Saw a commercial the other night for Taylor's Gift, a non-profit organization that promotes organ donation. A worthy cause, certainly.
In the commercial, the spokesperson introduces herself as "Carly." In fact, this is Carly Patterson, who won the all-around gymnastics gold medal at the 2004 Olympics. In the ad, Carly says, "I'm an Olympic gold medalist, a musician, and most importantly, an organ donor."
MOST importantly? You WON an Olympic gold medal! You're a successful musician! Do you really think the most important aspect of your life is that someone is going to get your corneas after you die?!?
I hope whoever you help doesn't need a self-esteem transplant 'cause they'll be shit-outta-luck!
Saturday, June 30, 2012
Friday, June 29, 2012
A Prologue Nobody Needed
So this morning, I decided finally to go see "The Avengers" (Happy, FOS?). Unfortunately, "The Avengers" was no longer playing in my area, so I went with Plan B and saw "Magic Mike."
Yes, of course I'm kidding! (And, seriously Stephen Soderbergh?)
No, the fallback movie was "Prometheus," and I must say. . . Meh.
The special effects, of course, were terrific, and the 3-D was of the immersive variety: It pulls you in and places you into the action rather than sending things jumping out at you. And there are worse ways to spend a couple of hours than staring at Charlize Theron in a skintight bodysuit. But aside from that. . . .
I assume by this point I'm giving nothing away by saying that "Prometheus" is a prequel to the whole "Alien" saga. And therein lies the central problem with this movie. I mean, if you told people that Ridley Scott was making a prequel to "Alien," the knee-jerk reaction would probably be--and largely was--AWESOME!!!! Except then you think about it for a moment, and you realize that a prequel to "Alien" was something that you had never thought about before and, indeed, saw no point of now.
Look, as misbegotten as the prequels to "Star Wars," i.e., Episodes I-III, were, you could certainly see the point of the movies: They told us how Anakin became Vader. But I felt no such need for an origin story for the "Alien" aliens: If I had ever thought about it--and I'm not sure I ever had--I had just assumed that the aliens were out there somewhere . . .existing--as aliens are wont to do. If anything, the whole origin story somewhat diminishes them.
And then there's the whole question of the quality of the movie for its own sake. That is, if I had never seen or heard of the "Alien" franchise, would this movie be satisfying in and of itself. Frankly, no. Indeed, if you asked me, "OK, so, what happened in 'Prometheus'?" I'm really not sure I have an answer. There was very little suspense, not much action, and, ultimately, an unsatisfying ending.
Maybe "Meh" is being generous.
Yes, of course I'm kidding! (And, seriously Stephen Soderbergh?)
No, the fallback movie was "Prometheus," and I must say. . . Meh.
The special effects, of course, were terrific, and the 3-D was of the immersive variety: It pulls you in and places you into the action rather than sending things jumping out at you. And there are worse ways to spend a couple of hours than staring at Charlize Theron in a skintight bodysuit. But aside from that. . . .
I assume by this point I'm giving nothing away by saying that "Prometheus" is a prequel to the whole "Alien" saga. And therein lies the central problem with this movie. I mean, if you told people that Ridley Scott was making a prequel to "Alien," the knee-jerk reaction would probably be--and largely was--AWESOME!!!! Except then you think about it for a moment, and you realize that a prequel to "Alien" was something that you had never thought about before and, indeed, saw no point of now.
Look, as misbegotten as the prequels to "Star Wars," i.e., Episodes I-III, were, you could certainly see the point of the movies: They told us how Anakin became Vader. But I felt no such need for an origin story for the "Alien" aliens: If I had ever thought about it--and I'm not sure I ever had--I had just assumed that the aliens were out there somewhere . . .existing--as aliens are wont to do. If anything, the whole origin story somewhat diminishes them.
And then there's the whole question of the quality of the movie for its own sake. That is, if I had never seen or heard of the "Alien" franchise, would this movie be satisfying in and of itself. Frankly, no. Indeed, if you asked me, "OK, so, what happened in 'Prometheus'?" I'm really not sure I have an answer. There was very little suspense, not much action, and, ultimately, an unsatisfying ending.
Maybe "Meh" is being generous.
Thursday, June 28, 2012
Here's to Your Health (Continued)
In hindsight, it makes perfect sense that the Supreme Court upheld the Affordable Care Act. As (ahem) someone pointed out not long ago, the controversial insurance mandate at the heart of the case was effectively nothing more than tax policy, and therefore well within the purview of Congress to legislate. Kudos to Chief Justice John Roberts for applying my reasoning in his majority opinion. I look forward to receiving a thank-you note from him soon. Perhaps a fruit basket.
This doesn't mean the political back-and-forth over healthcare reform is over, of course. Indeed, now things get interesting. If, as Republicans insist, Obamacare is a wildly and widely unpopular law, then the Supreme Court has done Mitt Romney a huge favor: Passionate Teabaggers now thwarted by the judicial branch will stream into voting booths to pull the lever for the man who has promised to repeal this repugnant law, based largely on a law he championed as governor of Massachusetts. On the other hand, President Obama will surely campaign on the idea that healthcare reform provides or will provide significant benefits to the uninsured and to the American population as a whole--but that this now-definitively constitutional law will likely be undone if Republicans recapture the White House and/or both houses of Congress. This election thus becomes largely a referendum on Obamacare, and the American people will rightly have the opportunity to express their preference.
The other interesting aspect of the court's decision was that it was Chief Justice Roberts and not Seesaw Kennedy who provided the deciding vote. Most conservatives assumed Roberts was one of them. Indeed, I think Roberts may have proven today that he IS a conservative--a REAL conservative--a judge who feels that the judiciary should largely defer to the legislature, as long as the legislature is reasonably acting within its boundaries. It almost makes one optimistic that the Roberts Court won't be as retrograde as we had long feared. Almost.
This doesn't mean the political back-and-forth over healthcare reform is over, of course. Indeed, now things get interesting. If, as Republicans insist, Obamacare is a wildly and widely unpopular law, then the Supreme Court has done Mitt Romney a huge favor: Passionate Teabaggers now thwarted by the judicial branch will stream into voting booths to pull the lever for the man who has promised to repeal this repugnant law, based largely on a law he championed as governor of Massachusetts. On the other hand, President Obama will surely campaign on the idea that healthcare reform provides or will provide significant benefits to the uninsured and to the American population as a whole--but that this now-definitively constitutional law will likely be undone if Republicans recapture the White House and/or both houses of Congress. This election thus becomes largely a referendum on Obamacare, and the American people will rightly have the opportunity to express their preference.
The other interesting aspect of the court's decision was that it was Chief Justice Roberts and not Seesaw Kennedy who provided the deciding vote. Most conservatives assumed Roberts was one of them. Indeed, I think Roberts may have proven today that he IS a conservative--a REAL conservative--a judge who feels that the judiciary should largely defer to the legislature, as long as the legislature is reasonably acting within its boundaries. It almost makes one optimistic that the Roberts Court won't be as retrograde as we had long feared. Almost.
Wednesday, June 27, 2012
The Evil Empire
This is Chase Carey, the chief operating officer of News Corp.:
Now, really, doesn't Rupert Murdoch have enough of an image problem without having a COO who looks like Snidely Whiplash?
At least he got rid of that creepy ginger, Rebekah Brooks.
But I see that she's making a comeback, too:
Some people just won't stay gone!
Now, really, doesn't Rupert Murdoch have enough of an image problem without having a COO who looks like Snidely Whiplash?
At least he got rid of that creepy ginger, Rebekah Brooks.
But I see that she's making a comeback, too:
Some people just won't stay gone!
Tuesday, June 26, 2012
Sentencing Structures
As the nation waits for the Supreme Court's decision on the constitutionality of the Affordable Care Act ("Obamacare"), let's take a look at another decision they announced yesterday. In the consolidated cases of Jackson v. Hobbs and Miller v. Alabama, the court ruled that mandatory life sentences for minors convicted of murder were unconstitutional. Essentially, this means that judges can not be legislatively required to automatically sentence those under the age of 18 to life sentences without the possibility of parole, this being a violation of the Eighth Amendment's prohibition on cruel and unusual punishment.
Sounds reasonable to me. Personally, I've never much cared for mandatory sentencing for any type of crime or criminal. Judges should have discretion to sentence people based on mitigating and/or aggravating circumstances--it's part of the job. While murder is always a horrible crime, there are clearly differences between degrees of guilt for different participants: If a seventeen-year-old and a fourteen-year-old set out to rob someone, and, during the crime, the seventeen-year-old shoots and kills the robbery victim, both perpetrators may be found guilty of murder, but it seems to me they are not equally culpable or deserving of the same punishment.
The most disturbing aspect of the Supreme Court's decision, though, is what it reveals about the dissenting justices: While we all knew that Justices Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Chief Justice Roberts were on the conservative end of the spectrum, their dissents in this case suggest they may also be insane. In his dissent, Chief Justice Roberts wrote, “It is a great tragedy when a juvenile commits murder — most of all for the innocent victims. . . . But also for the murderer, whose life has gone so wrong so early. And for society as well, which has lost one or more of its members to deliberate violence, and must harshly punish another.”
Well, yeah. . . . And you do realize you just voted to MANDATE the increased "tragedy," right?
More worrisome still was Justice Alito's dissent:
“Even a 17 ½-year-old who sets off a bomb in a crowded mall or guns down a dozen students and teachers is a ‘child’ and must be given a chance to persuade a judge to permit his release into society,” he wrote of the consequences of the majority ruling. “Nothing in the Constitution supports this arrogation of legislative authority.”Since the Supreme Court's decision does not FORBID life sentences, but merely says that such sentences cannot be mandatory, I failed at first to understand what Alito was getting so incensed about. Then it hit me: Maybe Samuel Alito--presumably a well-educated, incisive man--doesn't know what "mandatory" means?!? And he's supposed to make a ruling on a healthcare MANDATE?!?
I fear for the Republic.
Monday, June 25, 2012
News the Way It Oughtta Be
Regarding HBO's new drama "The Newsroom": I enjoyed this show; this is not surprising, though, as I thoroughly enjoyed it the first time I saw it, when it was called "Sports Night." The primary difference being that the new show focuses on a "hard news" program, as opposed to sports, and there is considerably more profanity--thank you, HBO.
This is not a criticism. "The Newsroom" is the latest show from Aaron Sorkin, who has, in one way or another, been writing the same program for the last 15 years or so, whether it's been called "Sports Night," "Studio 60," or "The Newsroom." All three essentially just realize Sorkin's romanticized vision of the media industry. (Alternatively, he romanticizes politics in things like "The West Wing" and "The American President." How romantic is Sorkin's view of politics? In his productions, REPUBLICANS are played by people like Richard Dreyfuss and Alan Alda.) And that's fine because, even if the characters are all somewhat familiar, it's quite a pleasure just to sit back and listen to these people talk.
I like to root for Sorkin's success, as he is one of a tiny handful of writers (as opposed to actors or directors) who has a distinctive voice (and considerable clout) in film and television. Just as you can always kind of tell, even without seeing the credits, when you're watching a Tim Burton or Terry Gilliam or (sometimes) Martin Scorcese film, you can pretty much always tell when you're watching something written by Aaron Sorkin: For one thing, every single person is hyper-intelligent--even the stupid people are witty and engaging! Realistic? No, but certainly a lot of fun.
The only disappointing thing about a Sorkin show--and I'm sure "The Newsroom" will be no exception--is that, after you finish watching, you compare the vision of news (or politics) in the shows with the all-too-depressing reality. Sorkin provides a blueprint for how you'd love to see people act and interact--sadly very few people in the real world seem to want to follow the blueprint.
This is not a criticism. "The Newsroom" is the latest show from Aaron Sorkin, who has, in one way or another, been writing the same program for the last 15 years or so, whether it's been called "Sports Night," "Studio 60," or "The Newsroom." All three essentially just realize Sorkin's romanticized vision of the media industry. (Alternatively, he romanticizes politics in things like "The West Wing" and "The American President." How romantic is Sorkin's view of politics? In his productions, REPUBLICANS are played by people like Richard Dreyfuss and Alan Alda.) And that's fine because, even if the characters are all somewhat familiar, it's quite a pleasure just to sit back and listen to these people talk.
I like to root for Sorkin's success, as he is one of a tiny handful of writers (as opposed to actors or directors) who has a distinctive voice (and considerable clout) in film and television. Just as you can always kind of tell, even without seeing the credits, when you're watching a Tim Burton or Terry Gilliam or (sometimes) Martin Scorcese film, you can pretty much always tell when you're watching something written by Aaron Sorkin: For one thing, every single person is hyper-intelligent--even the stupid people are witty and engaging! Realistic? No, but certainly a lot of fun.
The only disappointing thing about a Sorkin show--and I'm sure "The Newsroom" will be no exception--is that, after you finish watching, you compare the vision of news (or politics) in the shows with the all-too-depressing reality. Sorkin provides a blueprint for how you'd love to see people act and interact--sadly very few people in the real world seem to want to follow the blueprint.
Sunday, June 24, 2012
Mariners Forfeit After Hearing Kansas City "Wants It More"
SEATTLE--Dozens of fans at Safeco Field left disappointed after Mariners manager Eric Wedge forfeited Tuesday night's game against the Kansas City Royals. Wedge explained that, while the M's were taking batting practice, he overheard Royals broadcaster Rex Hudler talking about how KC's scheduled starter Jonathan Sanchez was determined and just "wanted a win more" than Seattle.
"I figured there was no point in playing the game if Sanchez wanted it that much," Wedge said.
"I'm disappointed," Mariners outfielder Ichiro Suzuki said through an interpreter. "I always like to play, even if there is no chance that we will win, given the overwhelming desire of the opposing pitcher to bring about our defeat."
Mariners General Manager Jack Zduriencik took time out from explaining how to pronounce his last name to express sympathy for Wedge's move. "Look, you never want to forfeit, but we have enough trouble getting beat by teams that couldn't care less whether they win or lose. How are we supposed to compete with someone that actually wants to win?"
Seattle batting coach Chris Chambliss didn't dispute the futility of playing a team or pitcher that just wants it more, but he did express skepticism as to whether Sanchez really did want it that much. "How does Hudler know?" Chambliss asked. "Back when I was playing, you could tell when someone wanted it more. I remember once George Brett came up and threatened to murder my entire family if he didn't win. Now THAT was wanting it!"
When he heard about the Seattle forfeit, Jonathan Sanchez was pleased to earn the easy 'W,' but he, too, was surprised at Wedge's decision. "He did this because of what Rex Hudler said? Doesn't he know that guy's an idiot?"
Wedge was, indeed, informed of Hudler's idiocy, but by that point it was too late to play the game.
"I figured there was no point in playing the game if Sanchez wanted it that much," Wedge said.
"I'm disappointed," Mariners outfielder Ichiro Suzuki said through an interpreter. "I always like to play, even if there is no chance that we will win, given the overwhelming desire of the opposing pitcher to bring about our defeat."
Mariners General Manager Jack Zduriencik took time out from explaining how to pronounce his last name to express sympathy for Wedge's move. "Look, you never want to forfeit, but we have enough trouble getting beat by teams that couldn't care less whether they win or lose. How are we supposed to compete with someone that actually wants to win?"
Seattle batting coach Chris Chambliss didn't dispute the futility of playing a team or pitcher that just wants it more, but he did express skepticism as to whether Sanchez really did want it that much. "How does Hudler know?" Chambliss asked. "Back when I was playing, you could tell when someone wanted it more. I remember once George Brett came up and threatened to murder my entire family if he didn't win. Now THAT was wanting it!"
When he heard about the Seattle forfeit, Jonathan Sanchez was pleased to earn the easy 'W,' but he, too, was surprised at Wedge's decision. "He did this because of what Rex Hudler said? Doesn't he know that guy's an idiot?"
Wedge was, indeed, informed of Hudler's idiocy, but by that point it was too late to play the game.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)