This Blog is Over
Saturday, January 16
Morning Run In Key West
ran outside in the fresh air along the harbor in Key West. This was
better than at the gym! I actually took this shot with my iPhone
while running. Not too bad.
Friday, January 15
Saying Hi to Our Florida Friend
Judge Rules No Vote for Gay Marriage in DC
The Washington Post reports that a D.C. Superior Court judge ruled yesterday that same-sex marriage opponents do not have a right to call a vote on same-sex marriage in DC. This is a huge victory for gay marriage advocates and means marriages in DC can begin by early March.
According to the Post article, in the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.
However, "Christian" Bishop Harry Jackson and his attorneys said Thursday that they will appeal the ruling. Of course they will. This important issue should be their main focus. There are no other bigger problems in the world. That is called sarcasm.
According to the Post article, in the 23-page ruling, Judge Judith N. Macaluso affirmed a D.C. Board of Elections and Ethics decision that city law disallows the ballot proposal because it would promote discrimination against gay men and lesbians. Macaluso also concluded that previous court decisions outlawing same-sex marriage in the District are no longer valid.
However, "Christian" Bishop Harry Jackson and his attorneys said Thursday that they will appeal the ruling. Of course they will. This important issue should be their main focus. There are no other bigger problems in the world. That is called sarcasm.
Thursday, January 14
The Conservative Case for Gay Marriage
by Theodore B. Olson, Op-Ed from Newsweek
Published Jan 9, 2010 (from the magazine issue dated Jan 18, 2010)
Why same-sex marriage is an American value.
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8 -- the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance.
Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently reminded the nation of its founding principle: "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that "no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws."
Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason -- and have not heard one since I undertook this venture -- for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.
Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.
It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.
Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a "union unreservedly approved and favored by the community."
Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.
What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.
The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.
The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation -- and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's de-sire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.
Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.
The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.
No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.
Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable "lifestyle" should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment.
When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason. We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education -- until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.
Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like "betrayal" and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.
Some have suggested that we have brought this case too soon, and that neither the country nor the courts are "ready" to tackle this issue and remove this stigma. We disagree. We represent real clients -- two wonderful couples in California who have longtime relationships. Our lesbian clients are raising four fine children who could not ask for better parents. Our clients wish to be married. They believe that they have that constitutional right. They wish to be represented in court to seek vindication of that right by mounting a challenge under the United States Constitution to the validity of Proposition 8 under the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the California attorney general has conceded the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8, and the city of San Francisco has joined our case to defend the rights of gays and lesbians to be married. We do not tell persons who have a legitimate claim to wait until the time is "right" and the populace is "ready" to recognize their equality and equal dignity under the law.
Citizens who have been denied equality are invariably told to "wait their turn" and to "be patient." Yet veterans of past civil-rights battles found that it was the act of insisting on equal rights that ultimately sped acceptance of those rights. As to whether the courts are "ready" for this case, just a few years ago, in Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a popularly adopted Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew the rights of gays and lesbians in that state to the protection of anti-discrimination laws. And seven years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down, as lacking any rational basis, Texas laws prohibiting private, intimate sexual practices between persons of the same sex, overruling a contrary decision just 20 years earlier.
These decisions have generated controversy, of course, but they are decisions of the nation's highest court on which our clients are entitled to rely. If all citizens have a constitutional right to marry, if state laws that withdraw legal protections of gays and lesbians as a class are unconstitutional, and if private, intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is protected by the Constitution, there is very little left on which opponents of same-sex marriage can rely. As Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case, pointed out, "(W)hat (remaining) justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '(t)he liberty protected by the Constitution'?" He is right, of course. One might agree or not with these decisions, but even Justice Scalia has acknowledged that they lead in only one direction.
California's Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of "domestic partnerships" with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court's ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California's citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.
So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.
Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.
(c) 2010, Newsweek Inc. All rights reserved.
Together with my good friend and occasional courtroom adversary David Boies, I am attempting to persuade a federal court to invalidate California's Proposition 8 -- the voter-approved measure that overturned California's constitutional right to marry a person of the same sex.
My involvement in this case has generated a certain degree of consternation among conservatives. How could a politically active, lifelong Republican, a veteran of the Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush administrations, challenge the "traditional" definition of marriage and press for an "activist" interpretation of the Constitution to create another "new" constitutional right?
My answer to this seeming conundrum rests on a lifetime of exposure to persons of different backgrounds, histories, viewpoints, and intrinsic characteristics, and on my rejection of what I see as superficially appealing but ultimately false perceptions about our Constitution and its protection of equality and fundamental rights.
Many of my fellow conservatives have an almost knee-jerk hostility toward gay marriage. This does not make sense, because same-sex unions promote the values conservatives prize. Marriage is one of the basic building blocks of our neighborhoods and our nation. At its best, it is a stable bond between two individuals who work to create a loving household and a social and economic partnership. We encourage couples to marry because the commitments they make to one another provide benefits not only to themselves but also to their families and communities. Marriage requires thinking beyond one's own needs. It transforms two individuals into a union based on shared aspirations, and in doing so establishes a formal investment in the well-being of society. The fact that individuals who happen to be gay want to share in this vital social institution is evidence that conservative ideals enjoy widespread acceptance.
Conservatives should celebrate this, rather than lament it.
Legalizing same-sex marriage would also be a recognition of basic American principles, and would represent the culmination of our nation's commitment to equal rights. It is, some have said, the last major civil-rights milestone yet to be surpassed in our two-century struggle to attain the goals we set for this nation at its formation.
This bedrock American principle of equality is central to the political and legal convictions of Republicans, Democrats, liberals, and conservatives alike. The dream that became America began with the revolutionary concept expressed in the Declaration of Independence in words that are among the most noble and elegant ever written: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."
Sadly, our nation has taken a long time to live up to the promise of equality. In 1857, the Supreme Court held that an African-American could not be a citizen. During the ensuing Civil War, Abraham Lincoln eloquently reminded the nation of its founding principle: "our fathers brought forth on this continent, a new nation, conceived in liberty and dedicated to the proposition that all men are created equal."
At the end of the Civil War, to make the elusive promise of equality a reality, the 14th Amendment to the Constitution added the command that "no State shall deprive any person of life, liberty or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person the equal protection of the laws."
Subsequent laws and court decisions have made clear that equality under the law extends to persons of all races, religions, and places of origin. What better way to make this national aspiration complete than to apply the same protection to men and women who differ from others only on the basis of their sexual orientation? I cannot think of a single reason -- and have not heard one since I undertook this venture -- for continued discrimination against decent, hardworking members of our society on that basis.
Various federal and state laws have accorded certain rights and privileges to gay and lesbian couples, but these protections vary dramatically at the state level, and nearly universally deny true equality to gays and lesbians who wish to marry. The very idea of marriage is basic to recognition as equals in our society; any status short of that is inferior, unjust, and unconstitutional.
The United States Supreme Court has repeatedly held that marriage is one of the most fundamental rights that we have as Americans under our Constitution. It is an expression of our desire to create a social partnership, to live and share life's joys and burdens with the person we love, and to form a lasting bond and a social identity. The Supreme Court has said that marriage is a part of the Constitution's protections of liberty, privacy, freedom of association, and spiritual identification. In short, the right to marry helps us to define ourselves and our place in a community. Without it, there can be no true equality under the law.
It is true that marriage in this nation traditionally has been regarded as a relationship exclusively between a man and a woman, and many of our nation's multiple religions define marriage in precisely those terms. But while the Supreme Court has always previously considered marriage in that context, the underlying rights and liberties that marriage embodies are not in any way confined to heterosexuals.
Marriage is a civil bond in this country as well as, in some (but hardly all) cases, a religious sacrament. It is a relationship recognized by governments as providing a privileged and respected status, entitled to the state's support and benefits. The California Supreme Court described marriage as a "union unreservedly approved and favored by the community."
Where the state has accorded official sanction to a relationship and provided special benefits to those who enter into that relationship, our courts have insisted that withholding that status requires powerful justifications and may not be arbitrarily denied.
What, then, are the justifications for California's decision in Proposition 8 to withdraw access to the institution of marriage for some of its citizens on the basis of their sexual orientation? The reasons I have heard are not very persuasive.
The explanation mentioned most often is tradition. But simply because something has always been done a certain way does not mean that it must always remain that way. Otherwise we would still have segregated schools and debtors' prisons. Gays and lesbians have always been among us, forming a part of our society, and they have lived as couples in our neighborhoods and communities. For a long time, they have experienced discrimination and even persecution; but we, as a society, are starting to become more tolerant, accepting, and understanding. California and many other states have allowed gays and lesbians to form domestic partnerships (or civil unions) with most of the rights of married heterosexuals. Thus, gay and lesbian individuals are now permitted to live together in state-sanctioned relationships. It therefore seems anomalous to cite "tradition" as a justification for withholding the status of marriage and thus to continue to label those relationships as less worthy, less sanctioned, or less legitimate.
The second argument I often hear is that traditional marriage furthers the state's interest in procreation -- and that opening marriage to same-sex couples would dilute, diminish, and devalue this goal. But that is plainly not the case. Preventing lesbians and gays from marrying does not cause more heterosexuals to marry and conceive more children. Likewise, allowing gays and lesbians to marry someone of the same sex will not discourage heterosexuals from marrying a person of the opposite sex. How, then, would allowing same-sex marriages reduce the number of children that heterosexual couples conceive?
This procreation argument cannot be taken seriously. We do not inquire whether heterosexual couples intend to bear children, or have the capacity to have children, before we allow them to marry. We permit marriage by the elderly, by prison inmates, and by persons who have no intention of having children. What's more, it is pernicious to think marriage should be limited to heterosexuals because of the state's de-sire to promote procreation. We would surely not accept as constitutional a ban on marriage if a state were to decide, as China has done, to discourage procreation.
Another argument, vaguer and even less persuasive, is that gay marriage somehow does harm to heterosexual marriage. I have yet to meet anyone who can explain to me what this means. In what way would allowing same-sex partners to marry diminish the marriages of heterosexual couples? Tellingly, when the judge in our case asked our opponent to identify the ways in which same-sex marriage would harm heterosexual marriage, to his credit he answered honestly: he could not think of any.
The simple fact is that there is no good reason why we should deny marriage to same-sex partners. On the other hand, there are many reasons why we should formally recognize these relationships and embrace the rights of gays and lesbians to marry and become full and equal members of our society.
No matter what you think of homosexuality, it is a fact that gays and lesbians are members of our families, clubs, and workplaces. They are our doctors, our teachers, our soldiers (whether we admit it or not), and our friends. They yearn for acceptance, stable relationships, and success in their lives, just like the rest of us.
Conservatives and liberals alike need to come together on principles that surely unite us. Certainly, we can agree on the value of strong families, lasting domestic relationships, and communities populated by persons with recognized and sanctioned bonds to one another. Confining some of our neighbors and friends who share these same values to an outlaw or second-class status undermines their sense of belonging and weakens their ties with the rest of us and what should be our common aspirations. Even those whose religious convictions preclude endorsement of what they may perceive as an unacceptable "lifestyle" should recognize that disapproval should not warrant stigmatization and unequal treatment.
When we refuse to accord this status to gays and lesbians, we discourage them from forming the same relationships we encourage for others. And we are also telling them, those who love them, and society as a whole that their relationships are less worthy, less legitimate, less permanent, and less valued. We demean their relationships and we demean them as individuals. I cannot imagine how we benefit as a society by doing so.
I understand, but reject, certain religious teachings that denounce homosexuality as morally wrong, illegitimate, or unnatural; and I take strong exception to those who argue that same-sex relationships should be discouraged by society and law. Science has taught us, even if history has not, that gays and lesbians do not choose to be homosexual any more than the rest of us choose to be heterosexual. To a very large extent, these characteristics are immutable, like being left-handed. And, while our Constitution guarantees the freedom to exercise our individual religious convictions, it equally prohibits us from forcing our beliefs on others. I do not believe that our society can ever live up to the promise of equality, and the fundamental rights to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, until we stop invidious discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation.
If we are born heterosexual, it is not unusual for us to perceive those who are born homosexual as aberrational and threatening. Many religions and much of our social culture have reinforced those impulses. Too often, that has led to prejudice, hostility, and discrimination. The antidote is understanding, and reason. We once tolerated laws throughout this nation that prohibited marriage between persons of different races. California's Supreme Court was the first to find that discrimination unconstitutional.
The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously agreed 20 years later, in 1967, in a case called Loving v. Virginia. It seems inconceivable today that only 40 years ago there were places in this country where a black woman could not legally marry a white man. And it was only 50 years ago that 17 states mandated segregated public education -- until the Supreme Court unanimously struck down that practice in Brown v. Board of Education. Most Americans are proud of these decisions and the fact that the discriminatory state laws that spawned them have been discredited. I am convinced that Americans will be equally proud when we no longer discriminate against gays and lesbians and welcome them into our society.
Reactions to our lawsuit have reinforced for me these essential truths. I have certainly heard anger, resentment, and hostility, and words like "betrayal" and other pointedly graphic criticism. But mostly I have been overwhelmed by expressions of gratitude and good will from persons in all walks of life, including, I might add, from many conservatives and libertarians whose names might surprise. I have been particularly moved by many personal renditions of how lonely and personally destructive it is to be treated as an outcast and how meaningful it will be to be respected by our laws and civil institutions as an American, entitled to equality and dignity. I have no doubt that we are on the right side of this battle, the right side of the law, and the right side of history.
Some have suggested that we have brought this case too soon, and that neither the country nor the courts are "ready" to tackle this issue and remove this stigma. We disagree. We represent real clients -- two wonderful couples in California who have longtime relationships. Our lesbian clients are raising four fine children who could not ask for better parents. Our clients wish to be married. They believe that they have that constitutional right. They wish to be represented in court to seek vindication of that right by mounting a challenge under the United States Constitution to the validity of Proposition 8 under the equal-protection and due-process clauses of the 14th Amendment. In fact, the California attorney general has conceded the unconstitutionality of Proposition 8, and the city of San Francisco has joined our case to defend the rights of gays and lesbians to be married. We do not tell persons who have a legitimate claim to wait until the time is "right" and the populace is "ready" to recognize their equality and equal dignity under the law.
Citizens who have been denied equality are invariably told to "wait their turn" and to "be patient." Yet veterans of past civil-rights battles found that it was the act of insisting on equal rights that ultimately sped acceptance of those rights. As to whether the courts are "ready" for this case, just a few years ago, in Romer v. Evans, the United States Supreme Court struck down a popularly adopted Colorado constitutional amendment that withdrew the rights of gays and lesbians in that state to the protection of anti-discrimination laws. And seven years ago, in Lawrence v. Texas, the Supreme Court struck down, as lacking any rational basis, Texas laws prohibiting private, intimate sexual practices between persons of the same sex, overruling a contrary decision just 20 years earlier.
These decisions have generated controversy, of course, but they are decisions of the nation's highest court on which our clients are entitled to rely. If all citizens have a constitutional right to marry, if state laws that withdraw legal protections of gays and lesbians as a class are unconstitutional, and if private, intimate sexual conduct between persons of the same sex is protected by the Constitution, there is very little left on which opponents of same-sex marriage can rely. As Justice Antonin Scalia, who dissented in the Lawrence case, pointed out, "(W)hat (remaining) justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising '(t)he liberty protected by the Constitution'?" He is right, of course. One might agree or not with these decisions, but even Justice Scalia has acknowledged that they lead in only one direction.
California's Proposition 8 is particularly vulnerable to constitutional challenge, because that state has now enacted a crazy-quilt of marriage regulation that makes no sense to anyone. California recognizes marriage between men and women, including persons on death row, child abusers, and wife beaters. At the same time, California prohibits marriage by loving, caring, stable partners of the same sex, but tries to make up for it by giving them the alternative of "domestic partnerships" with virtually all of the rights of married persons except the official, state-approved status of marriage. Finally, California recognizes 18,000 same-sex marriages that took place in the months between the state Supreme Court's ruling that upheld gay-marriage rights and the decision of California's citizens to withdraw those rights by enacting Proposition 8.
So there are now three classes of Californians: heterosexual couples who can get married, divorced, and remarried, if they wish; same-sex couples who cannot get married but can live together in domestic partnerships; and same-sex couples who are now married but who, if they divorce, cannot remarry. This is an irrational system, it is discriminatory, and it cannot stand.
Americans who believe in the words of the Declaration of Independence, in Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, in the 14th Amendment, and in the Constitution's guarantees of equal protection and equal dignity before the law cannot sit by while this wrong continues. This is not a conservative or liberal issue; it is an American one, and it is time that we, as Americans, embraced it.
(c) 2010, Newsweek Inc. All rights reserved.
Wednesday, January 13
Comments on Random Stuff In the News
Nutty Pat Robertson has claimed that the tragedy in Haiti is the result of the people of Haiti's pact with the devil to remove the occupying French years ago. Somebody has watched Damn Yankees once too many times. The disaster there does seems to be beyond imagination. If you want to help (rather than talk nonsense about the devil), see my post below about giving to Americares. They have very low administrative expenses, so 99 percent of the money donated goes to actually helping people (and fighting the work of the devil).
On a much lighter note, kudos to Conan O'Brien for not letting NBC kick him around. I think it is rotten that, because Jay Leno's show was a failure in prime time, he should be rewarded with another show that displaces The Tonight Show to the next day (12:05 a.m.). Jay had his time on the show and it is time for him to leave. I was never a fan. NBC sure eff this whole thing up. My suggestion is to keep Jay on at 10 p.m., but move him over to MSNBC. They just run a repeat of the 8 p.m. Countdown at 10 p.m. anyway. There ya go... problem solved.
Speaking of MSNBC and partisan politics, shameless idiot Sarah Palin is joining the "fair and balanced" team at Fox News. I personally can't wait to hear the crazy she cooks up in her walnut-sized brain and then hear it spew forth from her lipsticked pig mouth. She should feel right at home on Fox News. This is a gift from the Flying Spaghetti Monster to MSNBC. The endless supply of fodder for Rachel Maddow and Keith Olbermann will be a treat. Congrats MSNBC!
There was an article in the paper recently about bird-plane collisions and how incidents could top 10,000 for last year -- there are about 27 incidents a day. Though these birds sometimes do devastating damage to planes, I imagine the birds are not at all that pleased about this situation either. Though these collisions resulted in the destruction of three planes and a helicopter (including a US Air flight that landed in the Hudson River), it also resulted in the destruction of more than 10,000 birds.
Though Billy Joel claimed that the good die young, that isn't always true. Miep Gies died Monday in Amsterdam at 100. She was one of six non-Jewish helpers that hid Anne Frank, her family, and four other Jews for 2 years during World War II. Gies also gathered the pages of Anne's diary (unread) and kept them locked up for years until Frank's father returned to collect them after the war. Israeli President Shimon Peres said "Miep's selfless humanitarian deed inspires us to continue believing in the goodness and integrity of human beings in the face of unfathomable evil."
Gay marriage is on trial now in San Francisco with a group arguing that California's Prop 8 is unconstitutional. It looks as if, no matter what the ruling, the decision will eventually go to the U.S. Supreme Court, which makes me very nervous. If that court poo poos gay marriage, it could be many more years before it is legal nationally. It is a huge gamble with the current court, though it is hard to believe any court could justify denying such a basic civil right to a group of people, especially as it becomes legal in other countries around the world.
On the bright side of gay marriage, DC's Marriage Bill is on Capitol Hill. The countdown to legalized same-sex marriage in the District began yesterday. Congress has 30 legislative days to review it. Depending on how many days Congress is in session, the bill could become law in late February or early March. For it to be rejected, both the House and Senate would have to vote for a disapproval resolution and it would have to be signed by the President. Such a resolution has only happened three times in the last 30 years and is not likely with a Democratic majority. However, there is still a chance a court could require putting the issue before voters, which has never turned out well.
Speaking of not turning out well, poor old Sen. Harry Reid is having a bad week. Apparently, they haven't been told in Nevada about political correctness. His one saving grace is he only used the word "negro" rather than "colored" or worse terms he could have used. In recent polls, he is trailing all three Republicans running for his seat in 2010. Reid has always seemed a bit loony to me -- like that goofy old uncle who is always farting during Thanksgiving Dinner. Why can't the Democrats find an effective, sane leader in the Senate?
Help for Haiti -- Give to Americares
Donate to AmeriCares International Disaster Relief Fund
Following the deadly 7.0 earthquake in Haiti, AmeriCares is responding. Initial reports indicate that a hospital in Port-au-Prince has completely collapsed and 100,000 people are feared dead.
Click on the link above or the Americare photo in the sidebar for more information and to give.
Golden Globe Television Predicitons
Sunday (Jan. 17) is the 67th Annual Golden Globe Awards Ceremony. Ricky Gervais will be hosting, so it should be entertaining. Previously, I posted my predictions for the movie categories. Here are my predictions for the television portion of the awards. My favorite series of last year (by far) was True Blood. There is no way it is going to win. Could it? All the other series named here are boring in comparison. I have got to pick it. I'm also a big fan of Big Love, but it is not as good as True Blood.
Best Actress in a TV Drama Series -- Nominees -- Glenn Close (Damages), January Jones (Mad Men), Julianna Marulies (The Good Wife), Anna Paquin (True Blood), and Kyra Sedgwick (The Closer)
It would be hard not to give any award to Glenn Close. I don't watch Damages, but I do realize that Anna Paquin (though an Academy Award winner for The Piano), is no Glenn Close. Is anyone else even Close? I pick Glenn.
Best Actor in a TV Drama Series -- Nominees -- Simon Baker (The Mentalist), Michael C. Hall (Dexter), Jon Hamm (Mad Men), Hugh Laurie (House), and Bill Paxton (Big Love)
I have to go with Bill Paxton in Big Love. I loved Michael C. Hall in Six Feet Under, but I have not been able to get interested in Dexter. None of the others impresses me much. Sorry Hugh.
Best Television Comedy Series -- Nominees -- 30 Rock, Entourage, Glee, Modern Family, and The Office
I have to go with 30 Rock. I love Modern Family and Glee has its moments (but not many comedic ones). However, 30 Rock wins just for the send up of Susan Boyle and the HD camera. It makes me laugh.
Best Actress in a TV Comedy Series -- Nominees -- Toni Collette (United States of Tara), Courntney Cox (Cougar Town), Edie Falco (Nurse Jackie), Tina Fey (30 Rock), and Lea Michele (Glee)
Shane is going to divorce me for not picking Courtney Cox. He won't erase Cougar Town form our DVR. I think Toni Collette could win, but I don't love that show. It is OK. I'm glad that Lea Michele got a nomination for Glee. We saw her on Broadway in Spring Awakening. Lover her. I also love Tina Fey, but I'm not sure she deserves an award for her acting. However, I would pick Edie Falco for Nurse Jackie. How did that show not get more nominations? It is the best!
Best Actor in a TV Comedy Series -- Nominees -- Alec Baldwin (30 Rock), Steve Carell (The Office), David Duchovny (Californication), Thomas Jane (Hung), and Matthew Morrison (Glee)
Alec Baldwin is the best.
Best Mini-Series or Motion Picture for TV -- Nominees -- Georgia O'Keefe, Grey Gardens, Into the Storm, Little Dorrit, and Taking Chance
Grey Gardens is my pick. Yes. It was the onl.y one I saw, but I loved it!
Best Actress in a Mini-Series of Motion Picture Made for TV -- Nominees -- Joan Allen (Georgia O'Keefe), Drew Barrymore (Grey Gardens), Jessica Lange (Grey Gardens), Anna Paquin (The Courageous Heart of Irena Sendler), and Sigourney Weaver (Prayers for Bobby)
I love Joan Allen in anything, but I could not get interested in Georgia O'Keefe (Sorry Georgia). It has to be a dual between the Grey Garden gals, and since Jessica won the Emmy, I hope Drew gets the Golden Globe.
Best Actor in a Mini-Series of Motion Picture Made for TV -- Nominees -- Kevin Bacon (Taking Chance), Kenneth Branagh (Wallander: One Step Behind), Chiwetel Ejiofor (Endgame), Brendan Gleeson (Into the Storm, and Jeremy Irons (Georgia O'Keefe)
I have no clue who is going to win this category, but I hope Chiwetel Ejiofor wins, just so we can hear the presenter butcher his name.
Best Actress in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for TV -- Nominees -- Jane Adams (Hung), Rose Byrne (Damages), Jane Lynch (Glee), Janet McTeer (Into the Storm), and Chloe Sevigny (Big Love)
Though I love Chloe Sevigny in Big Love, I have to go for Jane Lynch in Glee. She is always awesome, and should have gotten a nomination for Julie and Julia.
Best Actor in a Supporting Role in a Series, Mini-Series or Motion Picture Made for TV -- Nominees -- Michael Emerson (Lost), Neil Patrick Harris (How I Met Your Mother), William Hurt (Damages), John Lithgow (Dexter), and Jeremy Piven (Entourage)
Somebody please explain to me why everyone is so enthralled with Jeremy Piven. I don't get it. I have no idea who will win this award. John Lithgow always seems to win whenever he is nominated. William Hurt is always good, and Neil Patrick Harris should get an award for hosting the Tony Awards. I will guess Lithgow will win.
Tuesday, January 12
Golden Globe Movie Predictions
Sunday (Jan. 17) is the 67th Annual Golden Globe Awards Ceremony. GGs are awarded in 25 categories for movies and television shows and performances. Awards are also given for directing and writing for movies, but not television. These awards are given by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association for the year ending Dec. 31, 2009. 173 live-action feature films (105 dramas and 68 comedies or musicals), 15 animated feature films, 133 television series (79 drama and 54 comedies), 33 mini-series or telefilms, and a record 69 foreign language films have qualified for 2010 Golden Globes.
These awards are often unpredictable and fairly meaningless, except some think they are some indication of what the Academy Awards will be. Here are my predictions for the movie portion of the awards. I will post my television award predictions shortly.
These awards are often unpredictable and fairly meaningless, except some think they are some indication of what the Academy Awards will be. Here are my predictions for the movie portion of the awards. I will post my television award predictions shortly.
Best Picture: Drama -- Nominees -- Avatar, The Hurt Locker, Inglourious Basterds, Precious and Up in the Air
I have only seen one of these (Up in the Air), which I didn't think was all that. However, it may likely win. It does have the most nominations. I've heard really good things about The Hurt Locker, and it is on my Netflix queue, but I think I'll go with box office smash Avatar as my guess.
Best Actress in a Film Drama -- Nominees -- Emily Blunt (The Young Victoria), Sandra Bullock (The Blind Side), Helen Mirren (The Last Station), Carey Mulligan (An Education), and Gabourey Sidibe (Precious)
Though I haven't seen any of these films, I did see the trailer for The Blind Side and Precious, and based on that, I think Sandra Bullock should start writing her acceptance speech.
Best Actor in a Film Drama -- Nominees -- Jeff Bridges (Crazy Heart), George Clooney (Up in the Air), Colin Firth (A Single Man), Morgan Freeman (Invictus), and Tobey Maquire (Brothers)
I think this will be close between Bridges and Clooney. However, I think the award will go to Jeff Bridges for this Tender Mercies/Coal Miner's Daughter type film.
Best Picture: Comedy or Musical -- Nominees -- (500) Days of Summer, The Hangover, It's Complicated, Julie & Julia, and Nine
I've only see one of these films, but it was my favorite film of last year. I'm hoping Julie and Julia wins.
Best Actress in a Film Comedy or Musical -- Nominees -- Sandra Bullock (The Proposal), Marion Cotillard (Nine), Julia Roberts (Duplicity), Meryl Streep (It's Complicated and Julie and Julia)
I think Meryl Streep's performance as Julia Child was amazing. There is no competition here.
Best Actor in a Film Comedy or Musical -- Nominees -- Matt Damon (The Informant!), Daniel Day-Lewis (Nine), Robert Downey Jr. (Sherlock Holmes), Joseph Gordon-Levitt ((500) Days of Summer), and Michael Stuhlbarg (A Serious Man)
This category is a toss up for me. I think the foreign press seems to like Downey (like I know the foreign press), but I am going to guess Joseph Gordon-Levitt is going to win. I used to like him on Third Rock, and I hope he wins.
Best Animated Feature Film -- Nominees -- Cloudy with a Chance of Meatballs, Coraline, Fantastic Mr. Fox, The Princess and the Frog and Up
I think Up will win. It is next on my Netflix queue and I'm looking forward to it based on clips I've already seen.
Best Foreign Language Film -- Nominees -- Baaria (Italy), Broken Embraces (Spain), The Maid (Chile), A Prophet (France), and The White Ribbon (Germany)
You have to go with Pedro Almodovar and Penelope Cruz here and pick Broken Embraces.
Best Supporting Actress in a Film - Nominees -- Penelope Cruz (Nine), Vera Farminga (Up in the Air), Anna Kendrick (Up in the Air), Mo'nique (Precious), and Julianne Moore (A Single Man)
I like Anna Kendrick very much in Up in the Air, but I can't see how Mo'nique can't win. I'd bet on it.
Best Supporting Actor in a Film - Nominees -- Matt Damon (Invictus), Woody Harrelson (The Messenger), Christopher Plummer (The Last Station), Stanley Tucci (The Lovely Bones), and Christoph Waltz (Inglourious Basterds)
This is a hard one. I loved Stanely Tucci in Julie and Julia, but he plays the murderer in the Lovely Bones. I'm going to guess Matt Damon gets it for Invictus.
Best Director -- Nominees -- Kathryn Bigelow (The Hurt Locker), James Cameron (Avatar), Clint Eastwood (Invictus), Jason Reitman (Up in the Air), and Quentin Tarantino (Inglourious Bastereds)
I think this will go to James Cameron for Avatar.
Best Screenplay -- Nominees -- District Nine, The Hurt Locker, It's Complicated, Up in the Air, Inglourious Basterds
I think this will go to Up in the Air, though I think I would give it to District Nine. District Nine was original and interesting and better than Up in the Air in my mind. I also think The Hurt Locker has a good chance, but I haven't seen it yet and have only heard it is good. My pick to win is Up in the Air.
Best Score -- Nominees -- Up, The Informant!, Avatar, A Single Man, and Where the Wild Things Are
I am sorry that the music from Away We Go did not get nominated for this category. I loved that score. I will guess that Avatar will win.
Best Original Song -- Nominees -- Cinema Italiano (Nine), I Want to Come Home (Everybody's Fine), I See You (Avatar), The Weary Kind (Crazy Heart), and Winter (Brothers)
I have no idea, as I've not heard any of these songs to my knowledge. I think Weary Kind will win, though I Want to Come Home is the longest title, and I have a theory that longer titles often win. I'm sticking with Weary Kind.
Monday, January 11
New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contests #224
In review... and to restate, reiterate, recap, retell,
repeat, recur, and regurgitate, please reconsider
publishing my thesaurus of words beginning
with the letter R.
The above cartoon is the New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest #224. I realize this is a pretty long caption for this contest. Usually, short and pithy wins, but I liked it. Let me know if you come up with any captions too. Click on the link above to enter.
Sunday, January 10
Review of "Up In the Air"
Shane and I went to see Up In the Air today at our local multiplex. Jason Reitman (Juno, Thank You for Smoking) directs this adaptation of Walter Kirn's comic novel. George Clooney stars as Ryan Bingham, a businessman on the verge of reaching 10 million frequent flyer miles when his company decides to cut back on travel. The purpose of his company's business is firing people, not that "firing" is a term they would use. With the downturn in the economy, business is good.
I hear that this movie is getting a lot of Oscar hype, but I don't understand what all the excitement is about. It is a pleasant enough film, but I wouldn't say I loved it. There is no high drama or high comedy. There were a few chuckles now and then and the message of the film seemed to be that people and relationships are important. I agree with that. I didn't know that there were many people who needed that lesson. There are certainly other films that I thought were better than this one -- Julie and Julia for instance -- and I haven't seen that many movies made in 2009.
Clooney is charming, as usual, in the lead. Vera Farminga plays the "like" interest, another business type on the road all the time. She also is very charming. Anna Kendrick is a perky upstart that Clooney's character takes under his "wing." Get it? They are always on a plane. Anyway, my favorite scene is Kendrick's breakdown in a hotel lobby after she is gets some bad news. I am giving the film three sponges. Given the subject, there were some laughs and the reactions of the people getting fired were always interesting. Clooney's character's life examination was so so. The twist at the end wasn't that much of a surprise. I was sort of hoping something more interesting would happen.
Virtual Run from DC to Punta Gorda -- Update 3
One of my New Year's Resolutions was to to do a virtual run from my home in DC to our possible new home in Punta Gorda, FL. It is just a bit more than 1,000 miles and requires that I run an average of 2.75 each day. I ran every day this week except Saturday. Here's how it breaks down:
Monday: 3.5 miles
Tuesday: 4 miles
Wednesday: 5 miles
Thursday: 3:25 miles
Friday: 6 miles
Saturday: Off
Sunday: 3.5 miles
On my virtual run to Floriday, I am now just past Triangle VA. The map below shows the start near my house in South East DC and my finish today in Virginia.
Total Distance Run This Week: 25.25 miles
Total Distance Run in 2010: 34.5 miles
Total Run Time: 4 hours 45 minutes 30 seconds
My Virtual Distance to Punta Gorda: 968.5 miles
I am also trying to improve my strength by doing push ups.
Goal for the year: 10,000
Total Push Ups This Week: 135
Push Ups in 2010: 190
Today I did 47 push ups, which is a big increase from just 10 days ago. I am behind schedule, but expect to be able to do more as the year progresses and I get stronger. I am hoping I'm not trying to do a thousand push ups on New Year's Eve 2010.
Saturday, January 9
A Review of "District 9"
District 9 is the story of Wikus (Sharlto Copley) a bumbling goof that is put in charge of relocating a large population of visiting other-worldly aliens into another area of South Africa. I know what you're thinking--not that old plot line again. The best part of this movie is its plot is anything but predictable. I wouldn't say that I'm a big science fiction fan, but I had heard good things about this movie, so I gave it a try, and I'm glad I did. It did not make for a dull evening. It began as a mock documentary about Wikus and explained how the alien ship appeared over Johannesburg and the events that led to the contact with the aliens. The aliens look like human size shrimp--in fact they humans refer to them derogatorily as "Prawn."
Without giving too much of the plot away, the "documentary" follows Wikus and his the troops from the corporation for which they all work as they attempt to evict the aliens from the slum where they have lived for the past 20 years near Johannesburg to an even worse camp farther outside the city.
Wikus becomes "infected" with alien DNA and begins a metamorphosis that is not pretty to watch. Wikus eventlually pairs up with one of the aliens (and his "adorable" child) when the alien gives him hope that he can be cured. It then becomes a bit of a buddy picture, with the two working together (for the most part) to solve both their problems--curing Wikus and repairing the aliens' ship.
The film is not very complimentary about how the humans treat the aliens--exploiting them for their weapons, bribing them with cat food (which seems to be an alien delicacy), and killing them thoughtlessly. In essence, exactly how aliens would likely be treated if such events actually happened. Whether its the white man and Native Americans, Nazis and Jews (and gays and Gypsies and the handicapped, etc.) or South Africans and unwanted aliens, it is not good public relations for the human race.One thing that I didn't quite get in the film was that the the humans seemed to be able to understand what the aliens said, but they did not speak English. We see the subtitles when aliens talk, but the humans in the film seemed to comprehend them. Maybe I missed something. Let me know if you know how this was explained in the film.
I am giving this movie three sponges. I would have given this movie four sponges for the original plot that was riveting and unpredictable and for very good special effects, but the violence just goes too far. One particular bad guy just won't die no matter what happens and Wikus's character does a Sigourney Weaver move from Aliens as he becomes enveloped in a robot weapon. I thought it was too much mayhem and a shoot em' up toward the end. I don't mind violence, but it became cartoonish at a point, which wasn't necessary. That being said, I would still recommend this highly as a rental, as it is now available on DVD.
Thursday, January 7
Cooking with a Little Class
Chef Mark whisks together a vinaigrette.
Shane and I took a cooking class tonight. It was a beginners' course that had us cook and eat an entire meal in 3 hours. It was at "CulinAerie" in Washington DC, near Shane's office. We made a salad of mixed greens with a Balsamic-Dijon Vinaigrette, Butternut Squash and Apple Puree (soup), Seared Chicken with Mushroom Tarragon Sauce, and Rice Pilaf.
The highlight of the class was the soup. I did not think it would be something I liked, but it was really good. Overall, the class was fun, but I thought it was a bit pricey ($85 per person), but they did serve wine throughout the evening. School sure has changed since I went back in the day.
Seared Chicken with Mushroom Tarragon Sauce
and Rice Pilaf
The chicken wasn't that great,
but not as bad as I let on here.
Same Sex Marriage Headed Toward DC Vote?
The Washington Post reported today 39 GOP leaders (37 Congressmen and 2 Senators) have joined the crazy haters in their attempt to force DC to vote on same sex marriage rights. They have filed an amicus brief supporting a public vote on the issue. A vote has never gone our way thus far, so I hope this doesn't happen.
The article quotes DC Council member Mary Cheh, a constitutional law professor at George Washington University, as saying she thinks the group could win in court. Let's hope she is wrong.
Am I Outside the TV Mainstream?
I was recently reading a copy of Entertainment Weekly and perusing the list of the top-rated television show, and it occurred to me that I may not be "with it" anymore (like I ever was). I am quickly heading near 50 after all -- it is just a little less than 19 months away. I know there was a time that I was familiar with most of the top-rated television programs (like MASH and All in the Family), but I suddenly realized I had not seen any of the top 20 programs listed in EW. None. Nada. Zilch. In my defense, the listing was for the week of December 14-20, 2009--a slow TV week with lots of shows resorting to reruns.
The number one show that week was NCIS. Who watches that? I have never watched that show and I likely never will. More than 20 million people did watch it however, but not me. I know that handsome Mark Harmon is the star, but I have no idea what NCIS even means. I know it will probably be my final Jeopardy question someday, but I will lose.
Three of the top 12 shows listed were various versions of CSI. I haven't ever watched any of them. They must be good shows, because they continue to multiply like the Duggars, but I don't see the appeal.
Three of the top 15 were related to Survivor. I never got into Survivor this year. I watched the first season, and I tried to watch another season once since then, but not this year. One night, I saw a few minutes of the opening credits in high-definition and the tropic scenery did looked amazing.
Number 19 on the list was a Saturday Night Live special called SNL Presents: A Very Gilly Christmas. I'm not a big Gilly fan, but I probably would have watched that if I happened upon it. As anyone who saw my 12 Days of Christmas posts can attest, I like SNL. I know it can be terrible sometimes, but it has always been like that. There is occasionally a gem (very occasionally this season).
There are some "popular" show I like. Really! Here's a list of shows I usually record on the DVR-- Intervention, Hoarders, Modern Family, The Middle, Cougar Town, 30 Rock, Community, The Office, Parks and Recreation, Brothers and Sisters (Shane), Desperate Housewives (me), Nurse Jackie, Curb Your Enthusiasm, True Blood, Big Love, Glee, Saturday Night Live, The Suzi Orman Show, and Judge Judy.
I had you until Judge Judy. I had you until Judge Judy.
Wednesday, January 6
The Blue Sponge Rating System Explained
Since I've started writing reviews of movies and such, I thought I should explain my rating system. Archer left a comment on my review of Away We Go about why I didn't give it four sponges instead of three, since I seemed to like it. With no apologies to Seinfeld, Blue Sponge Worthiness is not a cakewalk. Sponges have to be earned! Here's how it works.
If a movie gets no sponges, it means the movie is horrible and totally unwatchable. It is the worst. I probably did not watch the entire film. A prime example is Pet Sematary from 1989, based on the Stephen King novel. I found no entertainment value in watching a child get run over by a truck. I saw this movie in a theater when it first was released, and actually walked out. I very rarely do that.
One Sponge means that I do not recommend this film. While it may have some redeeming value, overall it is just not very good. An example would be the recent remake of Land of the Lost with Will Ferrell. Yikes!
Two Sponges is just an average film. If you can't think of anything better to do and its on TV, you might want to give it a try. This includes all the Harry Potter films (Sorry Shane) or anything with Adam Sandler.
Three Sponges mean the film is above average. I liked it, but don't buy it. It is a rental. I don't want want watch it over and over. Recent examples include Doubt, Away We Go, and Lars and the Real Girl.
Four Sponges mean I liked the film very much, would buy it on DVD and watch it repeatedly. Some examples are: Moulin Rouge, Best in Show, Out of Africa, and October Sky. Interestingly, some movies get more sponges on repeated viewings. For example, I didn't like Moulin Rouge when I saw it in the theater, but loved it on successive viewings.
Five Sponge films are my favorites: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Fargo, Casablanca, The Deer Hunter, The Wizard of Oz, and Ordinary People to name a few. Everyone may not agree that they are the best films, but they are my favorites.
If a movie gets no sponges, it means the movie is horrible and totally unwatchable. It is the worst. I probably did not watch the entire film. A prime example is Pet Sematary from 1989, based on the Stephen King novel. I found no entertainment value in watching a child get run over by a truck. I saw this movie in a theater when it first was released, and actually walked out. I very rarely do that.
One Sponge means that I do not recommend this film. While it may have some redeeming value, overall it is just not very good. An example would be the recent remake of Land of the Lost with Will Ferrell. Yikes!Two Sponges is just an average film. If you can't think of anything better to do and its on TV, you might want to give it a try. This includes all the Harry Potter films (Sorry Shane) or anything with Adam Sandler.
Three Sponges mean the film is above average. I liked it, but don't buy it. It is a rental. I don't want want watch it over and over. Recent examples include Doubt, Away We Go, and Lars and the Real Girl. Four Sponges mean I liked the film very much, would buy it on DVD and watch it repeatedly. Some examples are: Moulin Rouge, Best in Show, Out of Africa, and October Sky. Interestingly, some movies get more sponges on repeated viewings. For example, I didn't like Moulin Rouge when I saw it in the theater, but loved it on successive viewings. Five Sponge films are my favorites: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? Fargo, Casablanca, The Deer Hunter, The Wizard of Oz, and Ordinary People to name a few. Everyone may not agree that they are the best films, but they are my favorites.
Tuesday, January 5
"Away We Go" to the Land of Quirky
Away We Go directed by Sam Mendes (who directed American Beauty) and starring Maya Rudolph (of Saturday Night Live fame) as Verona and John Krasinski (The Office) as Burt. The supporting cast includes Catherine O’Hara, Jeff Daniels, Allison Janney, and Maggie Gyllenhaal.
The premise is fairly simple -- Verona and Burt are expecting a baby and embark on a journey to figure out where to settle down. It's a quirky comedy with some touching moments. Its tone reminded me of Little Miss Sunshine with its oddball characters on a quest.
Rudolph and Krasinski give good performances, but its the supporting cast members that steal the show. O'Hara and Daniels play Burt's parents with their big surprise announcement that sets the plot in motion. Allison Janney is awesome, as usual, as a former work friend of Verona's who they visit in Arizona. Maggie Gyllenhall's character is what you find in the dictionary when you look up quirky. I wanted more of all these characters. All their appearances were just too short.
Another highlight of the movie was the soundtrack. I loved the music. I don't usually pay that much attention to the music in films, but the songs here made me take notice. Nine of the 13 songs on the soundtrack are by Alexi Murdoch. I was not familiar with his music, but I like him and his music mixes beautifully with the film.
Overall, I'd give the film three out of five blue sponges. It is definately worth watching and is available on DVD. Now, I'm going to go order the soundtrack.
Overall, I'd give the film three out of five blue sponges. It is definately worth watching and is available on DVD. Now, I'm going to go order the soundtrack.
Monday, January 4
The New Yorker Cartoon Caption Contest #223
"No Spin Zone" my ass!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)