I've been a big fan of the X-Men series so far and was afraid when director Bryan Singer left (to make Superman Returns) to be replaced by Brett Ratner. I enjoyed the movie but I think it's the weakest of the trilogy.
It does have the best story of the trilogy. It's taken from recent stories in the comics by Buffy and Firefly creator Joss Whedan. A cure for the mutant gene is developed and now all mutants debate if they should take it. The enormous cast of more than 15 main characters helps to present a variety of different opinions. Some like Storm, say there is nothing wrong with them and they don't need to be cured, others wish they could be human. The Beast would like to loose his furry blue appearance to fit in and rogue would llke to be able to touch someone without killing them. The obvious solution is to let each mutant decide for themselves. But Magneto and others fear that this is the first step and that eventually they will be forced to take it. So they launch a pre-emptive strike and then we see the cure has been turned into a weapon. It's not clear if Magneto merely predicted or actually precipitated this event.
It's a good story, with many parallels to real life issues of those that don't quite fit in. The problem is it's offset by some shallowness and stupidity. They introduce Angel (one of the original x-men from the 60s), in this incarnation he's a son of a CEO who thinks his wings are a disease. We see him first as an adolecent trying to cut off his wings himself and next resisting the cure. He's not a fleshed out character as much as a plot device. This is proven in the next (and only) two scenes we see him in but I won't give it away. You'll be able to predict it yourself.
As for stupidity, there are a bunch of things. Why take a boat or fly across a bay when you can rip out a bridge and move it (ok, it looks cool). Why shoot lightening from your hands when you can fight hand-to-hand. Why send the people you're trying to save out to be killed as pawns in a battle? It just wasn't as tight as the other two movies in these kinds of details.
The movie also has another main story which is a reenvisioning of the classic 80s Dark Phoenix story that made the X-Men a phenomenon. They made a lot of changes but the basics are all there. Jean Grey becomes all powerful and absolute power corrupts absolutely and how loyal are your friends? In the comics she ate a sun, in the movie she does some bad things but destroys perhaps the area of a city block. She also spends too much time standing around looking lost.
There's a lot in there and film seems a bit cramped for time. It's about a half hour shorter than X-Men 2, but I was surprised to see it's the same length as the first movie. I appreciate that they have a lot of characters and don't waste time on origin stories. I also noticed the dialog is very economical. Early on Cylops says to Wolverine about dealing with Jean's death at the end of the last movie that "we don't all heal as fast as you". That worked both in the scene and to make sure people understood his mutant healing ability. There are lots of examples of that kind of thing and my two friends who didn't know the comics seemed to follow everything just fine. Of course if you did know the comics you could appreciate seeing a fastball special or a sentinals head and a number of other things. Speaking of Cylops, the writers must not like him. He was barely in the first film, unconscience for most of the second, and is barely in this film.
I also have a lot of respect for this film because it wasn't afraid to make major changes to major characters. And because it's based on comic books it wasn't afraid to leave in ways to undo those changes. Nevertheless, it works and it shows that the movies were conceived of as a trilogy. It's success this weekend all but guarantees there will be more films, but the word is the next one will be a Wolverine spinoff. I'll go see it.
If you do see X-Men 3, be sure to stay until after the credits.
Wednesday, May 31, 2006
Staying Addicted to Oil
Remember in the State of the Union Bush talked about how technology would help reduce our addiction to oil? Well, so much for that. It seems the DoE is cutting $115 million from it's budget and about a dozen projects are going away. "Included is a U.S. Energy Department program that in 2004 saved 122 million barrels of oil, worth about $9 billion...Also being subject to spending cuts is the government's Industrial Technologies Program that saves the United States $7 worth of energy for each dollar it spends." Brilliant.
Monday, May 29, 2006
Apple Elevator 1.0 Buggy, Wait for 1.1
It seems you really don't want the first release of a new Apple product. Invariably there are bugs, often recalls or repairs and a lot of press about it (it is Apple after all). Their new flagship Apple Store in NYC is no different. Eight days after opening, the very cool circular glass elevator got stuck. With customers inside. Oops.
Join a Tribe
This is bizarre but it seems to be real and doesn't seem to be reality TV. As best I can figure, Ben Keene was befriended by Fijians in 2004 and wanted to come up with a way to share the experience with others. He was invovled with adventure travelling and Time-Out publicaitons so he had some ideas. Now on Tribewanted 5,000 people can (pay and) signup on the internet to form a tribe to control a real island in Fiji for 3 years. They will meet online and make decisions and then will travel to the island to put them in place. Included with membership are accomodations and food for a visit to the island (you have to get there on your own and are encouraged to pay back the CO2 costs of your travel. It's about $220 per person per year and I think their 5,000 person number is per year, so they're raising $5,500,000.
Movie Review: The Da Vinci Code
When it came out I noted that it had a low rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Well I saw it and I think it's better than most of the critics thought (though Ebert and Roeper gave it two thumbs up). I didn't read the book and I'm not a Christian. I did check the wikipedia page on the book to see what parts are real history and what's made up.
Everyone else probably knows the story better than I so I won't repeat it. It was fun enough to follow, there were a few places where there were some gaps, I just assume something was cut and the book fills it in better. I wasn't expecting the whole story to take place in two days. As such there's very little character development. There are some flashbacks but they're really there for plot. I thought the dialog was a bit rough in places. I can't imagine anyone would say (in their second language) "you have an eidetic memory!"
I knew going into the film that the plot was about a coverup that Christ and Mary Magdalene had a child. For a little bit I was worried that this was going to be the climax at the end of the film but this comes out a little more than an hour into it. There's more stuff, but honestly I found it pretty easy to figure out who was doing what to who. When one of the big things is revealed at the end I was honestly surprised because it seemed so obvious to me that I thought it was explained a couple of hours earlier.
Still it was fun. There's a little too much plot for the film but as a result it doesn't drag and you have to pay attention. The few action scenes were refreshingly normal as opposed to special effects extravaganzas. I don't think there was a single explosion. Since I didn't read the book I don't konw how well the actors did in portraying their characters, but I get the sense that characterization wasn't a big deal and it certainly wasn't in the film, so everyone did fine.
I've heard a lot about how the Da Vinci Code is blasphemous or anti-catholic but honestly that seems absurd to me, this is just fiction. It's a conspiracy theory like The Illuminatus! Trilogy or Foucault's Pendulum. There was a letter in yesterday's Boston Globe relating it The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They're similar in that you only get into trouble if you believe them. The difference is that the Protocols have been used to advance hate and persecurtion, in fact they were created for that purpose. The Da Vinci Code was not, it was published as fiction.
Spoilers
I figure people might ask what I figured out. When we first saw in flashback that Sophie's parents died in a car crash I figured it was murder and that she must be a decendant of Christ. When another flashback showed the sex ritual I was convinced. I found it fairly ridiculous that Teabing needed two canes to walk except when holding a gun, then he could get away with using one. And I also thought it ridiculous that Langdon couldn't disarm him. In the Louvre when the police see Langdon's tracker moving away I knew they just threw the tracker rather than jumped. I was amazed that the Louvre was not video monitored either when Silias killed Sauniere or when Langdon and Sophie went to the Mona Lisa. At the time I didn't understand how Silias knew to show up at Villette, so I suspected Teabing or the Remy, but didn't piece it together until Remy died (before they revealed Teabing was the Teacher).
There is a problem caused by having too much plot to squeeze into a movie. It means that nothing shown is wasted, in other words everything is significant. When Tom Hanks entered the Louvre and commented about the inverted pyramid I knew it would come up. Later when he was in Villette and described the symbols of man and woman I thought of that pyramid and knew it would come up at the end. I had forgotten about it until Langdon left his hotel. Though in that scene I was surprised that someone with an eidetic memory would need to look up an image in his own book!
Finally I think Teabing's plan was lame. If you knew the top members of the Priory but didn't know where the keystone was, would you have a crazy monk kill the members to get the info? There's a lot of evidence these people wouldn't crack under pressure. In fact his plan didn't work because Sauniere led Silias on a wild goose chase. That's why you're supposed to keep them alive while you confirm what they say. It was only coincidence that Langdon and Sophie contacted him with the real clues.
Everyone else probably knows the story better than I so I won't repeat it. It was fun enough to follow, there were a few places where there were some gaps, I just assume something was cut and the book fills it in better. I wasn't expecting the whole story to take place in two days. As such there's very little character development. There are some flashbacks but they're really there for plot. I thought the dialog was a bit rough in places. I can't imagine anyone would say (in their second language) "you have an eidetic memory!"
I knew going into the film that the plot was about a coverup that Christ and Mary Magdalene had a child. For a little bit I was worried that this was going to be the climax at the end of the film but this comes out a little more than an hour into it. There's more stuff, but honestly I found it pretty easy to figure out who was doing what to who. When one of the big things is revealed at the end I was honestly surprised because it seemed so obvious to me that I thought it was explained a couple of hours earlier.
Still it was fun. There's a little too much plot for the film but as a result it doesn't drag and you have to pay attention. The few action scenes were refreshingly normal as opposed to special effects extravaganzas. I don't think there was a single explosion. Since I didn't read the book I don't konw how well the actors did in portraying their characters, but I get the sense that characterization wasn't a big deal and it certainly wasn't in the film, so everyone did fine.
I've heard a lot about how the Da Vinci Code is blasphemous or anti-catholic but honestly that seems absurd to me, this is just fiction. It's a conspiracy theory like The Illuminatus! Trilogy or Foucault's Pendulum. There was a letter in yesterday's Boston Globe relating it The Protocols of the Elders of Zion. They're similar in that you only get into trouble if you believe them. The difference is that the Protocols have been used to advance hate and persecurtion, in fact they were created for that purpose. The Da Vinci Code was not, it was published as fiction.
Spoilers
I figure people might ask what I figured out. When we first saw in flashback that Sophie's parents died in a car crash I figured it was murder and that she must be a decendant of Christ. When another flashback showed the sex ritual I was convinced. I found it fairly ridiculous that Teabing needed two canes to walk except when holding a gun, then he could get away with using one. And I also thought it ridiculous that Langdon couldn't disarm him. In the Louvre when the police see Langdon's tracker moving away I knew they just threw the tracker rather than jumped. I was amazed that the Louvre was not video monitored either when Silias killed Sauniere or when Langdon and Sophie went to the Mona Lisa. At the time I didn't understand how Silias knew to show up at Villette, so I suspected Teabing or the Remy, but didn't piece it together until Remy died (before they revealed Teabing was the Teacher).
There is a problem caused by having too much plot to squeeze into a movie. It means that nothing shown is wasted, in other words everything is significant. When Tom Hanks entered the Louvre and commented about the inverted pyramid I knew it would come up. Later when he was in Villette and described the symbols of man and woman I thought of that pyramid and knew it would come up at the end. I had forgotten about it until Langdon left his hotel. Though in that scene I was surprised that someone with an eidetic memory would need to look up an image in his own book!
Finally I think Teabing's plan was lame. If you knew the top members of the Priory but didn't know where the keystone was, would you have a crazy monk kill the members to get the info? There's a lot of evidence these people wouldn't crack under pressure. In fact his plan didn't work because Sauniere led Silias on a wild goose chase. That's why you're supposed to keep them alive while you confirm what they say. It was only coincidence that Langdon and Sophie contacted him with the real clues.
Sunday, May 28, 2006
Mars Robots Software Upgrade
Some time in the next month NASA plans to remotely upgrade the software on the Mars rovers "to make 'intelligent' decisions in the study of Martian clouds and dust devils. Since they can take more pictures than they can send to Earth, NASA plans to teach them to analyze the photos to pick only the most interesting ones to send. "Clouds typically occur in 8-20% of the data collected right now." I sure hope their QA is good.
Saturday, May 27, 2006
National Hurricane Preparedness Week, 2006
Did you have any idea that today is the last day of National Hurricane Preparedness Week, 2006. Bush proclaimed it on May 19 (a whole weekend of warning there). Seriously. Did anyone know this? Google shows only 120 news articles mentioning it, mostly from small papers or saying NOAA is predicting an active season. Apparently some east coast states had a tax free holiday to buy supplies. I really hope FEMA is to doing more to prepare than merely this.
It was also World Trade Week.
It was also World Trade Week.
Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules - BusinessWeek Online - MSNBC.com
BusinessWeek found out this fun fact: Intelligence Czar Can Waive SEC Rules. Presidents since Carter have the ability to excuse companies working on some top-secret projects from standard SEC accounting and disclosure regulations. I guess that makes some sense, though it's not clear if any president has used the authority.
So here's what Bush did. On May 5th, the same day that Porter Goss resigned as Director of the CIA Bush delegated this authority to the Director of National Intelligence, now John Negroponte, apparently the first time the power has been delegated. Six days later the NSA domestic spying program was made public.
The article points out how obscure Bush's directive was. The title was "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." The key sentence was "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13[b][3][A] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended." It's not clear from the Business Week article if this was unusual or not.
So here's what Bush did. On May 5th, the same day that Porter Goss resigned as Director of the CIA Bush delegated this authority to the Director of National Intelligence, now John Negroponte, apparently the first time the power has been delegated. Six days later the NSA domestic spying program was made public.
The article points out how obscure Bush's directive was. The title was "Assignment of Function Relating to Granting of Authority for Issuance of Certain Directives: Memorandum for the Director of National Intelligence." The key sentence was "I hereby assign to you the function of the President under section 13[b][3][A] of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended." It's not clear from the Business Week article if this was unusual or not.
House Leaders Concede Right to Search - Forbes.com
"House leaders conceded Friday that FBI agents with a court-issued warrant can legally search a congressman's office, but they said they want procedures established after agents with a court warrant took over a lawmaker's office last week." They must have removed anything incriminating.
Friday, May 26, 2006
Tony Snows First Gaff
New White House Press Secretary Tony Snow made his first gaff today. On the divisive topic of immigration reform Snow compared illegal immigration to speeding. When asked about a path to citizenship for illegal aliens Snow said "If you had a traffic ticket and you paid it, you're not forever a speeder, are you?" Some took offense to the comparison, imagine that?
Supreme Court Minimalism And Its Effects On Lower Courts
Dan Filler continues the Minimalist Supreme Court debate in this Concurring Opinions article. He talks about the affects of narrow decisions on lower courts, but I don't think he comes to any conclusions. Still I enjoyed the read, and reread to see if I missed something.
Congressional Wackiness
This raid of William Jefferson's (D-LA) office is getting even more wacky. Someone suggested to me that perhaps this is a way for congressional republicans to distance themselves from unpopular Bush for the election. This seems a bit much for that.
The House and Senate leaders of both parties were outraged. I saw someone (I think it was Frist) on CNN yesterday saying that the offices need to be private because there were letters from constituents, private papers, maybe even tax returns. Hmm, sounds to me like anyone's home or office and yet the constitution allows a search with a warrant and they had one. Maybe the other members of Congress are concerned with what they have in their office. I think Congress should be more concerned with searches that don't have warrants.
Jefferson was video-taped last August accepting a $100,000 bribe, $90,000 of the same money was found in his freezer. They have two people who have pled guity to bribing him. He was subpoenaed then (9 months ago) and ignored it so they got a warrant to get the documents they wanted. The wikipedia page has more on the other allegations against Jefferson.
What is this guy still doing in Congress? The House Ethics Committee didn't begin an investigation into Jefferson until last week! The best House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) can say is that she'd like him to resign from the Ways and Means Committee that she chairs? Why isn't Jefferson being impeached?
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was one of the most outspoken against this raid. Then ABC News said federal investigators have Hastert "in the mix" of their Abramoff investigation. Hastert said this was absolutely wrong and demanded a retratction. Even though it's "highly unusual" for the Justice Department to comment in ongoing investigations, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty said the story was false. Hastert later accused the administration of leaking this false story to intimidate him for his criticism of the Jefferson raid.
Remember, last year we found out that in 2003 Abramoff hosted a fundraiser for Hastert that raised $69,000 and shortly after that Hastert signed a letter to the Secretary of Interior to block an Indian casino Abramoff's clients wanted blocked. In January of this year Hastert said he'd give all the money to charity. Hey nothing conclusive there, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't investigated in connection with the Abramoff thing, though: "Legal experts have said that campaign contributions alone, even if closely timed to a lawmaker's action, are not likely to become a focus for investigators in the Abramoff case."
Still Hastert said the raid on Jefferson's office was illegal. A Boston Globe article quotes two law professors, one from NYU and one from Harvard, who say the search was legal and compared it to Supreme Court decisions in Watergate and Whitewater in which the president had to hand over papers. In the form of fairness they quoted someone on the other side who would only go as far as saying it "is obviously a wonderful technique for stalling an investigation. Some might call it an obstruction of justice, and some might call it separation of powers." That was John Dean, Nixon's lawyer.
Why is it that this is the topic that brings Hastert and Pelosi (and others) together? They demanded the justice department return the siezed documents! The Justice department refused, but now Bush has directed that the papers be sealed for 45 days so this can be resolved with cooler heads. That seems reasonable but I don't see the congress' side of this at all.
Still what's interesting is how this is playing out. Hastert has been one of the most loyal Republicans to Bush in the Congress, delivering every vote ask for. And he's incensed over this. Jefferson is a corrupt Democratic, that should help the Republicans who seem to have a lock on the corruption charges but no the Republicans are diving in. Bush the uniter? Hah. In addition to dividing the Democrats and the rest of the world against the US, he's now managed to divide the most loyal Republicans against him (and both houses on immigration). Now we hear the FBI will start interviewing House members of both parties to investigate the leaks about NSA surveillance. This will get more fun.
The House and Senate leaders of both parties were outraged. I saw someone (I think it was Frist) on CNN yesterday saying that the offices need to be private because there were letters from constituents, private papers, maybe even tax returns. Hmm, sounds to me like anyone's home or office and yet the constitution allows a search with a warrant and they had one. Maybe the other members of Congress are concerned with what they have in their office. I think Congress should be more concerned with searches that don't have warrants.
Jefferson was video-taped last August accepting a $100,000 bribe, $90,000 of the same money was found in his freezer. They have two people who have pled guity to bribing him. He was subpoenaed then (9 months ago) and ignored it so they got a warrant to get the documents they wanted. The wikipedia page has more on the other allegations against Jefferson.
What is this guy still doing in Congress? The House Ethics Committee didn't begin an investigation into Jefferson until last week! The best House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) can say is that she'd like him to resign from the Ways and Means Committee that she chairs? Why isn't Jefferson being impeached?
House Speaker Dennis Hastert (R-IL) was one of the most outspoken against this raid. Then ABC News said federal investigators have Hastert "in the mix" of their Abramoff investigation. Hastert said this was absolutely wrong and demanded a retratction. Even though it's "highly unusual" for the Justice Department to comment in ongoing investigations, Deputy Attorney General Paul McNulty said the story was false. Hastert later accused the administration of leaking this false story to intimidate him for his criticism of the Jefferson raid.
Remember, last year we found out that in 2003 Abramoff hosted a fundraiser for Hastert that raised $69,000 and shortly after that Hastert signed a letter to the Secretary of Interior to block an Indian casino Abramoff's clients wanted blocked. In January of this year Hastert said he'd give all the money to charity. Hey nothing conclusive there, but I'd be surprised if he wasn't investigated in connection with the Abramoff thing, though: "Legal experts have said that campaign contributions alone, even if closely timed to a lawmaker's action, are not likely to become a focus for investigators in the Abramoff case."
Still Hastert said the raid on Jefferson's office was illegal. A Boston Globe article quotes two law professors, one from NYU and one from Harvard, who say the search was legal and compared it to Supreme Court decisions in Watergate and Whitewater in which the president had to hand over papers. In the form of fairness they quoted someone on the other side who would only go as far as saying it "is obviously a wonderful technique for stalling an investigation. Some might call it an obstruction of justice, and some might call it separation of powers." That was John Dean, Nixon's lawyer.
Why is it that this is the topic that brings Hastert and Pelosi (and others) together? They demanded the justice department return the siezed documents! The Justice department refused, but now Bush has directed that the papers be sealed for 45 days so this can be resolved with cooler heads. That seems reasonable but I don't see the congress' side of this at all.
Still what's interesting is how this is playing out. Hastert has been one of the most loyal Republicans to Bush in the Congress, delivering every vote ask for. And he's incensed over this. Jefferson is a corrupt Democratic, that should help the Republicans who seem to have a lock on the corruption charges but no the Republicans are diving in. Bush the uniter? Hah. In addition to dividing the Democrats and the rest of the world against the US, he's now managed to divide the most loyal Republicans against him (and both houses on immigration). Now we hear the FBI will start interviewing House members of both parties to investigate the leaks about NSA surveillance. This will get more fun.
Man Raised by Chickens
This is a bizarre story. In Fiji in 2003 a man was found who was raised by chickens. From the ages of 1-8 he was "forced to live in a chicken coop, deprived of human care". He was rescued from that but was then tied to a bed for 22 years "because he was considered unmanageable".
He's 34 now and is making progress. "He laughs and cries now and never used to. He walks up steps when he used to crawl. He didn't used to have favourite foods and now he does. He likes eggs but he doesn't like carrots, which is great because he is deciding between things." Somehow feeding him what I assume are chicken eggs seems cruel.
"You can tickle the bottom of his feet now and he responds whereas before he never responded. His sensitivity is coming back whereas before there was so much pain in his early life he probably didn't recognise what pain is. He doesn't talk but sometimes he makes the sound 'oy, oy'."
He's 34 now and is making progress. "He laughs and cries now and never used to. He walks up steps when he used to crawl. He didn't used to have favourite foods and now he does. He likes eggs but he doesn't like carrots, which is great because he is deciding between things." Somehow feeding him what I assume are chicken eggs seems cruel.
"You can tickle the bottom of his feet now and he responds whereas before he never responded. His sensitivity is coming back whereas before there was so much pain in his early life he probably didn't recognise what pain is. He doesn't talk but sometimes he makes the sound 'oy, oy'."
Thursday, May 25, 2006
Cheney May Testify
It looks like Cheney may be called in to testify against Libby. And it looks like if he is, he won't be able to get out of it. That would be fun, but we'll have to wait till the trial in January, man this is slow.
National Review Distorts Climate Change
The National Review has a cover story on global warming. Apparently lots of thir facts are wrong. Again, I don't get it, do these people want to dramatically alter life on earth?
A couple of days ago I asked for some statistic like 98% of scientists agree. Conveniently this article does just that. It seems that in all 928 peer-reviewed papers on the topic published between 1993 and 2003, none disagree with the concensus view that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" (which means greenhouse gases mostly carbon dioxide).
And yet the National Review article apparently says "[T]here is wide disagreement about the extent to which carbon-dioxide emissions are responsible for the warming we’ve seen so far." Ugh.
A couple of days ago I asked for some statistic like 98% of scientists agree. Conveniently this article does just that. It seems that in all 928 peer-reviewed papers on the topic published between 1993 and 2003, none disagree with the concensus view that "Earth's climate is being affected by human activities" (which means greenhouse gases mostly carbon dioxide).
And yet the National Review article apparently says "[T]here is wide disagreement about the extent to which carbon-dioxide emissions are responsible for the warming we’ve seen so far." Ugh.
John Roberts: Unanimity and Minimalism
About a week ago I pointed to an article on Chief Justice John Roberts which in part said that he's been good at getting unanimous opinions from the court. So far this term has seen 44 decisions, 29 of which have been unanimous. This time last term there were only 17 unanimous decisions. He's apparently done this by encouraging narrow rulings and having longer, freer conference debate. Seems like a good thing, though today two articles came out on this topic.
The first by Edward Lazarus of FindLaw says this is probably just an anomally because of two things: a grace period of two new judges and the fact that they haven't yet tackled the hard divisive cases. He points out that while unanimity has been important in such cases as Brown v. Board of Education and US v. Nixon, dissents have also been important such as Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson which helped make Brown unanimous. Lazarus says the real issue isn't the statistical count of votes but how clear the courts ruling is and then points out that the Rehnquist court had a lot of 4-1-4 and 4-3-2 decisions as well as 5-4 decisions. To avoid making that look like more counting he says the first give no majority and therefore little clarification the second makes the court look ideological (e.g., Bush v. Gore). So after saying unanimiity isn't so important, he says Roberts is pursuing a good goal of acheiving clarity, by having unanimous decisions.
The second article was an Op-Ed in the LA Times by University of Chicago Law School professor Cass Sunstein. In a commencement speech Roberts recently gave he stated his preference for broad consensus or unanimiity which probably requires narrow or minimal rulings so that justices could agree. If you have a broad sweeping decision, it's more likely that ideologically different justices will disagree than If you rule only on the specifics of a single case. This is a classic Supreme Court debate, just like being strict or loose contructionist. The interesting thing is that Sandra Day O'Conner was also a minimalist but Scalia is not. It also means Roberts answered the questions in his confirmation hearing accurately. He kept saying it would depend on the specifics of the case, and if you're a minimalist, it would.
The first by Edward Lazarus of FindLaw says this is probably just an anomally because of two things: a grace period of two new judges and the fact that they haven't yet tackled the hard divisive cases. He points out that while unanimity has been important in such cases as Brown v. Board of Education and US v. Nixon, dissents have also been important such as Harlan's dissent in Plessy v. Ferguson which helped make Brown unanimous. Lazarus says the real issue isn't the statistical count of votes but how clear the courts ruling is and then points out that the Rehnquist court had a lot of 4-1-4 and 4-3-2 decisions as well as 5-4 decisions. To avoid making that look like more counting he says the first give no majority and therefore little clarification the second makes the court look ideological (e.g., Bush v. Gore). So after saying unanimiity isn't so important, he says Roberts is pursuing a good goal of acheiving clarity, by having unanimous decisions.
The second article was an Op-Ed in the LA Times by University of Chicago Law School professor Cass Sunstein. In a commencement speech Roberts recently gave he stated his preference for broad consensus or unanimiity which probably requires narrow or minimal rulings so that justices could agree. If you have a broad sweeping decision, it's more likely that ideologically different justices will disagree than If you rule only on the specifics of a single case. This is a classic Supreme Court debate, just like being strict or loose contructionist. The interesting thing is that Sandra Day O'Conner was also a minimalist but Scalia is not. It also means Roberts answered the questions in his confirmation hearing accurately. He kept saying it would depend on the specifics of the case, and if you're a minimalist, it would.
Absolut Photoshop Contests
Having seen the post on the photoshop contest, a friend sent me this. Apparently there have been several contests to spoof Absolut ads and I love Absolut ads (and Absolut).
Wednesday, May 24, 2006
Cate Blanchett to play Bob Dylan
Here's an odd one. In the upcoming film "I'm Not There", actress Cate Blanchett will play Bob Dylan. Apparently there will be several actors playing various "aspects of Dylan's life and music". Christian Bale and Richard Gere will play other aspects.
If I were making this film I'd just wait until Benicio Del Toro was available.
If I were making this film I'd just wait until Benicio Del Toro was available.
Pentagon Shows Video Game to Senate
"Was an elite congressional intelligence committee shown video footage from an off-the-shelf retail game and told by the Pentagon and a highly-paid defense contractor that it was a jihadist creation designed to recruit and indoctrinate terrorists? It's looking more and more like that is the case."
Microsoft Parodies Self
Remember that great video of what if Microsoft designed the iPod box? It turns out that Microsoft made it. "It was an internal-only video clip commissioned by our packaging [team] to humorously highlight the challenges we have faced RE: packaging and to educate marketers here about the pitfalls of packaging/branding."
What's an Aluminium Falcon?
Here's a great bit from Robot Chicken. Imagine how it went when Darth Vader told Emperor Palpatine that the Death Star had been destroyed.
Tuesday, May 23, 2006
Irreducible Stupidity
I'm sure it won't convince anyone, but it should. David Horton writes Irreducible Stupidity in The Huffington Post and I enjoyed it. The next time someone says that bacterial flagellum proves Irreducible complexity tell them they're wrong.
Fine Art Monsters
The latest Worth 1000 Photoshop contest is a fun one. People inserted monsters into famous fine art paintings.
Search of Congressman's Office
So the debate continues and both House and Senate members, Republicans and Democrats alike are very upset about this search saying it's a violation of the separation of powers of the Constitution. So I wondered about this, what part of the Constitution is this? I read through it (it's not long) again and didn't see it. I just saw Bill Frist (R-TN) interviewed and he mentioned "the so-called speech and debate clause". So here it is:
Article I, Section 6: "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
This is the clause that Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) apparently tried to invoke when he told police that he was late for a vote at the House. But I don't see anything about searches and I have to think that bribery of a Congressman is a felony, but it seems that's not clear cut either. If so, can he really not be arrested for this? Some of this was known last August, is the House investigating?
I'm still not sure what papers they were looking for but they were subpoenaed last August and Jefferson ignored the subpoena. So the AG got a warrant from a federal judge and searched his office. Really, it does seems reasonable to me.
Article I, Section 6: "The Senators and Representatives shall receive a compensation for their services, to be ascertained by law, and paid out of the treasury of the United States. They shall in all cases, except treason, felony and breach of the peace, be privileged from arrest during their attendance at the session of their respective Houses, and in going to and returning from the same; and for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place."
This is the clause that Patrick Kennedy (D-RI) apparently tried to invoke when he told police that he was late for a vote at the House. But I don't see anything about searches and I have to think that bribery of a Congressman is a felony, but it seems that's not clear cut either. If so, can he really not be arrested for this? Some of this was known last August, is the House investigating?
I'm still not sure what papers they were looking for but they were subpoenaed last August and Jefferson ignored the subpoena. So the AG got a warrant from a federal judge and searched his office. Really, it does seems reasonable to me.
Democrats Corrupt Too
See it's not just the Republicans who are corrupt. William Jefferson (D-LA) was caught on film accepting a $100,000 bribe and the money (matching serial numbers) was found in his home freezer. And the idiot refuses to resign. And in spite of headlines like William Jefferson Responds to Bribery Investigation he hasn't said a thing about it. "Congressman Jefferson says his lawyers have advised him not to discuss it and he will not discuss any of the alleged facts of this case."
Update: Jefferson and some other Democrats are complaining that the FBI searched Jefferson's office over the weekend. They say this might have been unconstitutional. It seems this is probably the first time a congressional office was searched. I'm all for separation of powers but congressmen aren't above the law just like the president isn't. Video tape of the bribe and finding the money in his home is pretty compelling. We don't know what they were searching for but they did get a warrant from a federal judge. The other odd part is he hasn't been charged yet but his homes were search last August, I'm assuming that's the time they found the money in his freezer. If so, I have no idea what they are waiting for.
Update: Jefferson and some other Democrats are complaining that the FBI searched Jefferson's office over the weekend. They say this might have been unconstitutional. It seems this is probably the first time a congressional office was searched. I'm all for separation of powers but congressmen aren't above the law just like the president isn't. Video tape of the bribe and finding the money in his home is pretty compelling. We don't know what they were searching for but they did get a warrant from a federal judge. The other odd part is he hasn't been charged yet but his homes were search last August, I'm assuming that's the time they found the money in his freezer. If so, I have no idea what they are waiting for.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)