The Deidr'

Dear Deidre,

Here's a question for ya: Who should say I Love You first? Boy or Girl? Or does it matter?

Sincerely,

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

Dear person who declined to use a pseudenym but out of my ethical duty of confidentiality, will be called "which came first, the chicken or the egg"

“Why are you calling me ‘which came first, the chicken or the egg’," you ask. Well... there really isn't a specific reason. My point is... Who cares! Who cares whether the chicken came first or the egg came first, regardless, we all love chickens and eggs. This is very similar to your situation. It doesn't matter who says "I love you first" as long as that person feels that it is right and he OR she is genuine in saying it. If he says it first or if she says it first, the bottom line is that there is something really special going on. Hopefully, you both feel the same way. And, if one of the partners is feeling the love, chances are, the other person is too.

If you are one of those traditional, do-it-by-the-books people, then I suppose you could wait for the guy to say it (unless you are the guy, then you could say it first.) Also, if you have a really sensitive ego and are just terrified at the idea of not hearing a mirrored affection in return, you might be inclined to wait for the other person. But, really, what is there to lose by saying it? It's not like you're telling the person something bad. We all like to hear reassurance and if someone is really into us. If the other person isn't necessarily on the same page, he or she will maturely and politely let you know. If he or she doesn't react in this way and gets all weird about it, then the he or she probably isn't worth it in the first place! But, most likely, you wouldn't be attracted to that type of person anyway.

So, say it or don't say it. It will happen eventually if the relationship continues. And, remember, it is just three words. If you both really do love each other, then it's really not a big deal when or by whom it's said first. If you know you love him... or her... just go for it. Gender is really immaterial, as is, which came first... the chicken or the egg.

Best of luck and get lucky,

Deidre

Politics and South Park Sunday

After the 200th episode of South Park, I, giddy with excitement from the show's well-crafted and intelligent take on the "anniversary episode," began writing a two-part column called, "South Park: TV's Best Satire Ever," intending to publish the second part of the article after the airing of the second part of the show's anniversary special.

That's when the trouble started.

Normally, I don't kill myself to watch the first airing of a South Park episode because I know that there will be a re-airing but a few hours later, and that show creators Trey Parker and Matt Stone, in their infinite wisdom, allow one to stream any episode on their website (for free). It's a good thing I didn't wait, because the episode was NOT available at a later time slot, was NOT available online, and canNOT be accessed by any alternative means as of now. If you were to go to the website, southparkstudios.com, and try to reach the episode, this is what you'd see:



There's a lot to this story. After the airing of the 200th episode, which, as I discussed in my previous South Park article, revisited the issue of Comedy Central's censorship of Muhammad, Parker, Stone, and Comedy Central started to receive veiled death threats from a group called Revolution Muslim. The group published the address of Comedy Central's offices as well as the studio offices where South Park is filmed, and published sermons calling for the "assassination of those who defame Muhammad."

(Now, what I really want to concentrate on is the censorship controversy, so rather than explain what I think of Revolution Muslim, I'll just put this picture up instead)



This, of course, is Kurt Vonnegut's drawing of an asshole.

To continue: So I found myself one of the lucky 3.5 million viewers who got to watch any form of episode 201 so far. That 3.5 million number beat out every other television show in that time slot, which should indicate to some extent both the quality of South Park, and its prominence in the national dialogue.

But what I saw was not the 201st episode as the show's creators had written it. Comedy Central inserted many, many, more bleeps between receiving the episode from the creators, and the episode's airing. Some, (myself included) thought this was some sort of meta-joke, an attempt by Parker and Stone to lampoon Comedy Central's censoring of Muhammad's image in episode 200. And as a meta joke it worked... sort of. But because the censorship was so prominent, rather than being able to actually concentrate on the episode (featuring such shocking revelations as the fact Eric Cartman's father was actually his nemesis Scott Tenerman's father as well [devoted fans will remember that Cartman killed Tenerman's parents and fed them to him]) I found myself wondering what was actually supposed to be happening in this episode.

In episode 200, while Muhammad's image was censored, his name was not. This allowed the show to dress Muhammad up in a silly bear mascot costume and use the substituted icon for depicting the prophet. Part of my former article was going to praise this use of iconology in order to sidestep censorship issues.

Yet it was all for naught, as in episode 201, even the bear costume was censored (and, oddly enough, it didn't even turn out to contain Muhammad, but rather, Santa Claus) as well as any utterance of Muhammad's name. If you didn't see episode 200, there is no way you would have known that Muhammad was involved in episode 201 (currently, episode 200 is not showing on Comedy Central and cannot be streamed until May 15th online). Also, the show's final monologue - fans know that South Park likes to sum up the lesson of every episode with one clear, concise explanation - was censored in its entirety, with about thirty seconds straight of bleeps. Apparently and ironically, the monologue did not mention Muhammad at all, and according to Stone and Parker, "was about intimidation and fear."

So that's the story behind the storm. It's quite amazing that a cheaply made cartoon about little boys who like to curse has become embroiled in such a national controversy. All the major news outlets took time to cover the story, and Jon Stewart even editorialized on the subject for about ten minutes on Thursday's Daily Show.

Take that in contrast to Bill O'Reilly's view of the issue.

Though his commentary doesn't exactly condemn South Park, what he sort of says is that the show is playing with fire. Unlike Jon Stewart, who, while acknowledging that Comedy Central would be in a precarious position if they aired the episode (it wouldn't be fair to put other Comedy Central employees at risk), editorializes with a condemnation of the intimidation tactics that ignited the firestorm surrounding the episode to begin with.

And I think the contrast between Stewart's and O'Reilly's takes on the issue is important to understanding the implications of this censorship. Onus falls to the victim in O'Reilly's case, while with Stewart, it is clearly the attacker that is condemned. What O'Reilly says about South Park is akin to saying that if a girl gets raped, she is at least partly responsible if she was wearing revealing clothing. In other words, the show got what was coming to them.

This has dangerous implications for free speech. Some people (like O'Reilly it would seem) would have satire sacrifice subversiveness in favor of comfort and safety. It's understandable why he would take this position. After all, the function of satire is to be a check on the powers that be. Fox, with its establishment as the head of the cable news community, is one such power. And this isn't the first time that O'Reilly has lashed out at satire. Just this week, the Factor aired a lengthy segment that featured criticism of the Daily Show by both O'Reilly and Bernie Goldberg.

What O'Reilly and Goldberg are doing, that is, trying to marginalize the most influential voices of satire, is protective of Fox's power, but in my opinion, unprotective of America. Without checks on the national discourse, people become more and more emboldened to one particular political view. In this country, that leads to more and more polarization. In de facto fundamentalist societies, it leads to mindless adherence to religious dogma.

And that leads to things like this

The censorship of music in Somalia only underscores the poignancy of South Park episodes 200 and 201, and the need for the show to continue to push the envelope as it always has. When the show originally began, it was about putting fart jokes on TV. Then they pushed the envelope on insulting celebrities. Then they pushed the envelope on televised cursing (Anyone remember the Sh*t episode?). Then they pushed the envelope on religious intolerance. Then they saw how far they could push Scientology (daring them to sue the show). If we think about where we are now, versus where we were 13 years ago when the show came on air, we come to realize the enormous forward progress that we have had in terms of freedom of speech.

But think about this: In 2001, just a few months before September 11th, South Park did a show entitled the Super Best Friends, in which they imagined the leaders of all the world's biggest religions as a team of evil-fighting compatriots. And, gasp, Muhammad was pictured. Then, Six years later, in the episode Cartoon Wars, Comedy Central censored his image. Now, his image, and any uttering of the prophet(Peace Be Upon Him)'s name has been bleeped. Should we not be alarmed by this backward slide?

Here's what, for me, is the crux of the situation: Trey Parker and Matt Stone are not "shock artists." They're not defecating on a canvas, or dousing themselves in blue paint and running naked through the halls. They are skilled craftsmen that are trying to advance the conversation. Whether or not you agree with what they say on a particular issue (and South Park has criticized both the Right and the Left) they have earned the right to have a voice. And the forces trying to hold back, stifle, and silence them, whether by intimidation tactics or marginalization, are the enemies to both the first amendment, and indeed (I'm on a soapbox now) human progress.

So, Trey and Matt, my hat's off to you. And to show my support, here is their depiction of good ole' M. (Peace Be Upon Him [lest we forget that in reality, Islam is a peaceful and good-natured religion]).

Thanks for reading everyone. If you're interested in hearing Parker and Stone talk about their work, here are links to parts 1-4 of a really good interview on Fresh Air.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HRUb74vfIOo&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OSZdF-ZlfIQ&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ezb2RPiJUpw&feature=related

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oHMvTo18wK0&feature=related

And if, for whatever reason, you can't access the Daily Show clips through the embedded links, here are links to the actual website.

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-april-20-2010/bernie-goldberg-fires-back

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-april-22-2010/south-park-death-threats

More lighthearted fanfare tomorrow. Deidre!

A very quick Sports Saturday

When the Reds are on a skid like this, the last thing I want to do is talk about sports, but we live in a world with responsibilities, and so I will venture to make a brief offering today, starting with this glorious clip:

Ok, I saw this on Monday, and it killed me to have to wait all week to put it up. The play capped off a comeback from a 9-1 deficit, which only adds to the fact that this is coolest thing I've ever seen on a baseball diamond - yes, it even beats The Catch. Sorry Willie.

Reminds me of a time when I randomly came to a Miami game. By the time I got to the ballpark, the team was down 10-1. Game over, right? But I stayed, and by the bottom of the 9th, it was 12-2. And then, the most amazing come back ever occurred right there. 11 runs in the bottom of the ninth for Miami to win. Can that actually happen? Apparently.

Though college baseball is relegated to the very back burners of sports talk, some of my fondest memories of Miami University are of pastoral afternoons at the diamond. A college is actually ideally suited for baseball, where the leisurely action of the game is uninhibited by gaudy scoreboard graphics or the heightened intensity of large crowds. One can learn to understand the unique baseball phrase, "I'm going to take in a game."

Plus, you can sneak in rum and Cokes.

Which reminds me of something else I wanted to gripe about: If baseball parks would lower the price for a beer to like $4.50 (which is certainly not cheap for a Bud Light), I would consider actually buying it. Its current price of, what? Like $7.00 a brew (at least) means that to get any kind of buzz over the course of three hours, I'm going to have to spend like $28. Screw that, I just won't drink. Now, if it cost me $18.00 to get buzzed, I would probably take advantage of that. In fact, I might actually spend the $30 to get plastered (as opposed to just tipsy). Plus, people would probably go to more ballgames if drinking were affordable.

Chances of ballparks actually lowering prices? Nein.

...

...

Ok, did anything else happen in sports this week? Oh, yes! The hockey playoffs.

Quoth the Onion: NHL Playoffs Remind Area Man That NFL Draft Is Soon.

...

...

So did anything else happen? Basketball playoffs - please. Call me in a month... when they'll still be going on.

...

...

I guess I should say a word or two about the draft, even though I rarely put any stock into it (mostly because the Bengals picks have a tendency to get injured or otherwise foul up before they ever get on the field). I'm extremely pleased with Cincinnati's choice of a tight end in the first round. Preliminary reports seem to say that Jermaine Greshem is a good pick with lots of potential at the key position.

I don't understand why the Bengals took so long to realize the value of having a passing game underneath. That's why Peyton and Big Ben have so much success. They are confident that if they get to a Third-and-Five or better, they have reliable options to pick those few yards - or to at least get close enough for a viable fourth down attempt.

But here's the thing. Now Carson has no excuses. Since '05, he's been able to blame injuries or lack of weapons. He has neither now, so if no. 9 can't hack it this year... yeesh. It's back to the drawing board for the Orange and Black.

Allright, let's call it a day on this. Politics Sunday should be a big deal this week, with the South Park controversy a central issue. Lots to talk about.

Tah!

Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance

Shakespeare would have had appreciation for this offering from Korean director Chan-wook Park (Oldboy, Lady Vengeance), a revenge thriller every bit as poignant as the under-appreciated classic Titus Andronicus. I never understood why Titus has not secured a more prominent place in the Bard's canon. Its complex (if problematic) story is every bit as technically brilliant as Romeo and Juliet, and its creepy imagery was certainly ahead of its time (Shakespeare had Tamora eat her children, Chiron and Demetrius, long before Scott Tenerman feasted on his parents in South Park), and it's perplexing why fewer people are not versed in this classic.

Perhaps it's because the "revenge thriller" has become such an overpopulated movie genre. Nearly every comic book movie has vengeance as a prominent theme, and, as opposed to the message of Shakespeare's work, it usually is given a positive connotation. Think about it. "My name is Inigo Montoya. You killed my father. Prepare to die." We celebrate revenge. Shakespeare? Not so much.

And neither does Mr. Park. Though Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance lacks the fierce poeticism of his more famous Oldboy (a brilliant, brilliant movie, but definitely not for the squeamish), its melancholic examination of "an eye for an eye" still resonates with force.

The events of the film are set in motion when Ryu (Ha-kyun Shin), a deaf and mute factory worker, visits an underworld organ harvester to seek a kidney transplant for his sick sister. Having exhausted legitimate means for a donor, Ryu decides to volunteer himself, relying on the unlicensed surgeons to do the operation (and paying an exorbitant 10 million won). The episode results in Ryu being left naked, abandoned, broke, and down a kidney, and to make matters worse, the real doctors have just found a matching donor and need only (you guessed it) 10 million won to do the operation. At the urging of his anarchist lover Cha Yeong-mi (Doona Bae), Ryu sets off to kidnap and then ransom back the daughter of his old boss Park Don-jing (Kang-ho Song), the wealthy owner of an electronics corporation. Though there was never any violent intent, the kidnapping goes horribly wrong (as tends to happen), leaving both Ryu and Park seeking retribution from one another.

Unlike the typical revenge thriller, the story of Sympathy refuses to devolve into a simple mano a mano brawl with a clear-cut victor and vanquished. Rather, we see how the path of vengeance leads not to catharsis, but to hollowness, for both parties. Grudges grow like a cancer, clouding judgments, eclipsing the cares for loved ones or the self. Rather than celebrate retribution, we are asked to look at the effect a vengeance murder has on those who cared for the deceased. Violence begets violence begets violence until the spiral is completely out of anyone's control.

And in the final moments of the movie, we find ourselves wondering what caused all the senselessness in the first place. What spur pricked the side of Ryu's intent to make a good, hard-working man hatch a plan to kidnap a little girl? Though the answer is only subtly suggested, it's enough to make us reflect on the nature of violence in our social and political discourse.

*And speaking of social and political discourse, be on the lookout for a very special Politics Sunday, featuring an analysis of the South Park controversy.

Dear Deidre

Will try for the South Park piece Thursday, and reviews for Kick-Ass and Sympathy For Mr. Vengeance by the end of the week. For now, enjoy Deidre...

Dear Deidre,

I'm a single ready to mingle, but with one big caveat. I've recently decided to relocate at the end of the summer and so will be unable to sustain any kind of long-term relationship. Never one to burn down one-night stands, I usually tend to get to know someone before getting intimate, and it's unlikely I'd find someone new to get to that point with when they know I'll be lamming soon. I'm in a no-man's land, where I can't start something long-term, but am not looking for a one-and-done kind of thing either. I know a few months of abstinence doesn't sound like much to get through, but it's summertime - beautiful people are out in full force, hormones are raging, and I'd like to be able to enjoy this wonderful time of year.

What's a guy to do? Look for a sex buddy? A hooker? Anything?

Sincerely,

Not-a-wham-bam-thank-you-man

Dear Not-a-wham-bam-thank-you-man (at least not yet),

Ah yes, the sun is out and the raging testosterone of young men everywhere is bubbling to its brink. As soon as the female population decides it's warm enough to show some skin, mating season is in full force. I completely understand your frustration. After all, you are only human, and humans are only mammals, and mammals like to breed. Well, maybe not "breed" as in pop out a mini Not-a-wham-bam-thank-you-man, but I get your point.

Now, let's talk about the options you have laid out for yourself. A hooker? Chances are you will feel dirtier than ever after giving in to a night of paid-for sex. A sex buddy? Could work. But, you said yourself that you like to get to know someone first, and you don't want to get into anything too serious. So, unfortunately, you're in a bit of a tricky situation. But, not a completely unfixable one!

Do you absolutely have to get a home run? Is it imperative that you have SEX with someone? Or, would you be able to get your kicks from a less-than "going all the way" hook up? I think it would be much easier if you set your sights on something a bit more attainable for what you are looking for right now. The way I see it, if you don't want a girlfriend, don't want a one night stand, don't want to get attached to anyone, etc. then sex might just not be feasible, and it may actually end up causing you more harm than good. I don't think you would have any trouble catching a make out buddy... or even a first or second base buddy. And certainly attachment wouldn't automatically come into play like it potentially could with sex.

You might just have to realize that this is a very transitional time for you, and transitional times don't make for very good love times. There are only a few more months until you move on to your new destination, and I suggest holding out for someone who might actually be worth it. But, if you absolutely can't keep it in your pants, then at least try to find someone who is 1) clean and 2) is looking for the same non-commitment, non-relationship kind of deal.

Hope this helps!

(Try a cold shower if you absolutely can't control yourself)

Deidre

Kick-Ass Review

Deidre only got to be up for a few hours on her own (or is it HIS own?...) So if you read this, please give that a skim as well. It's only fair.

The previews for Kick-Ass make it seem like a teen-superhero spoof, simultaneously ripping on both comic book films and coming-of-age comedies. Perhaps the most memorable sequence in the trailer is when Christopher Mintz-Plasse (best known for his iconic portrayal of McLovin' in Superbad), clad in prototypical superhero spandex, jumps from the top of a dumpster in a dark alley, and upon landing grabs his ankle as he winces in pain from the modest feat. Such a sequence functions mainly in two ways: pointing out the implausibility of superheroes in general, and also poking fun at the seriousness with which young people too often take themselves. Point made.

But Kick-Ass as an actual movie (and it should be noted that the film is based on the comic book of the same name by Mark Millar) functions in neither of these ways. Its objective, rather than subversively spoofing, is to create a superhero-teen comedy hybrid that entertains in both respects, but comments on neither. Once expectations are readjusted, Kick-Ass manages to be a pretty decent movie, but even so, throughout the film you get the feeling that it could have been so much more.

This is particularly true in one of the final fight sequences of the film, when the main storyline has virtually run its course and all that's left is to plow through a mob (literally) of enemies to get to the inevitable final boss. Hit Girl (Chloe Moretz), a perky yet violent 11-year-old costumed hero, blasts through heavily armed men three times her age and size with startling speed and creativity (the sequence starts with her firing a gun through the mouth of one unfortunate security guard into the head of another... how cool is that?!) while Joan Jett's "Bad Reputation" rocks in the background. Such an inspired scene, bloody, brutal, and bad-ass, is a glimmer of what Kick-Ass could have been throughout - a pop-superhero fantasia that rocked as hard as it socked.

Alas, the resulting story is far less interesting. It follows Dave Lizewski (Aaron Johnson), a dweeby comic-a-holic who wishes his own impact on the world was as forceful as Batman's. Disgusted by the apathy seen all around him, he costumes himself and sets off to take on the city's crime by his lonesome. Dubbing himself Kick-Ass, Dave's crime-fighting career begins inauspiciously, hunting for lost cats and the like. But as he moves on to more impressive exploits, videos of which quickly going viral, Kick-Ass becomes a national phenomenon. The stakes, however, are raised as well. Kick-Ass befriends Hit Girl and her vengeance-seeking father Big Daddy (Nicholas Cage whose presence helps keep things light), real deal crime-fighters who aren't afraid to go the full distance in dealing with the city's scum. Bodies start racking up and Kick-Ass becomes inextricably entangled in Hit Girl and Big Daddy's grudge against crime boss Frank D'Amico (Mark Strong).

Ms. Moretz's performance as Hit Girl is astonishingly fresh, easily standing out among the rest of the characters, which could find themselves in any serialized superhero saga. No 11-year-old should be this violent, bludgeoning gangsters as if skipping down the street, mercilessly murdering their uninvolved associates trying to escape. The frivolity with which she enjoys the mayhem is both entertaining and unsettling, and when compared, the other characters in Kick-Ass feel like cardboard cutouts.

That's probably due to the fact that they are involved in what appears to be a spoof that could never quite get off the ground. Kick-Ass contains the setup for a Shaun of the Dead-style subversion of the superhero genre, but instead falls into the very traps it was poised to expose. The hot girl falls for the invisible nerdy kid when she finds out he's a superhero; the hero contemplates throwing crime-fighting away for a carefree existence, but is pulled back by the allure for one last adventure that should only take a minute (I'll bet that'll go well); the ending (SPOILER ALERT) is a cliffhanger showing the vanquished villain's son (Mr. Mintz-Plasse) ready to take up the mantle and seek revenge*. These are all things that can be seen in any old superhero movie, and Kick-Ass suffers from a lack of imagination in integrating commentary along with cliche.

However, imagination is the last thing Kick-Ass is short on when it comes to the fight sequences. Finding creative paths in the choreography of and transitions into the combat, one forgets about the weaknesses in Kick-Ass's script and feels free to just enjoy the ride. Fights double down on stylization and camp (see Hit Girl's aforementioned combat sequence for a case in point) never feeling repetitive. If only the rest of the movie could follow suit. At present, it is caught in a no-man's land between spoof and homage.

*Yes, I did just give away the ending to the movie, but the script's lack of complexity leads me to believe that you (like me) would have seen it coming anyway. It sort of shows off my point that this movie was utterly predictable if you have any knowledge of the superhero genre.

Politics Sunday

Let's start off with the good news - that is, President Obama's memo allowing gay couples visitation rights at hospitals.

This is one of those, "Well, duh," executive actions that should have been taken at least five years ago (I mean, in reality, it should have been done thirty years ago) and to which it will be hard to find any opposition. Even if the country hasn't reached broad agreement on gay marriage, who could be callous enough to declare that gay couples should not be allowed to see each other in a hospital? What possible reason could they find to deny this basic and innocuous right to anyone?

I use the term "innocuous" because I can't find any way in which this right could be misconstrued into infringing on the rights of anyone else. Somehow, you see, our country was hoodwinked into allowing a Defense of Marriage Act to go forward under the false argument that by allowing gays to be married, it would somehow lead to the dissolution of marriages everywhere. Well, guess what, it's 14 years later (14 years!) and marriage has only become less concrete.

Among my generation, marriage is a strange word. Ask ten people what they think of marriage and you will likely get ten radically different answers. I've known people with open marriages, people who were married but don't live together, people who have been separated but not divorced for over a year. One friend of mine says that he won't live with his girlfriend until he gets married. Others (like me) would never even consider marrying someone until they have lived with them for some period of time. The point is, if we're going to allow marriage as a concept to continually evolve in the above ways, but not allow that evolution to include gay and lesbian couples, then it's clear that DOMA is not protective of marriage, but rather prejudiced against homosexuality.

Ok... I strayed from the subject at hand. Sorry.

The main thing that I wanted to say about Obama's memo allowing visitation rights is that it is a good, but safe action. At least it's a step in the right direction, but our President needs to do much more. He could repeal Don't Ask Don't Tell right now if he wanted to, but my guess is that won't happen until after the 2010 election. And it was never part of Obama's platform to rally for gay marriage. I see us moving slowly towards gay rights in everything but name. Our government is taking soft actions towards progress, but still keeping themselves shielded from being labeled, "pro-gay."

So let's end the ruse. Democrats, come out and fight hard for gay rights. You may perceive that it will hurt you in the polls, but truth be told, public opinion (especially for people under 40) is overwhelmingly for gay rights. Other than marriage (which will take only a little more time to bring people around to), people are ready to embrace gay rights in a big way, and my opinion is that if the Democratic party can do it, they will make continued inroads among the younger population.

But for today, let's celebrate the hospital visitation rights. It means the world for people with sick or injured loved ones, and it is a positive step.

Next... Nukes.

This has always been my position on nuclear weapons: They're bad.

But they're also a necessary evil that are not going to ever go completely away. To be perfectly honest, as irresponsibly as our country acts from time to time, I would feel uncomfortable if we had no nuclear weapons as a deterrent. It's inevitable that nukes will fall into the hands of evil madmen at some point, and the threat of mutually assured destruction at least makes them think twice about using one.

Still, there are far too many nukes in the world, which is why President Obama's agreement with Russia to slash nuclear arsenals in half is such a positive step. Our arsenal is going from about 20,000 nuclear weapons to about 10,000. Those numbers should scare you. We have 20,000 nuclear weapons and in all of history, only 2 have been used in combat. What's the point? By the time we used all 20,000 weapons, wouldn't the world have ended about 30 times?

And it seems to me that the concurrent nuclear summit this week was a little bit of a farce, leading to little tangible action other than agreed sanctions against Iran and North Korea (let's see if that works). But at least talk against nuclear arms buildup is again in the national dialogue.

Here's my plan (and feel free to comment): Let's cut the world's nuclear arsenals down to just enough to destroy the world one time. Wouldn't that be more logical? Isn't destroying the world enough of a deterrent to keep from using that last nuke?

Ok, lastly for politics Friday, I get to revert to a 1950's little boy as we talk about Space!

Golly-gee do I love space. It's so cool - so dark and mysterious. I wish I could be an astronaut. I want to go to the moon just like Neil Armstrong back in 1969... 1969? Gosh, that was so long ago. Why haven't we gone back since? Oh, well. George W. Bush says that we will start developing new spacecraft to go back to the moon by 2020 - and by then, maybe I'll be old enough to be an astronaut. I'd better do well in school. I'll learn all about math and science and then I'll go work for NASA and become an spaceman (or at least a well-paid engineer).

Wait, what's that, pa? You say Obama's not going to go back to the moon? But... (sniffle) but... I wanted to land on the moon and be a cool astronaut. Aw... shucks. I guess I'll cut class and smoke some non-filtered cigarettes.

... Yeah... that part didn't work as well as I thought it would. Sorry. I'm rushed as I write this.

I guess these are my real thoughts on the space program: as NASA goes, so goes math and science education. The last time we went to the moon, we invested billions of dollars in engineering and education that paid off exponentially in our country's productivity and technological capability. Kids looked up to NASA, and wanted to emulate astronauts. So they were eager to learn math and science because they felt like one day they too could take part in an amazing project like the Apollo program. Most of them did not, but still ended up getting a good education and good jobs as engineers, researchers, and computer programmers. The Apollo program was kind of a long term economic investment.

Obama's announcement that we will be bypassing the moon and heading straight for Mars is at once inspiring and foolhardy. He's basically asking that we throw a Hail Mary to get to the Red Planet and at the same time gutting all of the space infrastructure we have in place. For the next decade, the country will rely on commercial and foreign spacecraft to get astronauts to the space station while we create the new technologies to blast us into deep space. While I indeed think that going to Mars must be the ultimate goal, don't you think that heading to the moon just a few times would be similarly inspiring?

Think about it, we could shoot footage of the moon in HD and show it on the Discovery Channel right after a marathon of Planet Earth and Life. It would be called, simply, Moon.

In the end, I think Obama's plan to go to Mars is really just a punt to another administration on creating significant space exploration. Real progress towards reaching the planet will require a huge investment, which the current policy does not have.

Well... I feel this was a lot of ranting and overall a little boring. Sorry everyone. My mind is trained on the Reds who have dropped 4 straight. Here's a fun video to make up for it.

But Deidre's tomorrow, so chin up.

Sports Saturday

Ok, so a silly admission before today's column: I have been using html to do all of the old blogspot columns because I didn't realize that they had a non-html tool that I could use. So these posts have been taking me about 15-20 minutes longer than needed so I could work my voodoo on html to do simple things like italicizing (which I just did today super-quickly by using the simple ctrl+i). So now look what I can do: Have you had your break today?

So, long story short, I'm an idiot. But it looks like the HHB will soon get a more entertaining makeover, and that it will be easier for me to post more. Huzzah!

This week in sports...

The Reds enter today on a 3-game slide, during which they've scored an average of 2.66 runs a game. I didn't get to see any of the games, but from the box scores, offense has looked pretty miserable. The Reds have 5 wins on the season, all of which have come in the last at-bat, which says to me that they are lucky to have the 5. The bats need to get started earlier, and I think it goes back again to what I said in last week's column: Stop trying to hit homers.

Pitchers are simply overpowering Reds batters because they are looking to drive balls rather than have good AB's to try to get on base. Ready for a frightening early-season fact? The only players on the Reds roster hitting over .300 are Mike Leake, Ryan Hanigan, Chris Dickerson, and Homer Bailey. What?...

I've always theorized (to varying degrees of success) that the Reds season follows a general cycle: April starts off slow, with the Reds usually about 4 games under .500. Then, in May, there is a surge that brightens the hopes of Cincinnati. The team usually ends up in first place, or perhaps, 1 or 2 games out. There is a lot of talk about this "young team" and this "great pitching," and the one or two prospects that, if they keep on pace, will make the team into a powerhouse. But then the Summer doldrums begin. June sees about a .500 record, still keeping the Reds in the race, but only tenuously. Then... July. The team usually slides a couple games heading into the all-star break- Cincinnati Enquirer columnists say, "Well, if the team can just have a quick start after the break, they'll be right back in this thing." The quick start never happens; the team gets worse and worse until by mid-August they are generally out of the race.

And, ah, September. With the Reds having no prospect of winning the season, September call-ups produce grand hopes for next year. The team usually gets on some kind of streak (when it's too late to matter), and some guy gets hot (i.e. David Ross, or Chris Dickerson) so that the Reds will offer a lucrative contract for him to stay, build a team around him, and then fall apart in the vicious cycle the next year when he can't sustain the numbers over a full season.

Lament...

While sometimes there are variations to this formula, usually the result is the same: The Reds are out of it by Mid-August. So far, this season has shown no reason to believe differently.

That's about all I have to say about sports this week. It's been a slow week. What else is going on? NHL hockey playoffs? Couldn't care less. Basketball playoffs are starting? Gag me - or just tell me about it again in a month - there will still be plenty of time left. How the Hell can a sport support playoffs where exactly half of the league's teams make it in, and that last over the course of a couple months?

In the words of Shakespeare, "Whate'er."

Took a copy of George Will's Bunts with me on a trip this week and am about 2/3 of the way through it. A very good book. Highly recommended. It is a series of essays on everything baseball-related, ranging from laments about his beloved Cubbies' losing ways, to tirades against the DH (touché), to celebrations of the triumph of the MLBPA. Will's style may be high brow and distant, but he has an astonishing wit, incredible command of the English language, detailed knowledge of the history of baseball, and a passion for the game.

I also read his book Men at Work, which analyzes the management style of Tony LaRussa, and the play of Tony Gwynn, Cal Ripken Jr., and Orel Hersheiser. It is extremely detailed, to the point of being tedious, but celebrates the virtues of day-in, day-out work ethic that I find to be the cornerstone of what makes baseball players great. Though Will may be a Conservative and a Cubs fan, he is a thinker that I greatly respect. His political opinions (even if I disagree with many) are always clear-headed, and he doesn't feel that he has to side with Republicans on everything. And in baseball, he values the guys who give the sport their all each day they come to the park. He'd prefer guys who get on base a ton to the guys who hit a lot of home runs. He appreciates the guys who hit .300 over the course of the career but never have a championship. Most of all, he seems to understand what really makes baseball great: Its history and its habitualness.

South Park: TV’s Best Satire Ever (Part 1 of 2)

For those of you who know me, you may think that the title of this essay is a heresy against my idol Jon Stewart, host of the Daily Show and TV’s most consistent and morally clear-sighted funny man. Of course, I would never want to downplay the enormous effect that Mr. Stewart has had on myself, the country, and the national discourse (his legendary tirade on Crossfire got that ignorant program cancelled), but another Comedy Central show has been going on for longer, proven just as pertinent, and exceeded all its peers in originality…

South Park is the subject of today’s Film Friday – which, as of today, is also expanding into Film (and Television) Friday – having just produced its 200th episode this past Wednesday. And boy was it a dandy! Unlike the majority of TV shows that rest on their laurels and produce trite look-backs for their anniversary specials (see: Seinfeld and Friends) South Park, as usual, went above and beyond the call, producing an episode that was original and relevant in addition to being a rehashing of the show’s major themes.

To synopsize: After Stan insults Tom Cruise (who inexplicably works in a fudge-packing factory), the celeb gathers together all of the Hollywood stars that South Park has insulted over the years and devises a plan to sue the town into bankruptcy. The only way Cruise will withdraw its suit? Have South Park deliver the prophet Muhammad to the celeberati - in the whacked out universe of South Park, you see, Muhammad is alive and tangible just like Jesus, Vishnu, and the rest of the religious Super Best Friends. Still, this is no easy task. The last time South Park tried to show Muhammad, they were met with fierce opposition, both in-episode (Muslim extremists threatened to destroy the town) and out (Comedy Central eventually did censor the image of the prophet). The celebrities are after a mysterious “goo” that is unexplained but appears to be some kind of life force that allows for Muhammad to have immunity from any kind of insult (Tom Cruise wishes he were that lucky).

But they’re not the only ones chasing Muhammad. A contingent of Ginger Separatists (what?) want the prophet for themselves, and threaten to blow up South Park if he is not given to them. Begrudgingly, the South Parkians give in, delivering Muhammad to the Gingers in a U-Haul truck so we don’t see him. Enraged, the celebrities resort to drastic measures, activating a new and improved Mecha-Streisand, the season 1 super-villain, to run rampant on the town.

Note: This picture is from a different episode. I just put it up because I thought it was funny.
Meanwhile, Cartman joins the celebrities with his classic hand-puppet-Jennifer-Lopez (it’s kind of impossible to explain this if you haven’t seen it before), who, it turns out, is actually Mitch Connor in disguise. Puppet-Connor hints to Cartman his mother (an intersexual) who was previously thought to be his father, may not actually be his father.

And that’s where it ends… till next week.

Ok, where to begin, right?

The amazing thing about this episode is that it makes very little sense unless you’ve followed South Park since the beginning. Just look at the lengthy, convoluted plot synopsis I had to give – it’s longer than what I write in most movie reviews, and this was just for a twenty-three minute show. To me, what separates the 200th episode from other TV shows’ anniversary episode is the same as what separates South Park from all other satire on television: It continues to build on itself.

...
...
...

That will have to be part 1. I'm quite tired.
Part 2 will be so much better. You can expect it Tuesday.

Sports Saturday, Politics Sunday, and Deidre await. Will probably not get a Wednesday article out though. Sorry.

Theatre Thursday - What’s an Actor Anyway?

Today's post is long, and I couldn't think of any pertinent pictures to include, so I put in a bunch of kitty pictures to keep you entertained. And there's a special treat at the end...



I had a really interesting conversation with a friend the other night about the artistry involved in being an actor. She, an actor, was explaining to me that she didn’t consider herself an “artist,” ceding that title to the writers whose words she interprets, and the directors whose guidance she follows.

It’s a perfectly valid viewpoint, and I know from personal experience that even if she doesn’t see herself as such, she performs with the quality and expertise of one who might readily call himself or herself an “artist.” But I think the question, “Are actors artists?” is an interesting one, with more complicated an answer than one might imagine.

I, myself, felt similarly to my friend just as I was entering college. For me, an actor’s job was to show up and do what a director told him. Of course there was outside work that I would do - research my character, break down a scene, hunt for insight into the play’s meaning, etc. – but I regarded this effort as more or less a duty, the tedium of an actor’s work similar to filling out TPS reports as an office manager. How good an actor was depended on his ability to fulfill the requests of playwright and director.

Speaking personally, this was a huge impediment to my development as an actor, leading me to become lazy and disinterested in the actual work of acting. I started to approach roles as if solving a math problem: How do I make this line fit into this scene score? If I modulate my voice here, will that make me come across as more authoritative? I worried less about creativity and originality, and more about whether my beats were organized cohesively.

And it led to acting becoming thoroughly boring for me.

But as I meandered my way through my undergraduate degree, something happened. I started to realize that I had more freedom as an actor than I had imagined. I found that good directors were less interested in my geometric calculations of how a scene should progress than in exploring and making discoveries of what worked and didn’t work. They were actually interested in my ideas and concerns about my role. Putting on a play was no longer about adhering dogmatically to my original perception of the words on the page, but mischievously deviating to find that there may indeed be (gasp!) more than one way to approach a text.


How silly I felt! All of a sudden, I realized that the technical skills of acting that I had striven so hard to learn (cheating out, comic timing, vocal training, presence, physical work) were being trumped by the ability to think differently and innovatively. Artistically, perhaps…

But is an actor by definition an artist? Dictionary.com seems to think so. They are specifically mentioned in its definition for “artist,” alongside the overarching definition, “a person who produces works in any of the arts that are primarily subject to aesthetic criteria.” And do we think of actors in the same way that we think of musicians, dancers, creative writers, painters? For the most part, the answer is, of course, yes.

Yet something still holds me back. Though technically an actor is an artist by definition, what we’re really after here is the answer of what separates true artists from the rest of the pack. What distinguishes the Beatles from a cover band? What turns Johnny Depp into Johnny Depp?

Here’s what I think the answer is: A desire to work.


An actor-artist not only has the ability to illuminate words on a page and follow a director’s orders, but also an unflinching drive to make his or her performance the best it can possibly be. Great actors can not only portray a character, but also explore the infinite ideas that can be brought to a performance. They are not satisfied with a good performance or even a great one; they hunger for the ability to dig deeper, find a new angle, see with different eyes.

After all, actors are hired for all of the skills they bring to the table – not just their looks and their technical ability. A director of Shakespeare will want someone who can come up with creative solutions for those oddly-scanning lines; a director of devised work will want an actor with amazing improv skills to fuel the potential script.

It’s a rookie mistake to believe an actor’s job is to become a character – to play a role so convincingly that an audience member actually believes that you are Willy Loman. It will never happen. Always conscious that they are in a theatre, no audience would ever actually believe that what is on the stage was real. Instead, actors are meant to find ways to better tell the story being told. There is no perfect fit – no actor can simply plug into any part and do it perfectly. My recent time as a director has shown me that regardless of how you imagine a role to be played, the actor will never be able to do it the same way as you envision in your head. But this should not be looked upon as an actor letting a director down. Rather, it should be seen as a mutation (or, perhaps, adaptation) in the production, with the end result being a collaboration different from what any one creator has envisioned, but hopefully pleasing to an audience.


There was a time when directors weren’t even needed. Actors alone were able to perform the words of Shakespeare and Moliere, unaided by a clear overlord. With the rise of film, the director has somewhat diminished the perceived stature of the performer, but ask anyone in the world, and they’ll quickly be able to name their favorite actor. Favorite director? Not so much.

Although the act of being onstage is in itself creative and artistic, I think to an extent that my friend is right. It’s unfair to simply call an actor an artist based on the nature of his work. Acting is a profession not too terribly different from being a businessman or hairstylist, and we do not by definition refer to these workers as “artists.”

But the crème de la crème of businessmen have an uncanny passion for making deals and bolstering profits that regular businessmen don’t have. In their field, they are artists. Some hairstylists have an incurable desire to do the perfect –do, bringing forth hair that is truly beautiful. They are artists.

Some actors can’t help but constantly improve their work, never feeling that a role is complete or a play perfected. It’s this zeal for continuing to explore and create that makes an actor an artist, rather than simply a professional. And if an actor is an artist, he or she should be viewed as a partner of the director and writer, not just an employee.

Dear Deidre

Sorry to post Deidre so late - I'll make sure to post Theatre Thursday late too so the column gets its proper time in the spotlight.

Dear Deidre,

I'm taking a trip this week from my home in Chicago to a university I might attend in the fall, and am feeling very anxious about meeting all of the new people. I always have a hard time remembering names, and even though I've already been accepted into the school, I feel a bit like I'm auditioning for the favor of professors that I might work with in the coming years. Since I've been out of academia for a little while, I worry that my skills are a little rusty and that I might say something dumb or look like I don't know what I'm talking about. But while I want the faculty to be impressed with me, I don't want them to feel like I am trying to brag or one-up them. It's a tight rope to walk.

I'll also be speaking with current students, and am worried that I will act either too distant or too familiar with them, giving a bad impression to people I'll be working closely with in the next few years.

Any friendly words to relieve some of the pressure?

Sincerely,

Shy-town



Dear Shy-town,

I have to admit, I was excited to delve into some witty, sarcastic banter this week, but this topic deserves my utmost seriousness.

Now, I don’t know you personally, of course, but the sheer fact that you are anxious about these things tells me that you are a really genuine and enthusiastic person. Those are the only qualities you will need to succeed in your new environment.

Now, Mr. Shy-town, the admissions people at this university would not have accepted you if they didn’t think you could handle the workload. And, I’m getting the sense that you are into theatre (I’m very intuitive). You would not have been chosen to participate in this program if the professors thought that you were going to be “rusty or say something dumb.” (Just to be clear, it is OK to say dumb things once in awhile. Most of the sentences that come out of my mouth are what I would consider “dumb,” yet I continue to function in my daily life.) Everyone is human, and you can’t expect to be perfect. I guarantee you that the other students, and the professors, are just as nervous as you are.

And remember, the human race is overall a pretty selfish one. We mostly think about ourselves, whether we want to admit it or not. So, while you’re talking to someone else, that person thinking about how he is coming off to you. He could care less if you say something stupid, he just doesn’t want to say something stupid himself. (Kind of like when you have a ginormous zit and you think that everyone else notices. Well, they don’t. They are too focused on their own faces to notice anything different about yours [keep telling yourself that, Diedre…]).

One of the qualities that people tend to overlook and underestimate is niceness. If you are just a really nice person to everyone you meet, you will be on the right track. Think about things before you say them and ask, “Would I want someone to say this to me?” If not, don’t say it. Try to refrain from making a ton of jokes until you get to know everyone a little better. Some people are less easily entertained than others.

Think about the friends that you have now. Have you always been best friends with these people? Probably, not. It takes awhile to develop real, strong bonds with people. But, it DOES happen. People are extremely resilient and adaptable – we find a little clan wherever we go because it is what we need to do to survive.

Lastly, the most important piece of advice I can give you is to just BE YOURSELF. Cliché, I know. But, most of us walk around day to day with some sort of façade – “I’m going to be the funny guy today,” or “I’m going to be the smart kid in this group.” I’m sure you have tons of amazing qualities, and those are inherently ingrained into your personality. They will come out naturally, and everyone will grow to love you just as I’m sure your group of friends that you have now loves you.

Follow the golden rule, Mr. Shy-town (which I’m sure you will have no trouble with.) And remember, you are not alone in this situation; there are other students feeling the exact same thing. It might help to think of yourself as part of a group rather than an individual facing this alone. And, even when you fly to your newfound destination (which, I’m intuiting is a warm and sunny place) remember, you have a family here in Chicago that will always love their Schm… Mr. Shy-town.

Good luck! (but, you won’t really need it)

Deidre

(500) Days of Summer Review

Before I launch into this, I wanted to let you all know that I will be out of town for the next few days, so the blog may end up resting for a bit. Hopefully, Deidre will be able to get us some words, and I have a couple half-written columns that I may or may not have time to finish and upload. We'll see. For now, enjoy...



There used to be a time when the word “indie” referred to the process by which a film was made – that is, low budget adaptations that contrasted the Hollywood establishment. Such films featured shaky handheld cameras instead of tripods, B-level celebrities instead of stars, dim lighting instead of the bright Hollywood illumination. In that sense, (500) Days of Summer is a bit of an oddity – a film that uses fixed shots, A-list actors, and bright lights, but that somehow still manages to ooze indie vibe throughout.

One can’t deny that indies have evolved heavily in the last decade or so. Where once the genre was typified by movies like the family drama Pieces of April, tonally sullen but with a strong emphasis on storytelling and realism, now, it is possibly better represented by Juno, or Chumscrubber, brighter films where conceptualism often trumps the narrative.

Don’t be alarmed, though, if (like me) these “Hollywood Indies” (trademark) are generally not for you. (500) Days of Summer may display many tropes of the genre, but it is able to avoid falling into the field altogether because of the unflinching truthfulness of the story.


(500) tells the chronologically shuffled tale of Tom Hanson (Joseph Gordon-Levitt), a passionate greeting card writer who falls hard for his new coworker Summer Finn (Zooey Deschanel).

- Indie trope #1 – the quirky yet thematically significant job title. See also: Garden State’s armor-clad lad who works as a knight at a local Renaissance fair.

After a few weeks of drooling over her, Tom finally gets close to Summer at an office party. Though he tries (as so many of us do) to play it cool, hiding his feelings so as not to appear too desperate, Summer can see through the charade and instigates a romance.

But there’s a catch: A perfect incarnate of the free-spirited modern day Flapper, Summer refuses to label the relationship, much to the chagrin of Tom’s inner romantic. It’s clear that the relationship will operate according to her rules, and falling in love does not seem to be a realistic possibility.

As I said earlier, the story is chronologically shuffled, but a ticker identifying which number day (out of the 500) we are in makes it easy to understand. And, as in a similar movie about relationships, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, juxtaposing the different phases the couple goes through (the beginning as well as the end, the good times as well as the bad) allows the viewer to really feel close to the protagonists, understanding how the couple functions for better and for worse.

Though he has clearly been told that they are not boyfriend and girlfriend, Tom falls hard for Summer almost in spite of himself. Just how hard he falls is made clear by some non-realistic sequences…

- Indie Trope #2 – Throughout the movie, surreal sequences give us an insight to the main character’s feelings. A song breaks out after the couple’s first hook-up; on a bus, everybody looks exactly like Summer because he can’t stop thinking about her. Compare this to, say, the rose petal sequences in American Beauty (admittedly not an indie, but a movie most people are familiar with), or, say, Chumscrubber, where a woman screams silently to herself so that you, the viewer, know that she is in pain.



Perhaps sensing that Tom is starting to feel too close to her, Summer ends the relationship, throwing Tom into a funk so acute that he cannot even find a positive phrase to write on a greeting card (resulting in his demotion to the bereavements department). While the rest of the movie follows Tom trying to get Summer back, an unexpected (and, perhaps, out-of-character) twist complicates any attempt at a further relationship.

- Indie Trope #3 - the girl’s name is Summer, so we in the audience know that she exists as both a character and a concept. This allows for the characters’ actions to have a deeper meaning (i.e. Tom has to “get Summer back”… get it?). Sort of like naming the protagonist John Everyman -

But for all the indie-tastic distractions of (500), the story itself is poignant and truthful, perhaps one of the best depictions of the modern-day relationship that I’ve ever seen. Unlike many of today’s romantic comedies, it eschews the steady progression of relationship milestones leading up to the altar (first kiss, first intimacy, buildup of trust, survival of a challenge, and… voila! Marriage!), showing that truthfully, coupling is messy, organic, and subjective. What looks like love to one person may feel like suffocation to another.

Most importantly, though, relationships are often about finding oneself. For instance, it is only after Summer breaks off relations with Tom that he is able to rediscover his love for architecture, growing in a way that could have never happened without both the relationship and the heartbreak. Summer grows from the relationship as well, perhaps even more radically than Tom.

Don’t expect to glean a clear message from (500) Days of Summer, but you can anticipate finding numerous nuggets of wisdom in this smart, funny, and honest look at love in Generation Y. As in life, meaning comes only in small bites of truth taken one-at-a-time, rather than a meal eaten all at once. As Tom and Summer show, it’s these small bites that slowly feed our sense of purpose and allow us to develop.

Politics Sunday

Before the politics, a quick addendum to Sports Saturday: Aaron Harang looked pretty good yesterday, giving up only 3 runs in 7 innings, all on home runs (thank you very much Great American Smallpark) – while the Reds offense did not. Some early firepower fizzled out in the later innings, with Cubs pitching holding the Reds to only one or two hits after the 4th inning. Oh, and Reds hitters fanned 13 times (striking out more than twice times as the White Sox had all season going into yesterday).

You cannot have a team that strikes out this much. It makes it impossible to have any kind of rally, forcing the Reds to rely almost exclusively on home runs (which only rarely come when needed). Teams are throwing first pitch strikes to nearly every Reds batter, because they will either take the pitch or swing for the fences and whiff. Come on, guys. We’re starting practically every AB in a 0-1 hole. Shorten up the swings and try to poke a single. It’ll eventually pay off and pitchers will start having to throw some balls to start an AB.

Now onto Supreme Sunday!

John Paul Stevens announced earlier this week that he’d be retiring, and boy will I miss him! I’ll miss that snappy little bow tie, his ancient jowls, his liberal disposition. But, he’s 89 years old. It’s time.

From what I’ve heard, it appears that the liberal members of the court – er, ahem… Democrat-appointed members, have a plan to retire one by one each year of Barack Obama’s tenure in office. This is less a good plan than it is a necessity. It’s clear that the Republican-appointed members of the court will nearly always be unanimous in supporting the conservative side of a decision. That much was clear when they decided to allow corporations to spend freely on elections, a ridiculous decision that one could only come to if seeking to support conservative interests over a proper reading of the law.

(Fine. I am not a lawyer, and I have no real law experience, but I think it’s pretty clear that corporations should not be given the same spending rights as people. I also think it’s clear that giving them that right will certainly help Republican election chances more than it will help the Democrats [although unions can spend freely now as well]. But mostly, the decision puts politicians further into the pockets of special interests, and makes elections more about money than ideas)

So now the liberal members of the court, some of them hanging on by a thread (Justice Stevens was 89. 89!) are planning to retire one by one so Barack Obama can replenish their stocks. It’s unofficial, but seems to me a very calculated plan.

Sadly, the Supreme Court - a body that was meant to be mostly apolitical (which is why there are lifetime appointments) - has become a reflection of the current political landscape in this country: staunch and partisan.

Here's something interesting to think about: Justice Stevens, considered to be the leading liberal on the court, was confirmed 98-0 by the Senate. Antonin Scalia, the court's most mega-conservative, was confirmed 97-0 by the Senate. We'll talk more of Scalia another time (boy, can I talk about Scalia...) but something should strike you by those two facts. It's impossible to imagine even the most centrist of justices being confirmed without any "nays" today, and it's disheartening to see that we've moved into a time when the process of even approving a Supreme Court Justice has become such a divisive matter.

Another interesting thing about Stevens is that he was not considered a liberal at the time of his appointment. Roe v. Wade had just been decided, yet he was asked no questions about the decision during his confirmation hearings (and debate on his confirmation lasted only 5 minutes or so). Rather, it was his support of the death penalty that was looked on as the most important acid test at the time. He was originally for it.

One thing that I really like about Stevens is that he showed the ability to evolve. Serving 34 years on the country's highest legal body, you would expect that one would learn something here and there, and eventually experience change. Stevens, originally thought to be more of a centrist, would become ardently liberal, even changing his opinion on the issue that got him to the court in the first place: the death penalty. Flip-flopping has become a heresy in this country, but I would think that the most intelligent minds are those that are able to adapt to changing circumstances. It takes great courage to look at oneself and realize that you were wrong about something - it takes even more to admit it through actions.

It was just two years ago, in Baze v. Rees, that [Justice Stevens] renounced his support for the death penalty in an opinion grounded not in abstract principle but in years of sorrowful observation of how the death penalty was actually being administered under statutes and Supreme Court opinions that cut off avenues of appeal.

- NY Times


I guess it's not exactly admitting that he was wrong before, but it's still a significant contradiction of his previous self. To me, this represents the epitome of what a Supreme Court judge should be. It shouldn't be about finding someone who adheres to the Democratic or Republican dogmas, but rather, finding someone with a brilliant legal mind and an ability to be moved by good argument. How many of the current justices do you think go into each case already knowing which side that they will take? Scalia for sure. And this is damaging not only to the evolution of the law, but also to the spirit of our legal system.

Now, what are the chances that Barack Obama will appoint someone without thoroughly vetting where they stand on every major Democratic issue? None, whatsoever - and again, this is a necessity with the current political landscape (if you replaced one or two liberal justices with conservatives, it's possible the court could overturn Roe v Wade, and who knows what else), but we need to acknowledge that there is a problem with the high court's polarization. We need to make sure that it is justice and not politics that defines our legal system.

Here's a good article about Stevens and his evolution while on the court.