when Bart was the "I didn't do it" kid. Hilarious for a while, and then one day Krusty slams the door in his face. If there's a next time, I'm Krusty.

5. This movie made me cringe a lot more than I thought I would, and not necessarily in a good way. I think some cringe movies can be fantastic. (Did anyone see The Aristocrats? Jesus.) But here, a lot of the time the cringe-inducing set up was just uncomfortable for everyone. Without spoiling too much, the hunting scene made me want to die. I wanted to disappear into my chair. I get that SBC likes to get bigoted people to reveal their bigotry in an organic way, but I actually felt sympathy for some of these guys. I think some people have the potential to be hostile to gay people if the right buttons are pushed, but would otherwise have a live-and-let-live philosophy. That was sort of my sense with a lot of these set ups: guys who weren't proactively homophobic, but who got to the point where their little homophobic ember was fanned too much. That isn't to excuse homophobia, but maybe to understand it a little better.

(Spoiler here if you haven't seen it)

6. And here's where I get really uncomfortable. Tied into the last point, at the end of the film there is a ridiculous wrestling scene where Bruno and his assistant start making out and PG-13ing each other in the ring in front of an obviously clueless redneck audience. People in the audience start yelling "fag" and throwing beer, food, and, at one point, a chair into the ring. By the end of the scene, Bruno and the assistant are covered in garbage and the people remaining in the audience seem like they're ready to lynch. People were banging on the cage, screaming epithets, trying to inflict harm.

Their reaction was vicious, and it was chilling, and it focused me on where gay people stand in 2009. We're making remarkable progress in a lot of areas (no thanks to our president). But when a group of people react the way they did to the sight of two gay guys making out, it really demonstrates how far we have to go to win hearts and minds, as the Honorable George W. Bush would say.

The typical response is to say that well, duh, no one expects to see simulated fellatio when they go to a wrestling match. I get that. But if it were anything else unexpected, I don't think there would have been such a violent overreaction. It struck me as cathartic, freed of the bounds of politically correct behavior and embracing their inner Glenn Beck. Those poor straight white male Christians have had it rough lately.

7. So, was Bruno good or bad for the gays? I don't know. I know the conventional wisdom for Borat was that it was generally a net positive for the Jewish community to expose anti-Semitism, in however sophisticated a way. I guess you can spin Bruno the same way for the LGBT community. Maybe Bruno is beneficial in showing the kinds of ridiculous provocations that get the people most likely to exhibit anti-gay violence, to actually exhibit anti-gay violence. On the other hand, maybe inflaming anti-gay passions--even among the few people not in on the joke--just to make Sacha Baron Cohen a fast few million isn't necessarily the most responsible thing to do in this political climate.

Or maybe Bruno is just a silly movie not worth all of these pixels. But it's definitely worth seeing--if for no other reason than to be able to talk about it around the water cooler. Good movies have been in short supply this summer.

8. Speaking of film this year, I saw a preview for an alien sci-fi movie called District 9, and I'm totally going to see it. The website is amazing too. Check it out. (Don't even get me started on alien movies. I'll die.)

My Favorite Christ

I absolutely LOVE this (via TBogg). I hope Sarah Palin never ever goes away.

Lots to say about her, but I'm skating out of work right now. More later, p'raps.

To the Citizens of Brookline, MA

I hereby declare a moratorium on people standing around with clipboards in the middle of Coolidge Corner sidewalks begging me to take just a minute to declare my support for safe drinking water, "the environment," the DNC, LaRouche, pandas, "the children," or anything else that's just an excuse to put me on your lame mailing list.

And if you team up to force me to walk through a gauntlet of two or more clipboard-wielding ideologues--casting away all plausibility of my pretending not to see you--the penalty shall be summary execution.

This moratorium goes into effect immediately.

Thank you.

Confessions: Guilty Pleasures

There are few things I love more than to read comment sections on right wing blogs and observe all the idiotic "commentary" coupled with spelling and/or grammatical errors. It's just so perfect.

See, e.g., www.hotair.com.

Years Ago

Amazing how dated the West Wing is from 2001. The computers are old, the cell phones are enormous, and one line of dialogue centered on the "historically low unemployment rate."

If I could turn back time...

Seriously?

I don't like this.

In a surprise announcement the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences said Wednesday that it would double the number of nominees for the best-picture Academy Award to 10 from 5, returning to a practice it used more than a half-century ago when the number of films released was larger.

There is so much crap out there as it is, and now we have to sit through ten best picture nominees? The article invokes The Dark Knight, and how it was shut out from the category, but if all we're trying to do is recognize blockbusters, can't we do a montage or something? Best Picture? Come on.

And I'm still bitter about Crash winning over Brokeback in 2007. That hugging-the-shirt scene.... omg.

What LGBT Cowardice?

The president just concluded a one-hour news conference today, and not one member of the press corps felt it necessary to ask if Obama stood behind the DOMA brief, or whether he's selling out members of the LGBT community for supposed political benefit.

I know Iran, the economy and health care are very important. But there is only so much news you're going to get out of this guy. You need to mix it up a little bit. Asking questions about perceived contradictions in his response to Iran doesn't make much news, even if it might up your standing within the Beltway.

Ugh.

Repeal DADT, Now With Statistical Proof!

If the president isn't swayed by entreaties to such notions as equal protection under the law, or to "separate is not equal" lines of thinking, maybe his interest would be piqued by this (via Andrew Sullivan):

Gay and lesbian study participants who were asked to conceal their sexual orientation performed 20% worse on spatial reasoning tests and 50% worse on physical endurance tests as compared to those who were not given this instruction. The findings have clear implications for the battlefield. Gays and lesbians — even those who follow the policy — are prevented from performing optimally, which may affect the readiness of military units.

This is kind of obvious. If you have to expend energy or concentration concealing who you are (no easy feat), there is less energy/concentration available to you to do your job (or whatever). When it comes to fighting wars, you would think the military would want to remove as many mental barriers as possible.

Gay Marriage, Briefly

Contrary to my general disillusionment with elected leaders in the last month or so when it comes to gay rights, I'm pretty excited to hear that NY Gov. Patterson is going to push New York's gay marriage bill to a vote before the Senate breaks this summer, even if the prospect of enactment is remote.

And yes, I know that 2009 is going to emerge as one of the most important watershed years in the history of gay rights, regardless of what happens in the next six months. That doesn't make it any easier to take when the president of the United States refuses to even acknowledge those important victories, and it doesn't make it okay to avoid the question when political realities might make pushing the legislation less than ideal.

So, basically, kudos to Gov. Patterson.

Oh, and Senator Dodd (D-CT) is now in favor of gay marriage:

While I’ve long been for extending every benefit of marriage to same-sex couples, I have in the past drawn a distinction between a marriage-like status (“civil unions”) and full marriage rights.

The reason was simple: I was raised to believe that marriage is between a man and a woman. And as many other Americans have realized as they’ve struggled to reconcile the principle of fairness with the lessons they learned early in life, that’s not an easy thing to overcome.

But the fact that I was raised a certain way just isn’t a good enough reason to stand in the way of fairness anymore.

Sweet. Kudos to him, too.

Flight Risk

I'm never flying again:

A Continental Airlines jetliner carrying 247 passengers landed in Newark shortly before noon on Thursday, after the flight’s captain died midflight.

Over It, Mr. President

I am infuriated with President Obama's cowardice and lack of leadership with respect to gay rights issues. This link isn't to Obama's official site for his plan for gay rights, but it may as well be.

I don't know what it will take to force the president and Congress to recognize that (1) gay people deserve as many (some might say "equal") protections under the law as any other person; (2) there is never a good time to advocate for the rights of an historically oppressed minority; and (3) there is actually majority support for several issues (but not yet gay marriage) that the LGBT community has been advocating for.

I have been content for the past few months to give Obama time to get his sea legs as president. There is a lot on his plate, blah blah blah. But enough is enough. We can't accept "maybe later," "wait till after the midterms," or "maybe at the end of the second term" as a date for possible full legal acceptance into civilized society. It's 2009 now. Seriously.

I hope everyone considers going to Washington in October -- the weekend of the 10th and 11th -- to march for the fundamental rights and liberties to which we are entitled, but denied. We need a huge, loud, fabulous turnout. We need to stand up for ourselves and for the respect and legal recognitions we are entitled to.

On a Lighter Note

The Times likes the iPhone 3G S.

BF will be getting one on Friday, so I'm withholding judgment, but I'm about 90% sure to keep the 3G. I'll probably wait for the 4th generation to upgrade (he says while checking his bank account online....).

Iran Elections

Iran is on the brink of revolution. Follow this link on Huffington Post: Blogging the Uprising.

It's amazing. I wish I could believe that if the situation were similar in the United States we would be doing the same thing, but I really doubt it. (The 2000 election is not analogous. Gore only wanted a recount of three counties in Florida, and even if he got his way, he still would have lost.)

A Serious Question

Why do batters take a 3-0 pitch almost every single time? They know the pitch is going right down the middle of the plate. If they can get to 3-0, they obviously have a good eye, so they can hold up if it's a crap pitch.

So, why just stand there? It's a waste of a strike. This Times article from 2007 describes the trend, but doesn't explain the strategy really well. It's not the end of the world to go 3-1, but why take it as a necessity?

Pet Peeve Alert

One of my biggest pet peeves is misusing the term "begging the question." To beg the question means to assume the thing you are trying to prove. To use Wikipedia's example, when arguing that the Bible is the word of God, a person would refer to what is written in the Bible as proof of the proposition that the Bible is divinely inspired.

Begging the question does not mean to "present" the question. I was reading this post on MyDD.com discussing the Lieberman-Graham amendment to the war supplemental that would forbid the dissemination of pictures of American torture. Charles Lemus writes: "this begs the question, what are they trying to hide?" No, it presents that question, or poses that question. The question was not "begged."

(I had a pedant for a philosophy professor during my undergrad years at Pitt. Sue me.)

And another thing: "whether or not X" makes my ears bleed. It should be "whether X or not," or "regardless of whether X".

"Whether or not" is redundant, and it drives me absolutely craaaaazy.

Ok, that's probably enough.

This is Not Funny

Daughter Breaks Moms Legs While Learning to Drive

Police said a 17-year-old girl who was practicing how to drive broke her
mother's legs after stepping on the gas pedal instead of the brake. Sgt. Thomas
Long told the Republican newspaper that the mother was sitting on a fence when
she was struck Saturday morning at a movie theater parking lot.

Sarah Palin Sez:

Today the things that some in Washington would do to take away our freedoms, it's absolutely astounding, and we would do so well to look back on those Reagan years as he championed the cause for freedom and then he lived it out as our president - cheerfully, persistently and unapologetically. Reagan knew that real change and real change requiring shaking things up and maybe takin' off the entrenched interest thwarting the will of the people with their ignoring of our concerns about future peril caused by selfish short-sighted advocacy for growing government and digging more debt, and taking away individual and state's rights and hampering opportunity to responsibly develop our resources, and coddling those who would seek to harm America and her allies.

(via Huffington Post)

Omg I cannot WAIT for her to start running for prez in 2011. I'll have to start sharpening up the Alaskan accent. Kevin can help me.

Another Day

Okay, I'm twelve years late to the whole Rent thing. The first time I saw it I was at a movie theater watching the recording of the last show on Broadway last September. I know. Bad gay.

I've never considered myself really into theater, but everything that I see I love. So I guess I need to reevaluate what I think about that.

Anyhoo, Mimi's voice is fantastic. And she is gorgeous beyond words.