More Kelo v. New London

A humorous response.

And an interesting analysis by a Federalist.

Science Again!

I think I actually stated in my previous post that there is no moral issue here. I am not making any kind of moral arguement, simply looking at it from a pragmatic point of view. I will reiterate for you, though: I do not know how powerful the potential for stem cells actually is, having not done research on this issue, but simply having read other peoples opinions (which isn't enough for me to feel educated on the issue). My point is that as long as abortions are legal, there is a ready supply of stem cells that are simply being wasted. There is no way you can deny that. How is throwing away the stem cells of an aborted fetus somehow better than using them for research? Medical research facilities already use cadavers, or parts of them, for research purposes, so why is it such a huge, drastic jump to use an aborted fetus? To me, the potential (and I emphasize potential) benefit of stem cell research should not be curbed when there is a constant and ready supply of stem cells being produced on a daily basis. I will go further and say that the government has no right whatsoever to dictate research direction. I say this for several reasons. First, in the case of a research institution that does recieve government money, the money is applied for and it is made specifically clear how that money will be used for the research project, so the government is approving of the topic before it grants the money (this is the only point in the process where the government should have any say). In the case of a private comapany that recieves no government funding (many industrial pharmacuetical companies, for example, are totally funded by private investors) the government has no right to dictate research direction unless it becomes a potential societal threat. Second, there is certainly not enough scientific knowledge in the law making branches of government for it to accurately weigh and judge a huge percentage (if any) of the issues arising from scientific research. Third, as has been discussed repeatedly in this blog, the arm of the governement is entirely too long already. From my understanding of recent SC decisions, the government now has the right to halt my production of an Alzheimer's disease (AD) drug because it affects commerce of other products. For example (and this is true), there has been a boone in blueberry consumption by AD facilities because the polyphenols are known to inhibit the onset of dementia and other AD symptoms. So if I cure AD, I'm affecting blueberry farmer's commerce and the government can shut me down? Madness. Fourth, if the government is controlling my research direction, it is, essentially, controlling my thought processes (by limiting the direction of my research, my ability to think freely is totally inhibited) which it most certainly cannot do.
I don't know how you view scientific research (from your concluding remark I would guess you view it as some sort of Nazi science - random, pointless and mostly amoral), but to me, as a researcher, the goal of my research is to develop a better understanding of the issues at hand (i.e. not simply sit and make "claims to have another discovery on the horizon if only this or that sacrifice could be made" but to actively pursue it to see if it's possible) and to (hopefully) be able improve the quality of human life. I will state again that there is much hopeful speculation on the potential of stem cell research. Whether or not that speculation is legitimate cannot be determined without experimentation and research. I will also admit that my position on this issue is influenced a great deal by my sister's condition and that anything that might potentially improve her situation is something I am willing to try, especially in this case, where the source of potential aid is simply being "morally" discarded.

Science

I made no moral argument in my previous post. In fact, I made very little argument at all, except to say government should tread lightly. You seem to either imply that science is amoral or that it has power to create, modify or govern its own morality in some way. In addition to that, your basis for "morality" is American law? I find that position interesting, since even in a mostly just and good nation such as America, unjust and immoral law still exists. Morality, while difficult to define in the terms you seem to propose, arises from certain core qualities or aspects of life such as reason(Rand), revelation (Augustine), sexual desire (thanks Freud), or a combination (not of sexual desire)(Aquinas). My point isn't to get into the particulars of those ideas, and obviously it is much more complicated than how I just presented it. What I do mean to say is that abortions are not moral because they are legal. That justification is both curious and weak. (Similarly, this cuts against your argument made in August of '04 that the illegality of cannabis does not make it immoral.) I would submit that the reason abortions are legally accepted despite a slim popular majority that opposes them is that the Burger/Blackmun court constantly engaged in ridiculous sentimentalism and was not concerned with the constitution, precedent or legal restraint (Perhaps a bit to strong, but nonetheless) I find Blackmun to possibly have the weakest legal mind of any SCOTUS justice I have ever encountered. (On a side note, you note that Bush's "law" is mundane, which I think is a fantastic compliment. The best laws are always mundane. If a law is exciting or passionate, it is often bad.)

The point is that science is incapable of governing itself, and can always claim to have another discovery on the horizon if only this or that sacrifice could be made. As a method, I have no difficulty in the ability of morality to trump science in cases like this one. In the modern West, it has fallen to government to take this role. Science is often at its best when it practices a sort of reasoned restraint, in my view. This is especially true regarding this matter.

SCIENCE!

I am well aware of the governement's support of scientific research - that's how I get paid...
The way I see it is that there are two extreme sides to the issue; one that holds stem cells to be the source for countless remedies and one that holds moral issue against the use of embryonic cells. I personally don't know if stem cells are as amazingly useful as billed...there hasn't been enough research in the area to say for sure. I think there is potential there and for that reason, the research should progress. You can't prevent research based on moral dilema. If that were the case, we would still be thinking the earth was flat and the center of the universe (I seem to recall reading in a social studies class that there was a great deal of fuss over claims that the earth was round and such discourse was frowned upon by the reigning figures of the time...you're the historian so I will bow to your knowledge as to that being true or false). The whole purpose of scientific research is to gain knowledge, especially if the gaining of said knowledge could provide a means of saving lives.
Back to the issue at hand, I do not hold there to be a moral issue here. Abortions are legal. There is a legal source of embryonic stem cells. It's not like scientists are out running around with their lab jackets and safety goggles pulling fetii (John's plural of fetus) out of women who want to keep their babies. I hold your morality arguement against embryonic stem cell research to be irrelevenat as long as abortions are legal. There is a ready source of cells that can be used for research and potential medical advancement. It's not like it's the researchers who are preventing the fetus from developing and being born. Baby's momma did that when she decided she didn't want no shorty. So I guess I also think Bush's law is mundane. I fail to see why, when there's a ready, continual source of cells, that research should be limited in any way.

Third Frontier

Not sure when you are implying with your post, JT. The Third Frontier money you refer to in that article is funding high-tech science research in Ohio with taxpayer money. (Although it is also a bond issue.) A small part of the new spending was considered being given to embroyonic-stem cell research with little or no restrictions. The Ohio Senate proposed language was to accept the Bush plan-which is no funding for new lines, and but allowing existing lines to be funded and studied on the state dime. The House language was amended by Representative Mike Gilb to forbid state funding of any embyronic stem cell research of any kind. After a budget bill passes out of both Houses, many differences may exist that must be reconciled in a Conference Committee. This was one such difference. Smart money was on the Senate language winning out, but for some reason, probably to gain concession on another issue, the House language was submitted in the final bill.

Personally, I find the House language a bit extreme. I feel very comfortable with the decision the President made in 2001 regarding this issue and taxpayer funding. However, I don't know what you mean when you say government is in science's business. Government set up shop in science's business when Euclid was developing geometry or when Keplar was solving the riddle of the universe mathematically. Government has been funding scientific endeavors forever. Additionally, government grants support untold amounts of research labs, scientific facilites, and development centers. I might even venture your operation receives taxpayer's dollars. And all of this, in many cases, is free of any sort of restrictive regulation. I see absolutely, positively no dilemma in government witholding funds for the development of a untested and morally prickly research agenda put forth by certain groups in the scientific community.

Now, if California and Nebraska get all the stem-cell dollars, then it is what it is. But that doesn't change the fundamental dilemma that surrounds the issue. Frankly, Ohio has plenty of money in its coffers. It just doesn't use it wisely.

New SCotUS decision

Important new Supreme Court decision here.
Hilarious.
Also, never watch The Wall in any form (concert, movie) directly prior to sleeping. Bad things happen.

Stem Cells

Thought this was interesting and a bit disappointing...boooooo-urns! for Taft. BOOOOOOO-URNS! Why's the government gotta be all up in science's biz-nass?

Plutonium

Thanks, Johnny. Good to have science friends especially since I am not curious enough about such things. Don't dig too hard for my sake. I imagine the info is out there for me as well.

I guess the Gov't use of 238 is still a mystery.

Pu 238

Bert,
Scanned that article briefly. This is what I know about Pu-238:
It is an alpha emitter with a decent output of energy (heat) that can be used for electricity in thermoelectric/ionic devices, but with a relatively low half-life of 87 years (compared to the 24000+ year half-life of Pu-239) . I don't think this is the same isotope as is used in our current weapons (I think that is the 239 isotope), but I do know that it is currently used in satelites or probes that are too far from the sun to harvest solar power. My guess is that it is just being investigated as a source of energy, although I am not sure that it is a very cost-effective means of energy generation on any sort of large scale as the production of Pu-238 is ridiculously expensive (basically have to get neptunium 237 to accept a neutron) not to mention that it decays to uranium-234 so you have to account for radioactive disposal of the waste products as well. I'd be interested to hear what anyone else knows...if I get a chance I'll try to dig up some info on it for you if you want.

Plutonium 238

I know you're not physicists, but can you science guys tell me anything about this. What could it be for? Energy production?

Apparently it's not for nukes or space weapons. However, I don't know why this must be "vigorously" denied. We should control and weaponize space if we are capable. And as the estimable John Derbyshire says, "I don't see how you can ever have enough nukes."

Dick**** Durbin

How do Democrats get away with this stuff? Someone help me here. Zero prisoners have died at Gitmo. They leave having gained weight from all the good food we're giving them. Many of them we released were captured again for trying to kill us. And Dick Durbin thinks it is like Auschwitz or the killing fields.

I can laugh about it with Mark Steyn, but it is serious and sad. A ranking member of the opposition party thinks his own countrymen are like Nazis and Communists. Seriously. I hope Illinois voters are sane enough to send this guy packing next election.

Johnny Depp

Whoa...Sorry, Slaps. I like Johnny Depp, but it has been so long since I saw the movie I couldn't remember.

I think Depp should be happy I forgot he was in that movie, among some others perhaps (Like Ed Wood for instance).

Not just "some guy"

Bert: "The guy playing Thompson"....by which you mean the inimitable Johnny Depp? Not nearly as fine acting as found in Donnie Brasco.

Steyn...

...Slicing up the UN-loving, self-defeating westerners here.

The passionate hostility of Miss Short and co to action — to getting things done — is remarkable, but understandable. Getting things done requires ships and transport planes and the like, and most Western countries lack the will to maintain armed forces capable of long-range projection. So, when disaster strikes, they can mail a cheque and hold a press conference and form a post-modern ‘Task Force’ which doesn’t have any forces and doesn’t perform any tasks. In extreme circumstances, they can stage an all-star pop concert. And, because this is all most of the Western world is now capable of, ‘taking action’ means little more than taking the approved forms of inaction.

Hilarious and bearded. I love this guy.

Fearful

The more I think about Kelo v. New London the more frightened I am. This was a horrible decision. Kennedy is terrible. He's always been mushy, but now he's off the deep end like Souter. I thought maybe even the liberals would get this one right, but...eh...

I am disgusted and worried. Anyone else as apprehensive as I am?

George Will distills it nicely here.

Fear and Loathing

I saw the movie in the theater way back when. I did not think it was any good at the time, but there were two hilarious scenes that stick out in my mind. There is a very funny scence with a cameo by Gary Busey. The other one is a scene where Benicio and the guy playing Thompson walk into a casino and the carpet and wall designs start moving around because they are tripping...

Don't know if it's worth seeing for that. I don't have a very high opinion of Thompson.

Oh, Oh, Kelo

I'm glad to see y'all took up Kelo v. New London.

I don't even want to read the case I'm so saddened. Kris is right, it is worse than Raich. The Court allowed New London, CT to take some peoples' houses and give the land to other private citizens. When such clear cut cases go the wrong way...

Anyway, as my jurisprudential beacon wrote in Morrison v. Olson, "One must grieve for the Constitution."

Welcome, E-money. Good to hear from you.

The MULE

Just got back from Night 2 of Gov't Mule, which is a good thing considering the SCotUS decision mentioned by Nick handed down today. How depressing. In many ways I think this decision is much worse than Raich. Firstly, it totally demolishes any right to property. Minority property rights are non-existent if the majority (ie, a legislature) can take property from A and transfer it to B on a whim. This decision, I think, merely attempts to provide justification for the modern welfare state. Thomas seems to get pretty nitty gritty about "public use," and although I haven't read O'Connor's dissent, it is probably on the money (as with Raich). I think the Court needs a sassy black woman to set it straight.

Hunter S. Thompson: tried watching Fear and Loathing and was totally confused. Not in a Wes Anderson "how is this funny" way but in a "what the hell is going on" way. Then I read an article by Thomspon about shooting propane tanks with shotguns while talking to Bill Murray on the phone. At which point I decided to not look into Thompson anymore.

Eric: glad you have joined us here. I understand your feelings about ROTS, I had them after seeing Episodes I and II, depsite secretly knowing how bad they were. I tried to delude myself into thinking that they were only a little worse than the first Trilogy when the dialogue really wasn't much better than that in Ice Pirates.
As for MMW albums, clearly the superior albums are Tonic followed by Combusitcation. Clearly.

Hunter S. Thompson

When Hunter Thompson killed himself a few months ago Jarrod asked me if I was familiar with his works. I wasn't then, but I am now (sort of--thanks to my thesis reading list).

I ended up enjoying Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas much more than I thought I would. It turned out to be nearly exactly the thing I thought it would be: a drug-glazed mind-bending romp through Vegas strip and beyond in the early 70's, except it was also quite funny. He builds a lot of credibility establishing the trends of early 70's drug culture, and wastes some of it lobbing easy grenades at Eisenhower, LBJ, and Nixon, but these are small asides.

Thankfully, Thompson never gives in to pyschadelic indulgences, keeping the narrative for the most part clean with at least one foot planted firmly in reality (which is quite an accomplishment--drugs of numerous varieties are mentioned on nearly every page).

Has anyone seen the movie? I haven't. Is it any good?

Personally, I've always had a sort of instinctive dismal contempt for any author/artist/musician who has taken it upon themselves to end their own lives. Having read one of his works now I regret that Thompson took his, but I can't say I'm surprised, given the crazy stuff he was into.

Kelo v. New London

What can be said?  This is another depressing decision from the Court for the advocates of freedom.

As with Raich and the  scope of the Commerce Clause,
establishing that the taking of property from A to give to B (even with
just compensation) results in some manner of improvement for the greater
public, “public use,” is not difficult for the nimble-tongued, even if
Justice Kennedy advises us not to worry about such things.

Thomas gets it right, I think, saying that in essence the court has
replaced “public use” with “public purpose.”

He says: “This deferential shift in phraseology enables the Court to hold,
against all common sense, that a costly urban-renewal project whose stated
purpose is a vague promise of new jobs and increased tax revenue, but
which is also suspiciously agreeable to the Pfizer Corporation, is for a
‘public use.’”

And we know all too well from Ohio politics just how rarely these vague
promises of new jobs and increased tax revenue actually come to pass.

Breaking the seal

I have been listening to the chatter at this coctail party for a few weeks now and, to use Burke's metaphor, am ready to join the conversation.

First, thanks for inviting me (Eric Larson, for anyone I haven't met before). I wasn't having debates in convo with you guys because I'm too old; However, I also desperately miss the conversations I had with my own cronies for literally hours over chicken patty sandwiches and coffee back in the pre-pasta bar era.

This will be undeveloped rapid-fire. Respond or ignore as you deem appropriate.

-I liked _Revenge of the Sith_, by which I mean I was excited to see it, enjoyed the hell out of it, and spent the next several days secretly trying to use the force on people who were annoying me (with limited success). Admittedly juvenile, but there it is. Part of my enjoyment could be a psychological coping mechanism, though. Having tried so hard (and failed) to convince myself that Episode II was decent, maybe I simply couldn't bear to live in a world wherein my childhood dream of more _Star Wars_ episodes came true, but in a nightmarishly inferior form. I will say I watched _ROTS_ while carefully compartmentalizing the trauma of _AOTC_. I pretended we were kind of starting over. I have now tried to settle into a world view that includes 4 1/2 films and some silly mistakes.

-It's funny Kris said what he did about the death of the album. I have been saying that for a few years. After the commentary from everyone, I see my own definition could use some refinement. "Album" as I mean it does imply unity and coherence (different things), but it's hard to say what makes it coherent and unified. In a way it is stylistic, but the ubiquitous manufactured albums on which every song sounds the same don't satisfy me as albums. It can't be thematic (or at least it doesn't have to be); plenty of landmark recordings that are clearly "albums" aren't so unified (_Rubber Soul_ and _Led Zeppelin II_). Clearly, concept albums are a different animal. Leaving this definitional problem for now, I will say this: I cannot find much (any) new music I can really get behind. It may be arrogance or nostalgia, as HolyThunderforce suggests. However, no matter how enthusiastically I try out some new band, the best I can say is "not great, but not bad." I'm sick of saying that. I want to react the way I reacted the first time I listened to _Abbey Road_. The bad news is for "rock," though. I also listen to jazz and "classical" (whatever that woefully overworked term means) voraciously, which are inexhaustibly deep mines of musical riches; rather than lament too much, I more and more frequently switch genres.

-Suggested listening: Sadly, most of these are old. You guys are correct with old Bowie. _Ziggy_ is fantastic, as are _Space Oddity_ and _Hunky Dory_. I haven't seen them mentioned here, but Queen's early albums were really something, especially _Queen II_, _A Night at the Opera_, _Sheer Heart Attack_, and _A Day at the Races_ (in that order). For some newer stuff, Robert Randolph and the Family Band is good (blues/rock). And even though they are found on the jazz shelf, Medeski, Martin and Wood kick so much ass (start with _Last Chance to Dance Trance_, but you might try _Friday Afternoon in the Universe_).

Thanks for reading all this.

Albums

I'll probably catch quite a bit of flack for this, but so be it. Perhaps the problem is that we have become overly arrogant and snooty towards music. While I don't deny the greatness of the countless classic bands we all mutually enjoy (Rush, Zepplin, Tull, etc., etc., etc., etc.,), maybe we have been so arrogantly enjoying them that we have missed some good modern stuff. I won't draw comparisons yet, as I don't think that there can be comparisons between the best of today's artists and, say, the head of the pack in 1974. But I was listening to a White Stripes album (Elephant) this morning and it's actually not that bad. Not great, but not bad. In fact, it's not bad enough that I may buy it. I would never put Jack White ahead of Townsend or Gilmour or Haynes (as Rolling Stone did in its top 50 guitarists column a year or so ago-nor would Bruce Springstein be ahead of them as he was...not sure if he'd even make my list), but alot of the stuff you don't hear on the radio (on this album at least...I'm by no means a White Stripes expert) has a blues-y ring to it. Further, I think this cd could be called an album as the songs seem to "fit" together pretty well. At any rate, I'm not saying that we should become "Justified" but perhaps we shouldn't "be so quick to walk away."

Re: Video games

Bert,
This was a shown a while ago, and don't you remember playing this? And this brings it all together. I just remember Jarrod smoking my Wookie Berserkers with X-Wings.

Bam! One post and all blog title parts referenced!

Video Games...

...Are Good for You

No wonder you all are smarter than me.

Batman Begins

I have to agree Kris. Best movie of the summer. Go see it!!!!!!

It makes you hope they make a sequel. It even makes the first movie look bad in comparison.

Awesome!!

Re: The hair defines the man

And it makes you racist, too. Maybe I should post that picture???

The hair defines the man

Sorry Nick, I am only qualified to comment on METAL with my new haircut.

The Bigger Picture

The bigger picture, according to Kris' formulation, is that artists more and more today lack a message. I think this is true in the sense that most artists have less to say, through their music and otherwise, that I'm interested in listening to. Some try to substitute an overt political message, which isn't quite the same thing. Springsteen rides the fence on this. Pearl Jam dove right in with their last album. Unless done with a hefty dose of skill and grace, these usually turn out to be failures--they come off heavy-handed, overly preachy, and the music suffers.

But if bands today lack a true message--if they have nothing to say to us, if they are just candy for the ears--then why is music such a huge business? From the most glammed-up girl singing songs right off the assembly line to the garage band building a fan base through exhaustive touring, there is money to be made. The demand is still huge. Maybe I'm just not sure what you mean, Kris. What message do you find in those albums you mentioned as true "albums"?

Albums

Surely you're right, Kris, if by "album" you mean a group of songs that belong together in the space of a disc and add up to something greater than the sum of their parts, rather than a random collection of tracks that do not fit into a greater whole.

Before I rack my brain for albums, I'll tell you one that isn't (and I bring it up because I know you have this disc): Styx's Brave New World. I don't think I've ever encountered a more disjointed and random group of songs lacking in even the most fundamental cohesion. That's not to say they are bad songs--some are good. But damn.

Bowie's Heathen was a good collection. One might be tempted to call it an ablum because Bowie seemingly brings a new style and vision to everything he tries. Prog mainstays like Dream Theater and Spock's Beard and King's X and make a good concept album, but their regular offerings are often hit or miss on a song by song basis. I grow more impressed with Nightwish (I now have four CD's) with each new disc I listen to. I've come to think they are the cream of the Scandanavian Epic Metal crop.

Mars Volta, like most progressive music, took me five or six listens to appreciate, but now I am a bonafide fan. They've stripped a lot of pretense away and brought prog back to its bebop roots, while maintaining a dark, psycho-punk edge. Genreblendabulous!

But my favorite thing of the past month is Porcupine Tree's Deadwing. Though they've shied away from prog to alterna-rock, the Tree has produced, in my opinion, an album. It has a distinct beginning, middle, and end. And each of them rocks.

As for other actual albums, I'd say every about other Tull disc, Signals and Power Windows by Rush, and Californication by the Chili Peppers (lots of radio play, yes, but incredibly strong from start to finish... in the context of the entire disc I found myself appreciating overplayed songs like Scar Tissue a lot more).

Passion of the Christ 2: Fantastic Four?

In a recent review of Adventures of Sharkboy and Lavagirl for NR, S.T. Karnick finds deep biblical allusions and allegorical meaning:

“Shark Boy and Lava Girl turn out really to be composed of water and light, respectively.

This is significant because the first of these is a biblical symbol of the Holy Spirit, and the second a biblical name for Jesus Christ. In addition, Lava Girl is, of course, made of rock, another name by which Jesus Christ is known. Also, fire is a traditional symbol of manifestations of the Holy Spirit.”

I bring this up only to point out the obvious biblical allusions in Fantastic Four. The Thing is made out of rock. The Human Torch, fire.

Jesus is everywhere, people.

Concept albums

By album I actually did not mean concept album. I should have clarified this. I consider them to be fairly distinct entities. I think a concept album is relatively easy to write when compared with other albums; it contains a unifying concept. As you know, I have absolutely nothing against concept albums and I do not think the concept album is dead (see Francis the Mule, various Rhapsody albums and maybe American Idiot). I do think albums (with no unifying concept) are dead. Think about the "punk" trash-music that is popular with the kids today (Blink 182, etc). Each new song is relatively indistiguishable from the last.
I had completely forgotten about Harvest, which is probably the best album, period. Followed by the almost equal Harvest Moon. Good call Bert. As for rap, I wouldn't put it down completely. While in all musical genres there will be purveyors of filth and crap, there are sometimes very wothwhile spots to find. While not a Jay-Z fan at all, I did enjoy his Black Album quite a bit. And it was an album.

I never really "get" those Wes Anderson movies. Rushmore had some funny parts ("These are OR scrubs." "Oh, are they?") and I had high hopes for Royal Tenenbaums. But it just wasn't funny. Or I just didn't get it. Maybe I should watch Life Aquatic, but I fear I'll just be left confused. Massive movie reviews coming soon as I've been watching quite a few. But Batman Begins = best movie of the summer, hands down. More to come.

Albums

Question: By "Album" do you mean concept album? If so, then I would say that the the "album" is dying, not dead. While I agree that we have not seen anything in our musical generation(s) that could compare with The Wall (though he's an arrogant man, Roger Waters is probably the master of the concept album - The Wall, DSOTM, Animals, Final Cut, his solo stuff...all good conceptual work), there are still bands out there at least attempting to put out "albums." Although they are creepy, King Diamond has put out some concept albums (albeit, scary, scary concept albums) and bands such as Rhapsody, Hammerfall, Manowar, etc. are still producing concept albums. I would also recommend a band called The Warlocks. Some of their stuff is kinda puss, but then some of it is great (some 12+ min songs including one called Skull Death Drum Jam).
I've heard the Mars Volta of which Slaps speaks and I would agree with him...weird but good in a psychodelic way. Nick might be the only one to appreciate this, but both Works albums by ELP are most definately worth checking out. I also think that anyone who appreciates fine rock organ must own at least one live Uriah Heep album. Bert, check out The Man Who Sold the World and The Rise and Fall of Ziggy Stardust for some really good non-radio Bowie (I really like Man Who Sold the World...good stuff). Everyone should also check out the full Thick as a Brick album (all 2 songs!). Finally, I highly recommend Europe. They will surprise you with their rockingness!
I guess in conclusion I agree that, in general, modern music is a diluted form of what it once was. There's no way that a cd should contain 10 songs and be 30 mins...that's hella weak. Not to mention that I can't even tell who's on the radio most of the time...bands don't seem to have there own distinctive style like they used to. No one could confuse, say, Led Zepplin with Floyd or The Who, or Jethro Tull with Fleetwood Mac. That doesn't so much seem to be the case anymore. Except Luda...can always recognize the Luda.

Re: Albums

I would have to agree that early Elton albums are fantastic. I would pick Tumbleweed Connection as my favorite even over Goodbye Yellow Brick Road. It is clearly a cohesive album in the sense you say is dead today.

I know you guys aren't into the alterna-rock much but on the idea of an album or concept, Our Lady Peace's Spiritual Machines qualifies I think. I enjoyed it very much. I liked all their albums though I haven't listened to the first one too much. The last one I thought was good but a little tainted by its pop reception and new guitarist who wasn't as talented as the previous guy.

PJ's Yield was my favorite and probably most like an album. Neil Young's Harvest maybe or After the Goldrush or maybe the electric one, Rust? I think. I like those, they definitely have an album feel. Stanya might be right. The Album might be dead. I am having a hard time coming up with anything outside of Elton and Dark Side of the Moon.

As for new stuff, I've never been the guy with the tunes. I had been enjoying the White Stripes but their new album sucks as far as I can tell. I've only heard some of it.

I restrain myself from commenting on Jay-Z and any other rap nonsense. I'll admit I used to like the Beastie Boys, but I've grown out of it I think.

Lately, I feel like I'm leaving a lot of music behind that I liked in the past. The Beatles just don't do it for me anymore. And, (hold the comments) while I've always been a huge Pearl Jam fan, I don't feel so devoted anymore. It was always a contentious relationship anyway.

I think I'm gonna pick up some David Bowie. I don't know any of his non-radio stuff. I watched Life Aquatic and there is a lot of Bowie in it. Funny movie for anyone interested, if you like Bill Murray (who doesn't?). Or if you liked Rushmore or The Royal Tenenbaums, Life Aquatic is even better.

Albums

Ok, I'm going to shift gears a bit and ask some music-related questions:
What are some great albums? Not cds/records with good songs but actual albums. For example, I would submit the entire early Elton John catalogue (take your pick) with Goodbye Yellow Brick Road being the best of best.
Bat Out of Hell by Meatloaf
Additionally, some later Beatles albums (Rubber Soul, Sgt. Pepper)
I think that with few exceptions (The Mars Volta's Francis the Mute, Jay-Z's Black Album) the album is more or less dead in music today. This really bothers me, as an album is artistically more conducive to relaying an artist's message than is a single song or series of disconnected songs.

What new music has everyone been listening to? I'm interested in finding some new music.
For new bands, I highly reccomend The Mars Volta, although I've lent my album to several people and they did not like it. Very psychidelic and musically proficient and scary at some points.
Northern State is a rap group composed of three NY girls that sound like the Beastie Girls.
Spirit is a cool 70s rock band with a little psychidelic feel.
Frank Zappa is either hit or miss. Literally, either it is awesome or makes no damn sense. Hot Rats is good as is most of Joe's Garage (I-III).

Those are my (partial) lists/suggestions. Please feel free to contribute your own.

Comments

I don't see the need for the comments. It's not like we are madly blogging 100 posts a day. If you have something personal or that you think no one else would be interested in, email it. Otherwise we can just scroll over things that don't interest us.

I'd rather not have to click on comments to see things because i'm on dial-up most of the time.

Doom of Ohio GOP?

If the political views of Cleveland are decidedly liberal, then Cleveland is about to get its way in Ohio. The Republican Party has held a majority in the Ohio House of Representatives and the Ohio Senate since 1992. Ohio has also had 15 years of Republican governors and most of the statewide offices such as Attorney General, Secretary of State, etc. have been held by a Republican for most of the past two decades. It is possible that the next election cycle will be the end of the GOP show for a while. Mired in corruption scandals involving $215 million “lost” dollars and blatant mismanagement of state investment dollars by a firm, Governor Taft’s administration is in big, big trouble. Without getting into all the details, I would say that this is the biggest political corruption scandal in Ohio history. This makes Celeste’s bank scandals look like CandyLand. (Without the mighty Princess card.) The central player, Tom Noe, was a big Republican donor, so this potential problem extends to most big name Ohio Republicans. Democrats are all over it, trying to capitalize big on the next cycle.

My take on the consequences when this all plays out: Petro, Montgomery, and Blackwell all vying for the GOP nod for Governor. Petro is the most tainted; there is even a small possibility that he could face indictment. Montgomery was in charge of a State Audit of the BWC (the bureau that held these investments funds) and it was a complete whitewash job, further separating her from a more conservative party then she would like. (She is a so-called “moderate”) Blackwell is the most removed, Democrats consider him the most beatable. (Most likely an underlying strategy of the Dems is to torpedo Petro/Montgomery so they face Blackwell statewide.)

The biggest fish to fry here, of course, is Taft. I would not be surprised, if before it is all said and done, he is either indicted, impeached or both. Although his 19% rating isn't exactly a Wilsonian mandate, this bodes poorly for Republican fortunes nonetheless.

Other statewide offices may be vulnerable now, especially if Lee Fisher steps up for one of them, although he may be eyeing the Senate. I don’t believe the House or Senate will change hands in Ohio because of the way the districts are drawn. However, I smell a shakeup, so get ready if you want some of the old-time Dems returning to do battle. (Celeste can stay in Colorado and continue to mess up his college. Or go back to India. Or get into another bank scandal.) The mayor of Columbus, Michael Coleman, ruined his campaign for governor by telling Glen Beck he wasn’t outraged by the rape of a girl in a Columbus City School. So, that leaves Sherrod Brown and Ted Strickland. (Unless, gasp, Jerry Springer shows up) Sherrod backed out before this scandal broke. My take again: Strickland is a big Clintonite, Clinton both made him and credits him for delivering the very important (to the Ds) rural Ohio vote. Governor Strickland could help the Clintons posture for ’08 bigtime. (And they could wield some influence) Brown was self-made, my money says he was asked to step out to be “taken care of” later.

Well, I just confused myself with this rambling. Maybe I’ll clear it up later. Additionally, my humble suggestion is that members allow comments to be posted on their blog entries. I have wanted to post comments a few times, but that option was not selected by the poster. It is under the post window, the default setting is apparently no comments allowed. That way the blog can feel less like a message board, and message related items (such as the location, circumstances and nuances of any aforementioned article) can go through blog comments instead. If possible.

Street Lights

Special note for JT. Ohio is currently considering legislation to prevent implementation of "Red Light Photo Enforcement" statewide. This would prevent cities from putting a red-light camera at busy red lights in Ohio's cities and villages. Cities are all over this like rabid dogs, seeing new revenue streams that they will lose.
Thought you might like to know. Details to come.

Re: Vishnu for Governor?

You're right, Bob Marley is God. Awesome.

Vishnu for Governor?

In a recent 3-way debate, State Auditor Betty Montgomery, who is vying for the Republican nod for Ohio Governor, said in response a question, "Well, God can take many forms and mean many things to many different people. God can mean many different truths." Blah-Blah. Since the offical state motto is "With God all things are Possible", Perhaps Governor Montgomery will change this to "With Zoraster, Vishnu, Allah, God, Baal, Dagon, Zeus, Ra, Buddha, Confucius, and Bob Marley All Things are Possible" Yeech.

Re: Ohio politics

Interesting and informative post JB. Since I am still not considered an Ohio resident I don'treally follow Ohio state politics, but I had heard about the rare coin investment scam. I had no idea it was so bad. I wonder how this will affect the Ashbrook Center with its close ties to the Ohio GOP. I've never like Taft or Montgomery, but Blackwell struck as an ok (if boring) guy. That is he seemed to talk the talk (in an economically conservative way) but I never looked in to see if he followed through. That being said, I don't think Ohio would elect a black governer, despite his conservative Republican leanings (Conservative republican, liberal republican, why have the party designation at all?). I don't know about the Dems (actually I know nothing about Strickland) but I've heard interviews with Brown on the radio and I don't like him at all.

As for comments, I'd prefer to leave that up to the poster whether they want to or not. I am of the feeling that comments bog things down (you get multiple little conversations in their own windows rather than one larger one) but you are probably right that it would useful for certain cases.

As for 2008: this is the man who has earned my vote (as a write-in most likely)

Bert's Orgasm

Didn't do a search Bert...it was an article published in a free paper outside of McNutty's. We stopped to get burgers and glanced through it. Besides, you're missing the whole point...God exists. Just because you can't reach him in your 2.3 minutes (such a republican, anti-Jesus number) doesn't mean that I can't try to forge my own link to God. Although, I'm not sure that pleasing myself is going to get me there.... :O(

Libbos in C-Lo

Bert, keep in mind that we live in the most liberal part of the most liberal city in Ohio. Mindless anti-Republicanism is rampant around here and so is the drivel they espouse in their "free newspapers." The only use those rags have is to show me when some cool concerts are coming to town. We actually have commies on campus giving away propaganda to undergrads during the school year. They prefer to be called "socialists" rather than "commies" though.

Science

This may be as close as I get to blogging about science. A delightfully ireful view of the space program.

http://www.nationalreview.com/derbyshire/derbyshire200506160749.asp

Orgasm

Why are you doing a search including the terms women and orgasm?

Nevertheless, did you notice the article was written by a man? I could've sworn the author had had one of these mystical, reason-for-living, female orgasms. I wonder how he pulled that off.

Meanwhile, this Republican will keep on enjoying his 2.3 minutes.

Proof of God!

Hey! Good news everybody! It seems there actually is solid proof for the existence of God. Apparantly philosphers and religious advocates have been looking in all the wrong places. So I guess I owe T-Dogg and JB an apology for the hard times I have given them. I stand refuted. Also, I hope this opens JBs mind a little more towards liberal media, which is doing all it can to help us lead more informed lives.

Voino the Pitiful

Here's what National Review's The Week had to say about George Voinovich:

The leader of men must be wise and strong; when he is not, he must seem so, putting on what John Keegan called the mask of command. Yet at times of high tension great leaders show their emotions: Aeneas, realizing that the Carthaginians among whom he had been shipwrecked knew the "tears at the heart of things"; Nelson, dying at the moment of victory at Trafalgar, saying "Kiss me, Hardy" to his flag captain; Churchill, weeping tears of "wonder and admiration" over the fortitude of Londoners during the Blitz. Now add George Voinovich, telling his Senate colleagues that they should reject John Bolton because "I'm worried about my kids and my grandchildren." Weighing the issues at stake, even the heart of Voinovich shuddered; the voice of Voinovich broke. Webster, Clay, Calhoun, all the ghosts of the Senate, took note. Their greatness receded a step, to make way for Voinovich.

I hope you are as amused as I am.

Johnny...

To answer your original question about the Indian Tribe case... It was simply about whether the State of Florida could be sued in Federal Court under the legislation that required them to negotiate w/the tribes on gambling. Basically the 11th Amendment prohibits people from bringing a case against a state they are not a citizen of in federal court.

I'm unfamiliar with this issue, it seems like murky water. The federal courts have jurisdiction over a lot of things, but I know nothing about this. It seems like if a State is violating federal law they can be sued in federal court where the fed court has exclusive jurisdiction (meaning no other court may hear the case). The case, though, seems to have nothing to do with Raich or commerce clause jurisprudence.

Bert

I don't know if this is useful or not, but a brief summary of the case I mentioned is here

Hooray for Bert!

Bombard indeed, Bert. I was worried you just didn't have much to say. I haven't yet made it through everything you've posted. However, I did just get finished watching Team America. The movie was funny, but the songs were FANtastic (America, f--k yeah!). JB won't like it but I think its worth a watch.

Leszek Kolakowski

A man whose name I have heard, but did not know anything about until today.
http://www.newcriterion.com/archive/23/jun05/leszek.htm

This is a long read if you get the time. It's about Kolakowski and his career studying totalitarianism and communism.

I am reminded of Whittaker Chambers's confession that he had to replaced his faith in communism with faith in God. I am paraphrasing roughly.

Since I have not the ability to keep up with you guys during the week until school starts, I will bombard you on the weekend I hope.

Steyn on Star Wars

So the last one wasn't about Star Wars. But I found this one that is. http://www.steynonline.com/index2.cfm?edit_id=26 scroll down for lines like these:

You can’t make the core of the story the absolute overpowering love of boy for girl when the two of them have all the sexual chemistry of their Burger King merchandising tie-in action figures. Lucas is truly one of the all-time worst directors of actors, and I include the teacher who put together the school production of Fiddler on the Roof I saw last week and got a more touching love scene out of a couple of 11-year-olds as the middle-aged Tevye and Golde than anything Christensen and Portman manage here. Presumably actors say yes to Lucas because they figure Star Wars will do for them what it did for Harrison Ford. Instead, Lucas turns everyone he touches into Mark Hamill.

that's gay

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2005/06/10/AR2005061001747.html

Is this really newsworthy for the Post? On the serious side this is nonsense. Are we supposed to be shocked that kids get made fun of in high school? for being gay? gasp... Somebody writes "God hates gay people" in some little town in Michigan and it's big news when some offended teenagers paint over it with "Love" and then proceed to vandalize school and other property by spraypainting "love" everywhere. Its a heartwarming story for the Post but a little bittersweet since the kids actually got suspended for causing $1300 worth of damage.

If you're not "culturally sensitive" this article is worth reading for the laughs, but really. "Students stand up for gay rights"? Am I missing all the abuse of gay people?

Steyn and Star Wars

http://daily.nysun.com/Repository/getmailfiles.asp?Style=OliveXLib:ArticleToMail&Type=text/html&Path=NYS/2005/06/06&ID=Ar00800

My Favorite Columnist...

...or maybe a tie with George Will, is Mark Steyn. I'm sure I've mentioned him before. Enjoy him here www.steynonline.com. Here's a taste: Warming to his theme, Amnesty International USA’s executive director William Schulz then declared Donald Rumsfeld the ‘high-level architect of torture’. Asked what evidence he had for his assertion that the defence secretary had approved the use of torture at the camp, Mr Schulz said, ‘It would be fascinating to find out. I have no idea.’ Can anyone play this game? Can I declare that Mr Schulz and the Amnesty board get together every Saturday night and piss all over the Koran? I hasten to add that I’ve no idea whether that’s true, but it would be fascinating to find out. from http://www.spectator.co.uk/article.php?id=6226&page=1 registration's free.

Johnny

I would look up that case you mentioned but the damned suits at Lexis-Nexis and WestLaw took away my privileges for the summer.

And, yes that 49ers kerfluffle was hilarious.

Star Wars

I feel obligated to chime in I guess because of the blogs title and my esteemed friends' interest in the matter. Admittedly my SW credentials are slimmer than Nick's jurisprudential ones, let alone Jarrod's hollow, bird bones.

I think the 3rd movie was probably the best although, unlike yous guys excepting JB, I enjoyed the first movie. The 2nd ranks right up there with swimming in boiling water or some such painful trauma. Like Kris, I agree Ewan McGregor is the highlight. Liam Neeson, unfortunately, did not last to outshine him. Such are the constraints of prequels. And DAMNIT Yoda does silly fighting stuff again. Although I have to admit I wasn't offended this time like in the Second movie. It was done well this time. Sorry, I just wanted to complain about the 2nd movie again.

Like everyone I thought the dialogue was bad especially between Anakin and Padme though better than the 2nd movie's. Like Jarrod I think the movie suffered horribly for its moral equivalence. I thought it was a good idea to try and show the attraction of the dark side, but it failed to give us a reason to prefer the side of the Jedi. The anti-Bush digs did not help in this area either. According to Obi-Wan, democracy is good but there is no reason to think so. He chimes in that only the Sith deal in absolutes when Anakin, seemingly the only one with some kind of principles, says "you're either with me or you're my enemy". Lucas, or his writers, are made small, passive-agressive losers in light of the giant good vs. evil battle that is SW. At least Anakin fails because of care for Padme. Lucas fails because "George Bush sucks and I have to get it in to this movie that has nothing to do with him. Beside there really are no good guys we just don't like the Sith because they wear black. Plus I already made those other movies way back when where the Jedi are good and Harrison Ford is so hansome so I guess I'm stuck with all that good guys stuff I believed back then. How naive I was..." Give me a break.

On second thought, Phantom Menace was the best.

memories...

The inception of this blog, coincidentally, coincides with my reacquaintance with Kiwi.

Sean Penn...

... is working for the San Fran Chronicle in Iran. http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/nm/20050610/us_nm/odd_iran_penn_dc_3

Final thoughts on Raich...

...I hope. It is interesting admittedly. It only gets attention, though, because it's about drugs. What if it again was wheat? It does not even get to the court. So, while I suspected that Raich might win (me being overly optimistic), now I can see that there was no chance really. The liberals are more interested in protecting the broad commerce clause than letting people smoke weed and always will be.

Also, did you notice that Thomas and Rehnquist did not join in O'Connor's part III where she said she would have voted against California's proposition as a citizen? I guess Thomas and Rehnquist would have voted for it...(I don't really think this is why they didn't join)

Wickard... O'Connor seemed resigned to Wickard v. Filburn but she very aptly distinguished it if you noticed. That leaves Thomas as the only judge opposed to it in all likelihood.

Finally Finish Raich...

...mostly. Skimmed the dissents. I'm not usually an O'Connor fan but this seemed right on: The Court’s definition of economic activity is breathtak-ing. It defines as economic any activity involving the production, distribution, and consumption of commodities. And it appears to reason that when an interstate market for a commodity exists, regulating the intrastate manufac-ture or possession of that commodity is constitutional either because that intrastate activity is itself economic, or because regulating it is a rational part of regulating its market. Putting to one side the problem endemic to the Court’s opinion—the shift in focus from the activity at issue in this case to the entirety of what the CSA regu-lates, see Lopez, supra, at 565 (“depending on the level of generality, any activity can be looked upon as commer-cial”)—the Court’s definition of economic activity for pur-poses of Commerce Clause jurisprudence threatens to sweep all of productive human activity into federal regula-tory reach.

She's good when it comes to Federalism. Where is she on other stuff? You have to wait for the opinions.

Speaking of unpredictable...Scalia, usually not, concurs. I have two views here. One is that he is restrained. He reached back to Marshall, 1819, to show how broad the Commerce Clause can be. Certainly Marshall was not so broad as the majority and Scalia is not either. His argument is certainly nuanced as he says, and he makes a decent one that Congress may regulate Commerce even in order to stifle it (here I'm not so sure). Thus, the ends of the legislation are legitimate and the means are reasonable in light of the ends. To clear that up it is fine for Congress to prohibit interstate drug traffic, not in question in this case at all btw, and it is okay to prohibit personal growth and use because this would make Congress's regulation of the interstate market too difficult. Drugs more easily enter that market.

My second view is more interesting and has two parts. One, Scalia when writing in concurrence does so to point out why the majority is wrong on some part. He hopes to narrow the majority opinion so it is not so broadly construed in the future. So the Commerce Clause does not cover every productive activity as O'Connor warns, but it does stretch to legitimate Commerce regulation ends, e.g. prohibiting interstate drug traffic.

Let's just imagine Scalia dissented. To what effect? None. The majority still wins 5-4. Thomas and O'Connor can write that dissent for him.

The second part is even more political. Does Scalia want to be chief justice? I don't think he would mind. And he is the only candidate on the court right now in my opinion. So it's either him or the new guy. The President likes Thomas, but it would be another huge fight. Scalia is much more respected by honest liberals even though wholeheartedly disagreed with. Scalia, not usually prone to compromise, does from time to time do things like write this concurrence or even write the opinion in a sketchy case so that it is narrow. This is a good thing for a chief since he assigns opinion writing. Anyway, this concurrence could be seen as part of a campaign for chief perhaps. Just speculating...

Overall, I think O'Connor has it right. I tend to be radical in Commerce Clause thinking. Not just what is Commerce, but what is "regulate". Some say to make regular, not anything prohibitive. I lean toward this view, but Scalia is right to say it is dead. Over 100 years of precedent is not going to be turned over and not worth the fight. The federalism fight, however, is very much worth it. Federalism is what separates our welfare state from Europe's. Federalism is a large piece of ensuring economic freedom and dynamism that centralized states lack. So this is my broad view.

I would swallow this one if Scalia could be chief, though, I think. He has been the most intellectually influential justice on this court. He is the only intellect on the court really in the sense of having an impact on "the law". Rehnquist has been an important chief, but the rest of the court are small men compared to Scalia. It would be a good capstone for him.

Emperor clones and Dash Rendar? Sorry Nick, no dice.

I have read online that Sifo Dyas is yet another Sith lord. I don't know if this is true, but I agree that this was the most ridiculous plot hole in the movie.

As for expanded universe stuff, I am not as satisfied as Nick is with it. I think some of it is very weak (Dark Empire, Shadows of the empire), but there is some that is very good (the aforementioned Timothy Zhan novels, the Courtship of Princess Leia).
As for me, I will probably stay away from most of the expanded universe stuff (unless someone recommends it).

Edited to say I forgot to mention that I did enjoy the "Clones Wars" cartoons (Cartoon Network) immensely. I recommend them highly.

As for Schrodinger's cat, I think it would more clever to have a cat named "wave equation."

Schrodinger's Cat = Not clever

I know I've mentioned this before, but in the literary circles I sometimes travel in, some folks think it's especially clever to feature a cat in their stories named Schrodinger. I've seen this no less than half a dozen times, in stories from published writers right down to the hackiest hacks. It's not clever. So stop it. Give your cat a humorously effiminate name like the rest of us honest Americans.

I am Loboda

By the way, that was Tsar Loboda who just sent that last post.

Sifo-Dyas

This is the most enormous plot hole in the entire prequel trilogy. Who ordered this clone army? And why were the Jedi so quick to use it before they had ascertained its origin?

Most probably, Sifo-Dyas was either a disguised Darth Sidious (Sifo-Dyas... Si..dyas?) or a disguised Count Dooku. Ep. II hinted that someone had access to the Jedi files and did bad things with the info (this was probably Dooku). But this leap presupposes that one of them was able to see that far into the future, that that the Jedi were a bunch of foolish idiots, and then impersonate a dead Jedi master and make the order (on credit, too!).

At best, I'm counting on EU (expanded universe) authors to step up and fill this plot hole with something satisfying and interesting. Back in the early nineties Timothy Zahn came out with a fantastic set of sequels to the original trilogy. It goes without saying that some of the most creative minds working in the Star Wars universe are out there writing books and comics, and they've got a whole new block of time and action to play with from the prequel movies. Star Wars is not so easily destroyed, even by the likes of George Lucas. If you haven't seen any of the Jedi Council comics that came out a few years ago (which chronicle the adventures of Mace Windu, Ki-Adi-Mundi... and Yoda's girlfriend, Yaddle?!), I recommend them.

Hello

Although I have neither the ability nor the will to comment to any intelligent extent, I wanted to say hello. I will check the blog now and then and comment if I can. Nice to hear from you all and see that intellectual desire is still around.

Bert on Raich action

I knew you were going to law school for a reason, Bert.

Bert = so smart, so sexy.

Re Raich

In the process of reading this, like most cases in the last fifty years, too long opinion. Just from Stevens's introduction, I'd have to say the majority is wrong. Wickard v. Filburn was simply wrong. The wheat grown was not in commerce, the pot is not in commerce... You cannot stretch the commerce clause to cover it which was why the court wouldn't go for it in Lopez. Lopez was not a federalism case though like this one, so this case is doubly harmful if indeed I cannot be persuaded by my guiding jurisprudential light Scalia. When he spoke at school here in April he said he was resigned to the broadened commerce clause insofar as it was actually commerce not just guns around schools for instance.

While we like Lochner economics, Lochner was perhaps wrongly decided according to a federalist view and especially according to a restrained judicial view. Holmes dissented I believe in Lochner, claiming the state legislatures can debate economic questions and judges should not necessarily. So we must be aware that judicial activism in favor of our policy preferences is wrong as well. It simply is not the role of the judiciary. Scalia would certainly agree. Thomas seems willing to be activist at times, at least in the sense of overturning precedent, to right what he sees as wrongs. Scalia, however, is more constrained by stare decisis.

Physics and commerce?

I found this little bit this morning and was amused. More on SW later.

THE PHYSICS OF COMMERCE!

When you hold a ball in the air it has POTENTIAL commerce. When you let it go the potential commerce turns into KINETIC commerce, which makes it faaaaalllllll through the air! It is caught by Congress or gravity. Classroom Learning Challenge: Levy a tariff on the ball before it hits the ground!

Special Bonus Commerce PARADOX! A cat is in a box. According to quantum mechanics, it is neither bought nor sold. Instead it is a cat commerce waveform sold in all possible states at the same time until it is confiscated and destroyed by the Bureau of Alcohol Tobacco and Cats.

Optimism, you say?

Good answer Mr. Hoffman. However, the reason that you and I watch the movies with a sense of excitement (used to) or buy the video games is precisely because the originals were so good. We go watch ROTS because we loved the original trilogy. Not because we like the prequels. That makes the prequels a failure. Just because a bad movie might later inspire a good story isn’t justification enough for me. What I am lamenting is that the original trilogy inspired Hollywood to make a new kind of epic movie that had been lost since the early 60s. Star Wars brought a return to the Ben-Hur (the greatest movie ever) type of story that all audiences love. No Hollywood screenwriter or studio head is going to be inspired or driven by this tripe. Which is fine, I don’t want another revolution, but these movies can’t even echo the sentiments of the old.
I suppose it seems like I have endlessly criticized these movies. Unfair? Possibly. I fear the Star Wars magic has run out. Even if a future story comes out of it.

A more optimistic view

JB said: "I believe the mightiness of Star Wars and its effect on America and moviemaking is at that end."

I think there's a more positive way to view the failure of the Star Wars prequels. As I sat through these movies and watched them again, at some point I am always struck by the thought, "I could do better than this. I could tell a better story." Some of this is ego, but more than that it's a failure of the prequel story to live up to the original story. Where Lucas inspired us with his ability to weave a compelling narrative in the original, he left us dry and empty at the end of the prequels. Of course the prequels won't have the same effect as the originals: they show us that flashy visuals and amazing action sequences cannot carry the weight of a bad story. The failure of the prequels to give us a good story and answer our questions will give rise to better Star Wars stories and those mediums available to the creative people really interested in telling them (as opposed to Lucas, who seems to be only interested in his gross take): book-length comics, novels, and video games. So if the only thing the prequels do is reaffirm our basic desire to be told a good story than means something to us and speaks to our common human condition, and inspire the next generation of creative people to give it a try, then the effect on America and moviemaking continues. Who knows... maybe someday decades from now we'll exit a great movie whose director or writer saw the Star Wars prequels as a kid and said to himself "There are better stories to tell."

Maybe that's hoping too much... I'm sure one could lay blame at the feet of a rabid and consistently loyal fanbase who will shell out cash at every turn to get their Star Wars fix for the debasing of the movies. Speaking of which... I was in the book store a few days ago and saw a full-length color picture book entitled "The Making of Revenge of the Sith." It was $25 so I didn't get it, but I read a chapter and I'd recommend it for anyone who wants to dive into psyche of George Lucas as he directed the Sith, and point out all of his missteps along the way.

ROTS Revisited

In addition to my previous post regarding a lack of substance and emotional punch in the prequel triology, I have a few additional thoughts. Episodes IV, V, VI aren't perfect movies, but they succeed. The viewer loves the goodies and hates the baddies. There is a sense of mystery, complexity and adventure to them. Because they did not fall into the trap of many 70s era studio movies with strong themes of sexual repression/expression, socialism, and other "malaise" topics, they have aged very well. One can still enjoy them today. Most Holly wood movies from the 70s that don't have Clint Eastwood in them are laughable or even unwatchable. George Lucas tapped something in ourselves, a sense of manliness or adventure or nobility-against-the-odds that resonates. We desperately want Luke to blow up the Death Star. We don't want Han to run off with his reward. We want Vader crushed. The Force is a pleasant mystery.

All those feelings are gone. I am supposed to feel sorry for Darth Vader? Really? That line was completely overdone. Wait for ROTJ for me to feel sorry for him, let me hate him for a while. He is the BADDEST guy around. I think now the Vader character has been ruined even in the old trilogy, to my sincerest dismay. Also, the original story wasn't all about Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader, I now propose that Lucas overdid his committment to that story instead of mixing in a clever subset of plot lines, like the OT (original trilogy) did.

I don't think it is unfair to hold up the PT (prequel trilogy) to the OT. They were meant to be roughly equal in quality and watchability. The PT cannot stand on its own in any way. Does anybody care about any of the characters? There is a difference between not knowing a lot about a character, but yet being intrigued and simply not knowing a lot about a character. For example, the character of Mace Windu, while able to do some fancy lightsaber tricks, is not intriuging, even for a minor character. Yoda was awfully misused, as I found his acrobatics and lightsaber action ridiculous and potentially destructive to the character generally.

ROTS does not have moments of high art. It does have moments of fantastic art design, acrobatics, eye candy and flashy effects. But that just doesn't make up for the faltering of film in other ways.

Qui-Gon Jinn kept me interested in Phantom Menance. The possibility of intrigue with Count Dooku kept me around in AOTC. Nothing doing in ROTS. The movie keeps your attention but leaves you empty. I now fear that the emptiness of this movie will drag the OT down into a quagmire of Star Wars mediocrity. All good things must end, and I believe the mightiness of Star Wars and its effect on America and moviemaking is at that end. Pity.

Wheat vs. Cannabis

Kris: I don't disagree with you that Raich has built on the unfortunate decision in Wickard, but I think it *does* matter that the substance in question here was medicinal marijuana (type I controlled substance) instead of wheat. Marijuana carries a long history of law both state and federal against it and wheat does not. One could say that Stephens took a "text and tradition" tact in Raich and barely needed Wickard to expand the reach of the commerce clause. In either case, while I would be in favor of decriminilizing marijuana for any recreational use, I agree with JB that it is disingenuous for the supporters of legalized pot to use the medicinal marijuana case as a stepping stone to achieving their goals. There's a fine argument to be made to decriminilize pot and allow purely recreational use--there's no need to conflate that argument with one that deals with an evolving understanding of marijuana's possible medicinal uses. My fear is that such a strategy encourages sloppy science.

ROTS

Interesting and humorous review here. More thoughts from me to come.

Tribal Lands

Native American tribes are already permitted to build casinos on reservations or designated land. This is simply because the American government has extremely limited authority over these lands. In Arizona, Navajo reservations often have casinos and gambling establishments. The problem arises when tribes begin to claim that previously developed or historically "white" land is acutally theirs. For instance, one tribe claims that the entire city of Massillon is sacred tribal land, and have filed suit in court. Other cases involve smaller plots or tracts of land, but with the same shaky premises. Tribal leaders generally want to secure these lands to build such establishments as casinos and the like. I would suggest that the Florida case was probaby related to a bogus Indian land claim, not casinos themselves. Perhaps the Seminole tribe already had a casino in a remote location and wanted to profit by building one near a urban area. Doubtful that any constitutional rights where being violated.

Medicinal Cannabis

I haven't read anything in these posts that I could readily disagree with, given my generally federalist leanings. That said I don't feel like this was some sort of deathblow to federalism, or a reversal of precedent. Therefore, I can't share the strong feelings expressed previously because I find the concept of medicinal cannabis highly suspect. There is currently a bill, Senate Bill 74, in the Ohio Senate, which would regulate medicinal marijuana in certain cases. You can examine that bill here. The bill is quite long, and I believe it also reduces existing penalties for illegal use, etc.

I suppose it would be no secret, given my oft-disclosed feelings on the matter, that I oppose this bill. Most of the letters I have received in support of SB 74 come from openly avid users. They acknowledge that implementation of medicinal marijuana is part of an agenda meant to fully legalize the substance. There is almost no commentary on or from the actual patients whose pain this could, evidently, alleviate. What I am saying is that legislation such as this generates a very real sense that this isn't about medicine at all. This is reflected in bill testimony and support. This would explain why such legislation is supported more by the average Joe smoker than by medical professionals.

Again, I don't disagree with the previously stated positions on this matter, from a legal or constitutional standpoint. However, I also should disclose that the outcome of the decision is not disagreeable to me in a practical sense. You see what I am driving at?

So, that leaves me in disagreement with the Court. The Court it outside it bounds. But I don't see this as any more of a gross violation of federalism that anything that it or the legislature has been doing since FDR. In fact, probably less so. Because of this, I think some of the contempt displayed in recent posts is, at least somewhat, out of place. This decision was not revolutionary, but rather, in our age, ordinary.

The Court, dope and fags

The Court usually contradicts itself, though usually not so blatently as in Gonzales. Two recent decisions (Lopez and Morrison) ruled against federal statutes (ie the federal gov't doesn't have the power to legisliate guns around schools and domestic violence). Not exactly pro-state but definitely anti-feds. That is why this decision in particular is contradictory.
While still on the subject of Gonzales and medical marijuana, ONDCP (office of national drug control policy) head John Walters (known as the "drug czar") released this press release. Basically it boils down to "Hey cancer patients: F-you and choke on your vomit, 'cuz you can't smoke no more doobers to stop puking." What a tremendous asshole.
Finally, fashion experts apparently want to tell you how to be a man. I hate France slightly more than I hate the rest of Europe.

Re: Gonzalez

Wasn't there a case in the late 90s involving an Indian tribe suing a state (fla maybe...I think it was a southern state, but maybe I am way off) in which the court decided that the commerce clause could not be used by the federal government to annul the sovreign immunity of states granted in the eleventh (?) ammendment (sorry...I'm not the polysci buff you jerks are so I may be off). Has that decision since been overturned? In that case it applied (I think) to the fact that the state refused to meet with the injuns to discuss the opening of a gaming casino, not quite marijuana I suppose, but if home grown, home used products can affect commerce, I see no reason that a casino cannot, and in this case the court ruled in favor of states rights to dictate its commerce. So, is the court contradicting itself now, or am I too simple to grasp the intricacies of such politics?

Re: Gonzales

Nick, I think crux of the problem still goes back to the Wickard decision. The majority says that growing marijuana in the home for home use has an effect on the total market for marijuana (those medicinal users are no longer buying from Cooley-Jay on the corner) just like Wickard growing wheat to use on his own farm affected the national wheat market. Of course by that logic, me riding my bike to work affects my gas consumption and therefore the national market for gasoline. Congress can therefore regulate my bike-riding. I do not dispute that these actions have effects on the whole markets for certain goods, but is that the purpose (or scope) of the commerce clause? I would like to see someone utilize the Ninth and Tenth Amendments to attack commerce clause legislation.

Gonzales v. Raich

Admittedly, my jurisprudential credentials are slimmer than JB’s hollow bird-bones, but can anyone honestly make the case that the Gonzales v. Raich decision is not another nail in the coffin of American federalism?

I’ve read the decision and dissents, and it seems to me the case could not possibly be any clearer. The medicinal marijuana in question was grown within the State of California, with no intent for sale, to be used for medical reasons by the grower. The lower courts drew from US v. Lopez to declare a certain class of local activities beyond the reach of federal power and ruled for Raich. If the matter of this case, homegrown medicinal marijuana never intended for any market, isn’t beyond the scope of federal power under the commerce clause, than what is?

Nothing, it seems, according to Justice Stephens and the majority. But it also seems that the substance in question is marijuana makes all the difference. Stephens rattles off a long laundry list federal controls on the substance dating back hundreds of years. Even marijuana that is grown for explicitly medicinal purposes has some attachment to drug markets, Stephens implies, which makes it subject to federal power under the commerce clause. Which is why the federal government, in theory, shouldn’t be able to regulate the tomatoes I grow in my back yard but they can kick down my door and destroy my cannabis plants

But wait, that’s not all. Taking a typically progressive tact, Stephens asserts that the understanding of the Commerce Clause has evolved over time. The commerce clause now applies not only to interstate commerce, as it reads in the Constitution, but to “things that substantially affect interstate commerce.” Who is to decide that? Well, who else but the court. Stephens goes on to destroy the boundary of the “outer limits” of the commerce clause and ends with this patronizing parting shot:

“As the Solicitor General confirmed during oral argument, the statute authorizes procedures for reclassification of Schedule I drugs. But perhaps even more important than these legal avenues is the democratic, in which the voices of voters allied with these respondents may one day be heard in the halls of Congress.”

Thanks, Justice Stephens. When the citizens of the United States get together and change the law through their elected representatives everything will be cool, but when the voters of the State of California try to do that same thing in their state you put them in a big sweaty commerce clause headlock and tell them to f--- themselves.

But beyond that the real mystery of this case is Justice Scalia’s concurring opinion. Scalia’s “more nuanced” (his words) reading insists that even in situations when the commerce clause does not cleanly apply (as in this one), the Necessary and Proper clause steps in and covers the remainder. This ridiculous claim adds insult to injury and further diminishes the scope of state power. We knew that federalism was on the endangered species list, but I never thought that Antonin Scalia would be one of the hunters. Is there anything in this country that a nimble tongued lawyer could not argue is beyond the scope of both the commerce clause *and* the necessary and proper clause?

The dissent offers up a view more consistent with my own (that this decision asserts a federal government with unlimited powers) and thankfully Thomas has the marbles to call Scalia out on his foolishness. Thomas then proceeds to beat on the majority with the Madison Hammer (a high level weapon forged from remains of the robot Madison and enchanted with Liberty +1 and Federalism +7) for a pleasing amount of wordage.

Pleasing, for a while, but ultimately unsatisfying.

“One searches the Court’s opinion in vain for any hint of what aspect of American life is reserved to the states,” Thomas writes in his dissent.

Indeed we do. Still searching.

More thoughts on Sith

For all its faults (and they many) I can't help but acknowledge a slow slide
towards improvement in this movie.
Given enough dollars and prequels, George Lucas may even have produced a good Star Wars
long around the fourteenth or fifteenth try.  Granted the laundry list of
problems major and minor, here are the things that made Sith a better
movie than Phantom Menace or Clones:

The Calm Before the Storm: Taking his cue from Peter Jackson, Lucas struck
the dialogue (thankfully) and gave us a moving moment of dramatic tension
just before Anakin takes the final plunge to the dark side.  On Coruscant,
Anakin broods alone in the Jedi Temple while Padme dreads their future in
her apartment in a separate building across the skyline.  The sun is
setting.  Dramatic music (perhaps the only original melody John Williams
composed for Ep. III) swells.  We are hanging on the edge of the cliff.
This was probably the best (or second best) moment in the entire movie.

Ewan McGregor and Hayden Christensen: Acting aside, they looked the part.
Casting has always been one of Lucas and his loyal hound Rick McCallum’s
primary strengths.  Compare Christensen’s floppy bangs with Luke’s
windswept blond hair and the resemblance is remarkable.

Visuals, Taking us Home:  Even though reminders that this movie is related
to the classic Star Wars are painful for Kris, I appreciated the solid
visual links to A New Hope.  Prototypical X-Wings, Jedi Starfighters one
evolutionary step away from TIEs, and the sterile white of the Blockade
Runner’s interior are all comforting images.  They remind me of what Star
Wars was, that inspite of all this crap and confusion we’ve somehow gotten back to
the beginning, and now we can start to put this prequel debacle behind
us.  When I watch Tatooine’s twin suns set, I feel better, because I know
that the healing can now begin.

Supremes

The Commerce Clause has been the crutch for granting enormous power to the Feds for years. Part of the problem, as I see it, is that "issues" are no longer viewed through a constitutional lense, but rather "social or pseudo moral" one. Under this framework, it seems constutional arguments are stretched to fit arguments far, far outside the text. This allows for the implmentation of ideas swirling in the public at the time. We call this policy, and that ought to be left to the legislature, and, in part, to the executive. While I find medical marijuana usage unconvincing, it can't be dimissed through the commerce clause. Likewise, while I find the denial of patronage at a private hotel for racial reasons morally abhorrent, I don't see a provision in the Commerce Clause that allows the federal government to prohibit it.
I suppose one could argue that racism is so unsatisfactory that any means to prevent it are good. Many anti-abortionists, such as myself, have thought about such arguments. But it is difficult to see the founding documents pillaged in such ways. Federalism has been in decline for some time. One example of this: If Ohio were to remove the E-Check program, which is monstrously ineffective or were to lower the legal alcohol consumption age, the feds would pull all highway money. My opinion: take the loss of federal money and cut state spending to afford it. Not because I prefer dirty air or teenage drunks, but because Ohio, and others, should not have to follow broad federal mandates.

Thoughts on Gonzales v. Raich

So, a 6-3 decision with Rehnquist, O'Connor and Thomas dissenting.
First, the majority (all except Scalia) say that it is clearly in the power of Congress via the commerce clause to regulate anything that might have some effect on "commerce," even if it is wholly intrastate. In the opnion, Stevens reaffirms Wickard v. Filburn (SOB!) and pretty much says "If you don't like it, use the democratic process." I was under the impression that the state of CA had done exactly that by enacting their referendum. In whole, the majority sees no fundamental differences between Wickard and Gonzales and so rules predictably for the federal government.
Whether you agree with the use of medical marijuana or not is immaterial. This case was about federalism and states rights and the states lost big time.
I know I have a reputation as a big-time libertarian; over the past several years I have been drifting more towards a federalist way of thinking. That is, states can pretty much do what they want as they have police powers. The federal gov't on the other hand has (sort of) enumerated powers, none of which are the police powers. If a state wants to outlaw narcotics, drugs or alcohol that ok; the federal gov't cannot without a constitutional amendment. However, under decisions like Wickard and Gonzales the Court has granted the federal gov't unlimited powers through the commerce clause.

The dissenting minority in this case have it right I think. The Court needs to revisit Wickard and overturn its poor jurisprudence and perhaps (one can hope) return to Lochner-era economic decisions.

For a good review of the case and opinions go here
I am curious what everyone else thinks about this case.

RotS, etc.

I wouldn't call myself a Star Wars expert, but I think I have a pretty good grasp as to what is going on. that being said, I am thoroughly confused on a number of issues and perhaps some of you can enlighten me.
First, who is Sifo-Dyas? Was it really he that initiated the cloning or was it someone else (Dooku?) acting under his persona? Second, and Slaps and I have discussed this a little, what happened to R2 between RotS and ANH? Some sort of robo-arthritus? I mean, he was doing Jedi leaps in RotS and I would have thought that a number of his special abilities (flying, lighting droids on fire, etc.) would have been handy in later films. I attribute this to Lucas' inability to create any sort of reasonable consisitency between the original films and the prequels. Third, and most importantly in my book, why do we not get to see the Yoda planet with all sorts of Yodas running around?
I did think that that RotS was by far the best of the prequels, not that that is much of an accomplishment. I would not compare any part of it to LotR. In fact I would probably say that Peter Jackson took slightly progressive steps towards Lucasdom with his gradual increase in liberties he took with each progressive film in abandoning the true storyline, both in events and overall tone of the films vs. the books. I am not trying to draw any sort of comparison between LotR and Star Wars prequels as I don't think that it can be reasonably done, but responding to Pallando's comment about RotS achieving LotR quality at some points, which I don't think it does.
Finally, someone needs to explain to me why this isn't funny: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/football/nfl/06/01/bc.fbn.49erstrainingvid.ap/index.html

Gonzales v. Raich

Any thoughts on yesterday's case (s) , esp. Gonzales v. Raich ?
Does it undermine federalist principles?
Thoughts on Stevens' opinion?
O'Connor's dissent?
Thomas's dissent?
Scalia's concurrence?

I'll post later this afternoon with my thoughts once I finish reading. Scalia's concurrence seems very confusing.

ROTS = Ambivalence at best

First, the good: Ewan McGregor. The best thing about the prequels. And for ROTS I think he really hammered it home; I believed him to be Obi Wan (despite the numerous plot holes about his memories, lies, etc). I was moved by his final scene with Anakin. That scene will be the reason I go to see the movie again.
Christopher Lee was criminally underused. He had potential (although making him Qui Gon's master/Yoda's student was stupid an unecessary). JB and I have exhausted our complaints of his role in the third movie so that is enough for now, excepting that I wanted some closure with a character that Lucas at least made an attempt to develop (unlike Darth Maul).
Effects in the third episode were good but started to feel like the Matrix sequels. That is, it was more like Lucas showing effects off rather than using effects to accentuate action sequences.

Second, the bad: Foremost, I was wholly unconvinced of Anakin's turn to the Dark side. There was no temptation as hinted at in later movies. Just lies. Anakin is not a tragic figure in the sense that we pity him; no, we identify with him. Essentially he is forced to choose between saving his wife (partly to atone for his mother's death) and....what?? The Jedi? They are jerks to him. On a side note, I was much more impressed with Hayden Christensen's acting this time around, perhaps only because it was so bad in II.
Now I've upset myself. Aside from that major thematic flaw, there are so many plot holes and inconsistincies that I don't even consider these movies to be part of IV-VI. Honestly, I was able so set up some sort of mental block prior to I so that I can still watch and enjoy the later movies without even thinking about the prequels. It makes me sad that that is what I have to do.

RoTS

First of all, this was a pretty fantastic idea. I've got a few things to say about Revenge of the Sith, but I'll save it for tomorrow. Initial thoughts: I agree with JB. It is unquestionably better than Phantom Menace or Attack of the Clones, but that was such a low bar to clear that it doesn't make Sith a good movie. Problems abound. The philosophical foundations of the force, the Jedi order and the Sith order are inconsistent at best. And the dialogue continues to be awful. The good thing was that there was less of it this time around. Almost as if Lucas finally realized he was terrible at writing dialogue and started extracting entire scenes and replacing them with lightsaber fights. But it wasn't all hackery and flashy effects. Some parts of the movie managed to stumble into high art, that same state of filmmaking inspirado that Peter Jackson could tap seemingly at will with Lord of the Rings. I'll speak more of these anon.

JB has arrived

Nice idea Slaps. Let my first post echo my sentiments about Star Wars: Return of the Sith. Awful. Really Awful.

My opinion of Star Wars always revolved around the fact that it was a good story revolving around a classic good vs. evil construction. All the good ones are, to me. Somewhere along the way, Lucas ran into a problem with reflexive moralism or relativism or something that makes awful stories. Combine that problem with some bad writing, thin storylines and questionable directing and you get, ta da, mediocre at best movies. I found Phantom Menance enjoyable but flawed. All downhill from there. Even the special effects began to bother me as Return of the Sith felt a lot like a cartoon in some places. My biggest fear is that the prequel triology might ruin the original by taking all the mystery and punch out of some of the characters.

I know my opinion on this matter is not original, many people have said precisely the same thing, and probably better. However, I really cannot see any reasonable defense of these movies except for the fact that they are visually stimulating in certain places. I feel profound disappointment regarding them.

Anyone care to disagree? Let it be known that throughout the development of this blog, I reserve the right to be wrong. Frequently. But never as wrong as George Lucas. Ever.

Welcome Bert

Is it as hot for you as it is for us Bert?

Not any more...

I am here to fulfill all of your manly desires.

hmmm...all alone in here...

hello. I hope everyone is well.