This weekend Katrina and I had a relatively rare date night. [I am informed that the concept of "date night" for married people offends some people and causes them to roll their eyes. I suspect these are mostly people that I would prefer to offend anyway, and who would probably be rolling their eyes at me whatever I do. So whatever.]

We went to see "District 9". Though Katrina enjoyed it, it was violent enough that I am certain I shall be required to go see 2-3 movies in which relationship issues are resolved through dialogue, and in which fisticuffs, explosions, or gratuitous nudity are treated as inappropriate and/or tragic in the unlikely event they occur at all.

It was worth it. Beware; plot spoilers below the jump.

Continue Reading »

Nothing like spending millions and millions of dollars to get a high powered athlete to endorse your product, and slap their fierce visage all over the website that is reporting that the athlete is having season ending surgery after the first game. Yes, Bears LB Brian Urlacher is the frontman for Nike's new campaign, and his face is all over the ESPN website saying "Prepare for Combat" I suppose that should be changed to "Prepare for Surgery." It's like they always say, timing is the most important element of comedy…

If you'd been caught in possession of marijuana on federal property, you would be looking at federal administrative or criminal penalties. If you were an immigrant, as Sullivan is (though likely you'd be from Mexico rather than the United Kingdom), you'd be looking at loss of your visa.

But since, in our hypothetical, you're a British immigrant, and a former editor of the New Republic, who happens to write the most influential blog that there is, and since many powerful people in law and politics read and follow your work, the United States Attorney will dismiss all charges against you.

One judge, the one facing a non-hypothetical case against Sullivan himself, noted the discrepancy.  Because the judge is constrained from saying what he really meant, I'll say it:  Ordinary people are FUCKED under our drug laws.  Powerful people skate.

That said, I'll praise Magistrate Judge Robert B. Collings for saying it as bluntly as a man in his position could. I'll note that while Sullivan is not a hypocrite on this issue (he's always favored marijuana reform, perhaps because he uses it to combat nausea from anti-HIV medication, or perhaps because he uses it recreationally) he himself hasn't said a word about the special break he got, a break that very few others would have received.

And meanwhile, he and the guests on his blog speak frequently of "the paradox of libertarianism" or "the Eagles of conservatism" or "hope and change" or whatever big government flavor of the month Sullivan favors.  Note this: if Sullivan were to be kicked out of the United States, he'd be on the British NATIONAL HEALTH SERVICE, which may offer wonderful anti-HIV therapy, but as Sullivan himself has noted, doesn't offer at all the quality of health care a wealthy and powerful man like Sullivan can receive, if he's willing to pay for it.

Note that I don't blame Sullivan one little bit for taking the break he got, and that I am not accusing Sullivan of hypocrisy, as he's always been consistent on this issue.  For that matter I'd have taken the break too.  But I wouldn't have been in a position to take it.

Via Crime and Federalism. And TJIC says what I merely imply.

UPDATE:  From Andrew Sullivan's recent The Conservative Soul: How We Lost It, And How To Get It Back:

There is, in other words, a presumption in the way a government interacts with its own citizens.  That presumption is that they will treat each citizen absolutely alike, unless it has a very compelling reason not to.  And it is up to the government to prove it has a good reason to discriminate rather than up to a citizen to prove she is equal under the law.

As the post to which I link points out, to the extent Sullivan was discussing the Equal Protection clause of the United States Constitution (purportedly he was), this is a gross, Sesame Street-level oversimplification that's just plain wrong.  Different people in different circumstances are treated differently, and receive "discriminatory" outcomes without compelling reason all the time.  As Sullivan can now attest with respect to criminal drug charges.

I'm not the only person to have noted that Sullivan turned on a dime with respect to his formerly fawning treatment of the Bush administration as soon as Bush, who had seemingly promised through campaign meetings with people like the Log Cabin Republicans, showed that he was willing to support a federal amendment banning same sex marriage.  Where Sullivan had previously advocated the most bloodthirsty prosecution of the Iraq war, he became a dove.  Where Sullivan had previously advocated free market economics, he became an embittered New Deal liberal straight out of a Norman Lear 70s sitcom.

It would be pleasing to see Sullivan give the same treatment to the Obama administration, which gently hinted during the campaign at a relaxation of the war on drugs, for its cynicism and hypocrisy.  He could do so without mentioning his case at all.  I won't hold my breath, but it's the least he could do, with his powerful voice, for the three prosecuted but unconnected losers who shared the docket with Sullivan on the same charge.

Dear "Brian", at "Card Services", area code 402, telephone number 982-0745.  Although you don't know this, we've gotten many calls from your number previously.  I am writing this post, as much as anything else, so that I won't have to wrack my brain remembering the telephone number, from which your company just called me to let me know that I could lower my credit card interest rates.  You referred to me using a vulgarity regarding incest when I hit "1" to tell you that I'm on the "do-not-call" list, and not to call me again.

I am so happy, "Brian", that the 402 area code is in the United States, specifically Omaha, Nebraska.  What your company is doing is already illegal.  Of course I'm reporting the call to my state Attorney General's office, consumer protection division, and the Federal Communications Trade Commission, on Monday.  I'm also going to look, diligently, at the law regarding violations of federal statutes concerning the "do-not-call" list, to determine whether a class action is feasible.  If, as I suspect, it isn't, I'm going to examine whether a statewide class action would be barred by preemption, including one for unfair and deceptive trade practices, and any other cause of action I can dream up.  Of course there are already many complaints about calls from your telephone number, all over the web.  At the very least, your employer's telephone carrier may expect to receive a subpoena, possibly from a government agency, but almost certainly from me, in due course.  I'm angry enough that I'm inclined to sue even if I know I'll lose.

Thanks again, Brian.  I have something to look forward to come Monday.

The first time I ever read that term (it's an Anglo-American common law phrase meaning unorthodox, usually gay, sex) I had no idea what it meant, because I was probably six or seven years old.

But there it was, in the "Police News" section of a cruddy small-town newspaper, that Mr. X and Mr. Y had been arrested for crimes against nature, in the men's room at a highway rest stop.  What could they have done?  Defied gravity?  Fused atoms at room temperature?  Reversed the flow of time?

In fact, until today, I'd never read about any crime where the term actually seemed to fit.  Until today, that is.

A friend just called me, and when I picked up the phone he said "you weren't arrested were you?" Talk about not burying the lead… Apparently, he had received a collect call from the California Prison System, informing that *inaudible name* was trying to call him. So, he started calling friends to make sure that it wasn't them. I'm not sure if I should be insulted or proud that I was one of the first on his list. The sad fact is, I am one of the least likely people to ever get arrested.

By the way, we had a very entertaining several minute conversation about which of his friends might be the most likely to be arrested. If you've never done so, I recommend it the next time you are looking for conversation topics. It's fun!

September 11, 2001, I got up before five, showered, dressed, and drove over to Huntington Memorial Hospital in Pasadena. I was supposed to be in a deposition that day downtown, but canceled it the previous Sunday when my dad had chest pains and went to the hospital. He had had a heart scare in '95, and had angioplasties twice and a stent once. I had been worried about his heath for a few months — when he came with us to Seoul to pick up our son Evan, I thought he looked gray and tired, especially when we walked a lot. On September 9, when he went into the hospital, they told him he needed a triple bypass.

He had the earliest surgery slot on September 11 — a 6 a.m. surgery, California time. Prep started at 5. I got to the hospital at 515 or so and sat with him and talked. He was in decent spirits — we joked about the condom catheter — but he was sobered by the prospects. So was I. We talked about my mom, who had been gone three years then. We talked Evan, his first grandchild, and our first child. We didn't talk directly about how he would do. We killed time until they took him from prep back to surgery at about 615 or 620.

As they took him back, I noticed that two of the nurses seemed agitated, and two docs rushed past. I didn't think anything of it then. I walked towards the nearby surgical waiting area with three other families who had been sitting in prep with their loved ones. We walked into the waiting room.

The TV was already on. We watched the world change.

We watched, about eight of us. More people trickled in as more family members arrived for surgery — thought that stopped when non-essential surgeries were canceled. All morning we watched. I don't remember the sequence terribly well. I remember seeing the second tower collapse, and the robotic way the anchor noted it. I remember the wild speculations about how many planes were missing. My blackberry chirped as my firm closed; it was in twin towers in downtown LA. I called Katrina to tell her to turn on the TV, and was glad that Evan was far too young to understand what was going on.

People called family members on cells and watched, and waited. The tension was crippling — loved ones were in surgery nearby while this was unfolding on TV. One man didn't survive surgery; his wife and daughter were numb, blasted, dead-eyed.

Dad came through surgery OK, and I got to get in and see him. He had a tube down his throat, but took my hand and wrote with his finger — NY? DC? He had heard docs talking about it. I told him. He closed his eyes, still woozy from the drugs, perhaps not understanding or believing. He didn't have to learn the details for a few more innocent hours.

Too many modern companies, when relentlessly criticized by some paper or blog or gadfly, react obnoxiously: by suing, or whining, or generally by acting like a spoiled child.

But when Facebook got tired of a constant barrage of criticism and ridicule by TechCrunch, it didn't get whiny and butthurt. It got even — in an unspeakably awesome prank that worked on the "character is destiny" model — that is, it worked because it preyed upon TechCrunch's eagerness to believe any stupid thing about Facebook. This is exactly how a company should react to people making fun of it.

Via.

Via John Scalzi, enjoy this viscerally satisfying tale of how Matt Selman, a writer for The Simpsons, encounters one of those people who is eager to tell you he doesn't even own a TV. Result: Selman is perfectly correct and polite, yet snob walks away saying 'Oh, I've wasted my life." Awesome.

So Katherine Heigl — whose own sister was adopted from Korea — is adopting a baby girl from Korea. Best wishes to her and her husband and their daughter.

This will be an opportunity for some people to inquire whether celebs adopting get special treatment or exemptions from the rules. That is a legitimate inquiry. It may also be an occasion to explore problems with, and concerns about, international adoption; that is also a completely legitimate subject, even if it is not comfortable for everyone.

However, most of the coverage will not be serious. The loudest voices will be racist assholes like the Pittsurgh Tribune's Mike Seate, who will ask variations on "why are they adopting those ching-chong kids rather than REAL 'MURKIN KIDS." The loudest voices will tell rice and sumo and math jokes. The loudest voices, operating on the principle that "things I notice, or the media covers, represent a statistically significant trend," will push the "OMG Asian babies are celebrity fashion statements!!!!" notion. The loudest voices will be sure to use language distinguishing Heigl's baby so that nobody confuses it with a "real" daughter.

In short, the loudest voices on the topic will be douchebags.

Oh, by the way, some people will also complain that Heigl is not fit because she's to be a working mother — working on a movie soon, to be specific. I don't see a problem with that. She can pretty much let the kid graze at the craft services table. They've always got good stuff. (Unless it's an indie movie, then it's all vegan shit, like organic localvore rutabagas that have been grown in fertilizer made from the nightsoil of teaching assistants from the local community college's Comp. Lit. department.) Just make sure to put the baby on the craft services table before the teamsters get there, because they always take the donuts.

Plus, there are lots of people on-set who can supervise a baby. I mean, most of these jobs are made up anyway. "Gaffer"? "Key grip"? "Best boy?" Please. Like any of those can prove that their job description doesn't include "clean up after projectile vomiting." If they've worked on a movie with Gary Busey, they probably expect it.

Plus, I have to say that having a kid will take the pressure off of Heigl for relentlessly badmouthing her directors and writers. She bad-mouthed the Grey's Anatomy writers until [WARNING: READERS WHO ARE MY WIFE AND WAITING FOR THE SEASON FIVE DVD, READ NO FURTHER] they gave her character a brain tumor. That's why you don't annoy people who write; I'm just saying. Also, she whined about how demeaning some of the material in Judd Aptow movies were. Dude, it's a Judd Aptow movie. You were expecting it to be Chekov? Anyway, my point is that her kid can take the pressure off by her by taking over some of the bad-mouthing. She could focus on just the directors and the kid could, like, have a diaper malfunction all over the executive producer, or shriek at the writers when they try to steal food to take home to their families.

I may have wandered from the point here.

Oh, Mike Duvall. Every time we've grasped the full scope of your idiocy and asshattery, we learn that we've only glimpsed a scintilla of it.

Yesterday I talked about how Mike resigned his California Assembly seat after he chose, in an Assembly hearing room with an open microphone, to boast to a colleague in graphic terms about screwing a lobbyist and some other unspecified person. I updated when he resigned. I noted that his "apologies" were of the "sure am embarrassed that I got caught" variety.

Today Duvall's showing that he's even a bigger ass than previously thought:

I want to make it clear that my decision to resign is in no way an admission that I had an affair or affairs. My offense was engaging in inappropriate story-telling and I regret my language and choice of words. The resulting media coverage was proving to be an unneeded distraction to my colleagues and I resigned in the hope that my decision would allow them to return to the business of the state.

So. Let's see. Here are the possibilities:

1. He didn't have any affairs. But he did dishonestly boast about having screwed a specific woman, using rather nauseating details, thus falsely painting her as (1) someone who cheated on her husband, (2) someone who helped him cheat on his wife, (3) someone who engaged in sex in the Assembly building, (4) someone who complimented him in nauseating terms regarding bodily fluids, and (5) a lobbyist willing to screw an the co-chair of the committee regulating her client's industry. He regards this as "story-telling" and an issue of "choice of words." Also, he thinks his colleagues will be impressed with him, and appreciate him, if he tells them he cheats on his wife with multiple women and screws lobbyists. So he's a sophomoric scumbag who spread rumors that threatened not only a lobbyist's personal reputation, but her career. He's also a phenomenally stupid scumbag, to boast about such stuff next to a microphone in a public hearing room.

2. He did have the affairs. So he's prolonging the news cycles about himself, and about the lobbyist, in order to clarify that he's only willing to apologize for boasting about the affairs. So he's an asshole, and an idiot.

Seriously, Mike. Just shut up. You aren't making life any easier for yourself.

I'm pretty sure that when researchers found that purring cats lower your blood pressure, they didn't mean loudly purring kittens sitting on your ear at 5:30 in the morning.

We've twice mentioned the legal wrangling surrounding the low-brow hit piece "Hillary: The Movie" (and its somewhat less popular sequel, "Hillary Takes Manhattan"). Today SCOTUS took the very unusual step of holding oral argument on the case before its normal term began. The Liberty Papers has a roundup of descriptions of and reactions to the argument, as well as a link to a recording of the argument.

It certainly sounds as if current limits on political advertising are headed for some sort of beating; it remains to be seen how bad the beating will be.

There are, of course, excellent policy arguments for the proposition that unrestrained speech about political campaigns has negative consequences for our Republic. Similarly, there are excellent arguments for the proposition that all sorts of speech is harmful: racial invective, ridicule, flag burning, pornography, reality shows, etc. Those policy arguments have not prevailed in the face of the First Amendment when it comes to flag burning, porn, and generally being an asshole. Perhaps SCOTUS is finally set to deliver a coherent, principled, and broad ruling that policy does not trump the First Amendment when it comes to political spending, either.

Everyone, meet Mike Duvall.

Hi, Mike!

Mike is a Republican member of the California State Assembly from Orange County. Mike — who is married — is a strong supporter of "family values." In 2008 he condemned efforts to "condone" gay marriage. He earns strong approval from conservative groups:

Such thinking impressed certain constituencies. Earlier this year, the man who never graduated from high school received "100 percent" approval scores 
by the California Republican Assembly, the state's leading conservative outfit, and the Capitol Resource Institute (CRI), a fierce guardian of traditional family values.


"Assemblyman Duvall has been a consistent trooper for the conservative causes," CRI president Karen England announced in March. "For the last two years, he has voted time and time again to protect and preserve family values in California. We are grateful for his support of California
 families.'"

Acknowledging the CRI award, Duvall observed in a press release that as long as he is in office, he would work to protect "California families" from "constant assault in Sacramento."

I should hasten to add that failure to graduate from high school is not a requirement for endorsement by the CRA.

Anyway, Mike has recently joined the Assembly's Rules Committee, which oversees ethics.

You know exactly where this is going already, don't you?

Continue Reading »

PETA currently holds a death grip on the Nutty Interest Group Crown. The Nutty Interest Group Crown is worn proudly by the political entity that shows the most skill at saying ridiculous and outrageous things, nominally to advance its interests but possibly just to get attention under the "all publicity is good publicity" theory. They're sufficiently nutty to make one pause on occasion and wonder if it's all intended to be satire of activists, like a decades-old live-action Landover Baptist thing.

PETA is the champ. But don't count out the NRA. They came to play.

Case in point: Florida's chief NRA lobbyist, who as a result of dramatic and narrative convention is named Marion Hammer (see how the "Marion" sets off and therefore emphasizes the hyper-aggressive "Hammer"? It's exquisite. It's like "Leslie Mangler"), has GRAVE CONCERNS about the selection of Florida's new state bird. It's not because the proposed state bird is the pink-collared assault-weapon-banning Brady-caller. No, it's because the bird suggested by Florida's schoolchildren is a bird of low character, and possibly a threat to the security of that great state:

In 1999, more than 10,000 schoolchildren signed a petition to change the state bird to the Florida scrub jay. Supporters boasted about how it will eat peanuts right out of a person’s hand.

Hammer was unmoved. “Begging for food isn’t sweet,” she testified in a committee hearing. “It’s lazy, and it’s a welfare mentality.” Scrub jays had lots of other bad habits that disqualified them to represent Florida, she contended. “They eat the eggs of other birds,” she told lawmakers. “That’s robbery and murder.”

Scrub jays are only able to engage in such conduct because of repressive gun laws and a pro-criminal judicial system. Hammer knows what bird she wants — the bird that engages in muscular home defense:

She also likes the fact that mockingbirds are willing to fight other birds, even larger ones, that might threaten their nests.

"They are very protective of their family and of their territory," she said.

Hammer is in favor of a "Nest Doctrine" amendment to Florida law that would allow mockingbirds to peck to death any bird with suspicious-colored feathers that wanders into its general vicinity.

Given this is Florida, I submit that the appropriate bird would be the Nuthatch.