The Day After Some More Elections

Well, time for a little post-election analysis, focusing on California.

All eight propositions on the ballot were defeated yesterday, including the four Gov. Schwarzenegger had put on the ballot as part of his reform package. Two of the four were somewhat close votes, the other two were pretty well trounced.

As expected Democrats celebrated; Senate leader Don Perata stated that the Governor "took a wrong turn in January and we wasted a year", while Dianne Feinstein said "The election results should send a strong message that the voters are tired of having issues that should be solved by their representatives placed before them on the ballot,". Hmm, I could definitely criticize Dianne here (like she's never played ANY role in getting some proposition on the ballot), but what's the point.

I was actually surprised to hear that Perata and Assembly Leader Fabian Nunez publicly state today that they were in favor of election redistricting reform, and that they would begin work on it soon. I will not be holding my breath, I suggest you don't either.

So what really happened? Did people vote against Arnold? Against having to vote on propositions? Against the propositions themselves?

Some interesting facts:

1. Labor and Unions outspent Arnold two to one this election. Not bad considering they did it with money that their membership cannot tell leadership which campaigns to use it on. Haha, I couldn't help it.

2. What kind of argument, against Proposition 74, is this (straight from the voter guide) : "Proposition 74 doesn't reduce class size or provide new textbooks, computers, or other urgently needed learning materials. It doesn't improve teacher training or campus safety. Nor does it increase educational funding or fix one leaking school roof." Who said it does? Man, I would LOVE a job where after two years I couldn't be fired. That seems like the way to really encourage growth in one's job.

3. See my note above on Dem. leadership saying today how much they want redistricting reform.

Was there anything wrong with any of these Props? Well I surely didn't like Prop 76 - that's just too much power in the hands of the governor. But what's wrong with the other three?

Prop 77- I HATED the argument that we couldn't trust judges with this; we seem to be ok trusting them with life and death issues, so why not redrawing lines? And the whole concept that they could potentially not be diverse enough sickens me. Yes, I'm a white male, but the whole notion that BECAUSE I'm a white male I can't keep diversity in my decision-making process is amazing. Would a panel of three minority judges remember to keep white people's needs in mind? If I said that publicly I'd be shot.

Prop 74 - Why should teachers get that kind of probation period? Are we really hoping to attract teachers by saying that we'll only keep you under probation for two years? That's what attracts teachers here? Maybe we should raise their salaries instead.... Besides, in a fun fact I learned the other day, Washington DC spends the most money per student; over $15,000 a student; and as we all know, that is not a city known for great schools. So, in a state where 50% of all money is mandated for education, maybe we need to start rethinking this....

Prop 75 - I'm sorry, if I were in a union I'd want to know how my money was being spent and have some control over that. Most people who are in unions don't have any choice - they MUST join the union - then they pay their mandatory dues and leadership gets to decide how to spend the money. Was Arnold making a power grab? Probably - should this law have been extended to corporations and the way they spend money? Yes!(in fact, labor may be putting such a Prop on the June ballot) - does all this mean it should have been voted down? Who am I to say...

Antonin Scalia 2: The Wrath of Sam Alito

President Bush selected Judge Sam Alito as his pick to replace Justice O'Connor on the Supreme Court this morning. And what a pick.

The one good thing I can say about Judge Alito is that he's the anti-Miers; he's been a judge for a long time, worked on issues of note, and has a definable judicial philosophy.

But that's ALL the good I can say about him. It doesn't seem possible that President Bush could have picked someone MORE conservative, especially in the realm of social issues.

The case you will hear more about than any other is Planned Parenthood v. Casey. In this case, it was decided that a Pennsylvania law that required spousal notification prior to obtaining an abortion was invalid under the Fourteenth Amendment because it created an undue burden on married women seeking an abortion. Judge Alito was the LONE DISSENTER. Meaning, he felt as though a married woman needed to notify their spouse if she was to get an abortion. His mind-numbing quote: "The Pennsylvania Legislature could have rationally believed," Alito wrote, "that some married women are initially inclined to obtain an abortion without their husbands' knowledge because of perceived problems -- such as economic constraints, future plans, or the husbands' previously expressed opposition -- that may be obviated by discussion prior to the abortion." Wow. (Although to be fair, he did have four exclusions in his dissenting opinion: (1) he is not the father of the child, (2) he cannot be found after diligent effort, (3) the pregnancy is the result of a spousal sexual assault that has been reported to the authorities, or (4) she has reason to believe that notification is likely to result in the infliction of bodily injury upon her) But still!!!

Other cases of note:

1. A majority opinion in Fatin v. INS, 12 F.3d 1233 (3d Cir. 1993), holding that an Iranian woman seeking asylum could establish that she had a well founded fear of persecution in Iran if she could show that compliance with that country's "gender specific laws and repressive social norms," such as the requirement that women wear a veil in public, would be deeply abhorrent to her. Judge Alito also held that she could establish eligibility for asylum by showing that she would be persecuted because of gender, belief in feminism, or membership in a feminist group.

2. Saxe v. State College Area School District, 240 F.3d 200 (3rd Cir. 2001); Two high school students challenged a school district's anti-harassment policy, contending it violated their First Amendment rights. The students believed that the policy prohibited them from voicing their religious belief that homosexuality was a sin. The policy provided several examples of harassment, including: "any unwelcome verbal, written or physical conduct which offends, denigrates or belittles an individual" because of "race, religion, color,national origin, gender, sexual orientation, disability, or other personal characteristics.

In a 3-0 decision, a Third Circuit panel held that such a broadly worded policy prohibits too much speech and violates the First Amendment. In his majority ruling, Alito wrote "No court or legislature has ever suggested that unwelcome speech directed at another's 'values' may be prohibited under the rubric of anti-discrimination."

3. A concurring opinion in Planned Parenthood of Central New Jersey v. Farmer, 220 F.3d 127 (3rd Cir. 2000), in which Judge Alito recognized that a New Jersey law banning "partial-birth abortions" was unconstitutional in light of the recent Supreme Court case of Stenberg v. Carhart, 530 U.S.914, 20 S.Ct. 2597, 147 L.Ed.2d 743 (2000).

4. A dissenting opinion in United States v. Rybar, 103 F.3d 273 (3d Cir. 1996), arguing that a U.S. law banning private citizens from owning assault weapons violated the Commerce Clause of the U.S. Constitution in light of the then recently decided United States v. Lopez.

5. A dissenting opinion in Bray v. Marriott Hotels, 110 F.3d 986, 989 (3d Cir. 1997), [7] arguing against a decision in favor of a Marriott Hotel manager who said she had been discriminated against on the basis of race. The majority responded that Alito would have protected racist employers by "immuniz[ing] an employer from the reach of Title VII if the employer's belief that it had selected the best candidate was the result of conscious racial bias."

6. A majority opinion in Williams v. Price, 343 F.3d 223 (3d Cir. 2003), [2]
granting a writ of habeas corpus to a black state prisoner after state courts had refused to consider the testimony of a witness who stated that a juror had uttered derogatory remarks about blacks during an encounter in the courthouse after the conclusion of the trial

7. Alito wrote the majority opinion [1] in ACLU v. Schundler, 168 F.3d 92 (3d Cir. 1999), holding that a holiday display on city property did not violate the Establishment Clause because it included secular symbols, such as a large plastic Santa Claus, in addition to religious symbols. Such mixed displays had previously been held constitutional by the U.S. Supreme Court. The ACLU argued that a previous city display that was ruled unconstitutional because it lacked secular symbols colored the purpose of the new display.


Thanks to Wikipedia for letting me borrow the above language.

So we see a deeply conservative individual, one who is obvioulsy oppesed to abortion and reproductive rights. He's also made some aggressive stances in regards to affirmative action.

It is worth noting that many lawyers call him "Scalito" as he is just as conservative as Justice Scalia.

So what does this all mean? This means that Democrats need 6 moderate Republics, a dying breed that should be on the endangered species list. Potential allies include John McCain, Lincoln Chaffee, Arlen Spector, George Voinovich, Chuck Hagel, and Olympia Snow.

Many of the names above also happen to be names of people who will want to run for President in 2008, and may be looking for ways to distance themselves from the current administration and show that they are "of the people". Given the war, Miers, Libby, Rove, Katrina, Kyoto - you may see a few of these people break away and try to find a middle path.

Obviously the danger in a path like that is 1) it's really early to do that and not make it so, if you fail, you may not be able to pursue ANY kind of agenda 2) who knows if fallout from Libby will reverberate 3) Presidential nominees come from from a primary process, and partisans vote in the primary; in order to appeal to them, candidates move the edges of their party platforms (just look what happened to the Republicans in 2000).

My hope is five or six of these Republicans grow a backbone and revolt. Besides, the whole concept of lumping the names above in with people like Rick Santorum, Trent Lott and Bush is ridiculous; they're not Republicans at all, given the way they spend. They're simply social right-wingers.

Bye Bye Harriet, We Barely Knew You...

So Harriet Miers has withdrawn her nomination (or, more likely, was strongly encouraged by President Bush).

Before all you Democrats get TOO excited about this, think a little about what's coming next:

1) A judge
2) A judge with lots of experience
3) A judge with lots of experience and a paper trail
4) A judge with lots of experience and a paper trail of Conservative accomplishments

Yes, number four is correct. Bush is certainly not interested in becoming a lame duck president this early in his second term, so improving his relationship with the right wing of the Republican Party with be his first priority. There will be no better way to do this than to nominate a VERY conservative judge with clear positions on abortion, church and state issues, and other pet right-wing concerns.

Will moderate Republicans stand up to a candidate like this? Likely not; the party does not want to start a civil war. The only hope is that a few moderate Republican Senators hoping to run for President in 2008 stand up and declare that a more moderate nominee is necessary. But, I just don't think that will happen. Priscilla Owen and Janice Rogers Brown, here we come.

Some of my Favorite Web Sites

Here are a couple of winners that I regularly use/visit:

1) The Museum of Online Museums
http://www.coudal.com/moom.php

This website takes you to the webpages of many wonderful museums that are online.

2) BBC News
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/default.stm

The Best news online, hands down.

3) Sidestep
http://www.sidestep.com/air/

This is a search engine of other travel search engines; so instead of hitting up
all the ones you normally go to, you can go to this one.

4) Konfabulator
http://www.konfabulator.com

My friend Kevin turned me onto this one; you can download widgets to your desktop
and have any and all kinds of info sent directly there without having to go on
the web - you like Craigslist? Have a Craigslist widget linked to the one
section you want to monitor... Awesome!

5) Ask Tony
http://tonyd.typepad.com/

If you want to know the REAL TRUTH, then Ask Tony your questions. You will get
an unbiased and true answer.

Why We Should Care About Valerie Plame

I know that I can get a bit excited about things, especially politics, but I'm actually surprised at the lack of interest my friends have shown in regards to the Valerie Plame "affair".

Just so we are on the same page - in the months after the Bush Administration indicated they believied Saddam Hussein was a threat, they began building their case for war. Part of their evidence was a report that came from Italian intelligence regarding Iraqi attempts to purchase nuclear bomb-making material (yellowcake) from the country of Niger.

It's not sure who recommended him, but the administration sent Joseph Wilson to Niger to investigage the claims. Mr. Wilson has very impressive, non-partisan credentials; a former ambassador to Gabon and San Tome and Principe under former President Bush, as well as the director of African Policy for the National Security Council under former President Clinton.

Mr. Wilson, in subsequent testimony, indicated that it was very early into his trip that he realized that there was no validity to these claims. However, the adminstration rejected his report to them, and instead used this evidence in their rationale, most importantly during Mr. Bush's State of the Union address in January of 2003. These claims of the purchase, along with many others surrounding attempts to buy materials to make nuclear bombs, were all eventually rejected as false.

Mr. Wilson, feeling a bit betrayed, made his feelings known on the matter in June of 2003 through press articles; less than a month later his wife's name ended up in Robert Novak's column.

She is an employee of the CIA; an undercover employee of the CIA.

So what's happened?

It APPEARS as though (if you can believe what's being leaked) that both Karl Rove and Lewis Libby spoke with reporters about Ms. Plame. Why would they do this? Well, I'm only speculating here :) but it looks as though Mr. Libby and Mr. Rove were so upset that Mr. Wilson had published his findings that they were bent on ruining his reputation. What better way than to put his wife's life in potential danger and, while they did it, break the law? Yes, it is illegal to "out" an undercover member of the CIA if you in possession of their status.

Do I think they knew her status? Of course they did, for two reasons 1) Libby, at least, found out about Ms. Wilson from his boss, VP Cheney, who found out from the former director of the CIA, George Tenet - so don't you think Mr. Tenet told Mr. Cheney that she was undercover?; and 2) Why else would they be telling her name in public BUT to be vindictive? There's no other reason. (And frankly, whoever the ad wizards who came up with this one really blew it).

So what does this all mean? This entire "affair" goes to the heart of the justification of the war with Iraq (which no one seems to care about anymore.. don't get me going about that!). Senior Adminstation officials were willing to do ANYTHING to move their agenda along - including lying about evidence they said they had, and, when the person who was supposed to provide that evidence didn't because it didn't exist and said so, broke the law and exposed his wife (not to mention the perjury that followed).

This is a big deal. This is a terribly big deal. We should all be very upset about this. Yes, I know that it's always just easier to say "yes, our public officials lie". But why is that an acceptible response to this? Why is it acceptible especially when over 2000 Americans have died because of the lie? This isn't lies to stay in office (which are bad); these aren't lies about a love affair (which are bad); these aren't lies to cover for some constituency you support (which are bad): PEOPLE ARE DYING BECAUSE OF THESE LIES.

All Hail the Flying Spaghetti Monster

There's nothing I can say that beats what these guys are doing with this post - hilarious ...

http://www.venganza.org/

Some Excellent Music

I recently made the transition over from CD's to an MP3 player (I went with an IRiver, which I like overall). I actually thought once I got rid of all the cd's (all sold at this point) that I would "buy" less music. Well, buy is the operative word here - I haven't "bought" any music in 2 months. But I have "gotten" a lot of new music since then, thanks to the wonderful world of online file sharing.

I wanted to highlight a few of my favs for y'all...

1. Antony and the Johnsons, I am a Bird Now - if Tiny Tim started playing serious music - seriously, this guy sounds ALOT like Tiny Tim, but accompanied by gorgeous melodies over sparse (for the most part) piano and music. If you want to feel good in that "wow, what a great inspiring movie" kinda way and feel bad in that "how absolutely sad" kinda way, this is a great buy.

2. Arcade Fire, Funeral - ok, this isn't that new, but I guess this list isn't about NEW music, is it?! This band from the Great White North has written a real gem of an album, inspired, in part, by a number of deaths in the family of the two leads of the band. What resulted is a pained, emotional record filled with a rawness and a realness that you don't often get to hear. Not to say that it isn't produced - very crisp and clear record...

3. Ambulance Ltd. , eponymous - Although I've only heard a few of their songs, I love it. These guys are all over the place; you feel like you're listening to their take on their favorite genre's and songs... the ones I'm into now are poppy gems.

4. The Streets, A Grand Don't Come for Free - British Rap?? What the hell? Well, it works, as you get dropped into one everyday experience after another, accompanied by steady, sparse beats. You feel like you yourself could start rapping because of the way he connects with the types of things that have happened to you in your life, sometimes the very thoughts you have in specific moments.

5. Can, either Ege Bamyasi or Tago Mago - Of course you love German art/prog rock fronted by a ranting Japanese Jehovah's Witness. I swear, I'm not making this up. Can made some fantastic experimental records in the late 60's and early 70's, but these two are their best, and their most accessible. Just check out that groove that they can put down, using great jazz roots and improv while being entirely comfortable rocking out those grooves when they need too. Sometimes it takes them 15 minutes to get TO that groove, but you won't mind the ride there.

The De Young Museum

I had a chance to (briefly) visit the De Young Museum today in San Francisco; the one thing that always bothered me about the City was the real lack of art; sure, there is a pretty lively underground scene, and there are a few galleries downtown (that don't stay open too late), but there isn't a truly world-class museum here (sorry all you SF MOMA lovers). So I was very excited when the De Young recently reopened.

Well, I think I was disappointed overall. And this is coming from a guy who actually didn't get to see the whole place, so yes, take with a grain of salt.

Some impressions:

1. Art should be free. Period. And if it isn't, staff shouldn't be telling people waiting in a long line that there is a free section that consists solely of the lobby (where there was about 7 pieces of art), the cafe, and the observation tower (more on it later).

2. I thought the architecture was pretty stunning, reminding me of the Tate Modern for its, well, industrial feel. However, it did feel a bit out of place. The grounds are comfortable and pleasing to the eye, but definately feel over-manufactured.

3. The inside of the museum (the lobby) is stark in its whites and flat surfaces. Not very homey.

4. The observation tower is ridiculous to me. First, you build it in a city known for its fog (and built in a part of town that has a lot of it). Second, it literally sticks out like a sore thumb. You can't build any structure in the west side of town more than four stories or so anymore, so why would you put in the middle of the park an 8 story tower? Long lines, not much of a view, and a feeble attempt at an iconic structure.

I suppose I should go back and look at the art....

Harriet Miers???

Another slap to the face, this one.

How else can we explain Harriet Miers? It's simply an appointment made out of loyalty, nothing else.

We've seen this style of appointment before; Dick Cheney was in charge of George Bush's search for a VP before he himself became the nominee. Miers was playing a critical role in the search for a new Justice when she herself became that nominee.

What do we know about her? Well it seems to depend on whom you talk to. Apparently some conservatives (especially those who seem to be her friends, but a few notable names in the business, like James Dobson) seem to like her, and are confident in her conservative credentials. However, the vast majority of conservatives are basically floored on this; they have no way to "check" her on the viewpoints they hold dear, and very few of them are comfortable accepting Bush's wink-and-a-nod on this one.

I was especially excited to hear Tony Perkins' comments on this matter (he is the head of the Family Research Council, one of those old-school conservative publications) criticize the White House over his overt comments on Miers' religion: "Inferences drawn from an individual's religious affiliation have no place in decisions to nominate or confirm a judicial appointee." This is a White House seriously under attack.

Their agenda is on the rocks, the war is going badly (not new I know), Karl Rove and Scooter Libby are likely to get indicted, and the Govt's reaction to Katrina is only likely to get more and more press. It is the fall of their discontent.

The Senate and Filibustering

So it's come to this it seems.

Fairly soon, there will be some kind of showdown in the Senate over the use of filibusters as they pertain to blocking President Bush's judicial nominees.

Is this a big deal? Yes, it's a huge deal. First, a little history.

A filibuster is a rule in the Senate that's been in place since that body was first created in the 1780's. It's essentially an obstructionist tool that keeps some item from reaching a vote - it can be long speeches, or procedural motions - anything that keeps an item from reaching the floor for an "up or down" vote.

The Senate, if anything, is proud of its traditions, and filibusters are about as traditional as you can get. In fact, there weren't any rules to somewhat limit the power of a filibuster for over 120 years until rules were passed in 1917 that provided for "cloture", or a vote to end debate with a 2/3 vote.

So back to filibusters. Anyone can basically go on about anything during a speech for filibuster purposes. Senator Huey Long talked about recipes; Strom Thurmond, to block civil rights legislation, went on for 24 hours straight. Both parties have done it, and both will continue doing it. But maybe not for judicial nominees.

The Republicans in the Senate claim that the body is skirting its constitutional duty by not following Article II, Section 2 of the Constitution : "{The President} ... shall nominate, and by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, shall appoint Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, Judges of the supreme Court and all other Officers of the United States, whose Appointments are not herein otherwise provided for, and which shall be established by Law:...". That's the line the Republicans keep going back to. And by not moving forward on a final vote, the Democrats are blocking a two hundred-year plus tradition of allowing votes to occur.

The Democrats, on the other hand, claim that there is a long history of the filibuster, that the Republicans have used it many times, including to block judicial nominations, and that to change the rules mid-stream would be unwise and unfair.

So some analysis -

1) Have the Republicans used the filibuster on judicial nominations in the past?

Yes, in fact they did it to a potential Supreme Court Chief Justice in 1968- when Earl Warren indicated that he would be retiring, Pres. Johnson nominated Abe Fortas. According to all the sources I've ready, Johnson likely had the votes in the Senate to get Fortas through, a filibuster was initiated by the Republicans after it was revealed that Fortas received a privately funded stipend, equivalent to 40 percent of his Court salary, to teach an American University summer course. Probably a good reason to do so, but yes, it has happened (and there are other times Republicans have).

2) What's the comparison between Bush Jr. and other modern presidents in getting his judicial nominations through?

Here's a great chart showing the last 50 years or so - http://dalythoughts.com/index.php?p=2983

Summarized-

President Confirmation Percentage
Truman 81.8%
Eisenhower 90.2%
Kennedy/Johnson 89.7%
Nixon/Ford 89.1%
Carter 91.8%
Reagan 81.3%
G.H.W. Bush 77.8%
Clinton 61.3%
G.W. Bush 52.2%


Bush Jr. isn't doing too hot. And I quote from the website : "In total, President Clinton nominated 90 people to be Circuit Court justices during the four Congresses during his term. 66 were eventually confirmed. The eventual confirmation rate for his nominees was 73%. He had 13 nominees who were returned but eventually confirmed; the subsequent Congress confirmed 12 of those. Of the 20 returns that Clinton had during his first three Congresses (where he would be in term for a subsequent Congress), he renominated 16 (80%) of them. Over 80% of them were eventually confirmed, with a full three-quarter confirmed in the very next Congress.

In the 107th Congress, President Bush nominated 31 new people to be Circuit Court justices. 19 have eventually been confirmed, for an eventual confirmation rate of 61.2%, compared to Clinton’s 100% eventual confirmation rate for his first Congress’ nominations. Only two of President Bush’s renominations were confirmed by the subsequent Congress– 15.4%.

In aggregate, President Bush has nominated, for the first time, 52 distinct individuals to be Circuit Court justices. 34 have been confirmed, for an aggregate eventual confirmation rate of 65%, 8% lower than President Clinton’s despite the fact that three quarters of Clinton’s term had the Senate controlled by the Republicans."

Here's another good site with the same info - http://www.professorbainbridge.com/2005/04/obstructionism.html

What does all these numbers mean? Bush has had fewer judges confirmed to the United States Circuit Courts, the Courts right below the Supreme Court. Clinton, historically, is low too, but Bush Jr. has the lowest success rate (depending on your point of view) of any US president.

So what's going on here? Basically, the Democrats are trying to block a number of judges they think are too right wing. The Republicans are tired of it, as they've had the fewest number of judges confirmed to Circuit Court than any other president. They've decided to go nuclear. Is this a good idea? Not really, as it 1) totally changes the rules midstream and 2) doesn't do the Republicans any good when there's a Democratic President.

We'll know shortly if we all REALLY DO need to move to Canada soon.

Albert Fujimori, that interesting?

A few of us went to go see this documentary about Albert Fujimori, the former President of Peru, who came from nowhere to become that country's leader in the 1990's. As you can tell by his last name, he doesn't have a Spanish background, as his family is Japanese. Anyway, he was embroiled in scandal eventually, and left the country.

The movie is part of the SF International Film Festival. We went, thinking, hey, people will likely have much better things to do on a Friday night than see a documentary about a former Peruvian president. We guessed wrong. Not only was the show sold out over a half hour before it was set to begin, there were 50 people in the "rush" line to see if they could get in. Is this city really full of that many people who want to see a movie about Albert Fujimori? I doubt it. I think it's because this city (San Francisco) just doesn't have a lot to do period.

San Francisco thinks it's a lot bigger than it really is. Don't get me wrong, I do really like it here, I just wish it had about twice as many people so it could reach that critical mass where things stayed open! It's pretty ridiculous when the major "hip" shopping areas in Hayes Valley and Cow Hollow shut down by 7 pm on a Friday or Saturday. That's ridiculous. And as for art or theatre, there isn't a whole lot going on. There are some shows, but most theatre is simply to expensive and runs too long for it to really impact most people. There is a good music scene though.

I suppose people were faced with another night trolling the bars, sitting at home watching something from Netflix, or seeing the Fujimori documentary.

San Francisco, the little city that thinks it could.

Daniel Libeskind, Rock Star Architect

Last night I went with some friends to see a lecture by Daniel Libeskind. For those of you who don't know who he is, he is an architect that has risen to fame in the US primarily because of his winning design for the World Trade Center site, the so-called "Freedom Tower" and associated buildings.

He spoke inside a temple at a local synagogue. Apparently there was some kind of communication error, as he let us know that we wasn't allowed to use any kind of visual projectors in the synagogue. Weird that this wasn't communicated, but also weird that he thought he could just set up power point in there.

Regardless, he spent the next hour simply talking about architecture. And even though he's one of those typical, esoteric artsy weirdos who loves his own voice, it was fascinating. It was really amazing to see an architect working a room on his WORDS and not the images of his buildings and projects. Granted, I'm a bit biased here, as I love this kind of stuff. But there were plenty of normal people in there who were obviously in a trance over what he was saying.

Although I'm sure that my friends' interpretation will be different, this is what I took away from last night - it's not about the design of the building, it's about its connection to people. Fortunately for Libeskind and those in his profession, good architecture, whatever that is, connects people to the building better than bad architecture. But a striking building isn't just something to look at; it's a place that reminds us of what once was and what can be again; it can make a person's life easier by giving them something to dream about. And Libeskind's work has arguably done that.

Now the question is, is what's going on at Ground Zero a good thing from a planning perspective?

http://www.daniel-libeskind.com/

http://www.renewnyc.com/plan_des_dev/wtc_site/new_design_plans
/Freedom_Tower/freedom_tower_dec_19.asp

Musings of a Dodger fan in San Francisco

Yes, I said it, and I say it with pride - I am a dodger fan in san Francisco. hell, I actually wear my dodgers cap to games. suicidal I know. brave, yes. admirable, of course.

I was born and raised just north of la, valencia (magic mountain for all those who have no idea where valencia is). my father was (and is) an avid dodgers fan. I basically grew up with this team, and (likely in order to impress my dad) used to call dodger talk when I was 8 to ask the sportscasters stuff about my favourite players.

flash forward 22+ years later, one strike later, and only one stinking world series appearance later (at least we won giants fans!), I still am a fan. I've lived in san Francisco off and on, mostly on, for nearly 8 years now. and I probably see 75% of the dodger giants games when there here.

being a white male, this is probably the closest I'll ever get to discrimination. just one example - my lady friend and I (she's gonna kill me that I called her that, sorry FIANCE!!) were walking to the game, and I had my cap on. we stopped in a sandwich place on the way down, and I swear, she asked for three or four different types of sandwiches, only to be told "sorry, we're out of this" or "oops, we're out of that". this is a poorly run business, i'm thinking. just before a game, hundreds streaming by, and wow, they're already out of food. then I remember the cap. then I see them serve someone else.

I was discriminated against. i've been called a Fucking bastard asshole. i've had food thrown at me. I had someone call me dirt, and mean it. i'm not really sure why there's this anger, given that when i've seen giants fans at dodger stadium, I just don't care (given that I don't usually arrive at the game in la until the 2nd inning like the rest of dodgers fans).

it's led me to think about why we love our teams, and we love to hate the other side. we are all competitors. period. nothing makes us feel better than being with a group of people who hate another group of people (well, until we decide the people in our group deserve our hate too). there is something inherent in our nature that makes us want to be different, just different enough so we're not too different to be noticed. sports allow us to do that. Sports allows us to take all that anger from the week, all that frustration, and lob it at someone else in a socially acceptable manner. which is just hilarious to me, because if one applied this principle to their hatred of some other "group", say, asians, they'd have some serious problems.

my point being this: love a sports team and yell and scream and act like an idiot. better you do it there.

New Pope

So we have a new pope. well, you have a new pope. i don't have much, and i don't have a new pope. because i never had an old one.

a 78-year old "transitional pope". This is a concept that does not make much sense to me. what is the catholic church trying to transition to? if you're going to make a transition, just do it.

interestingly enought though, even though i am not a religious person, i think benedict is a pretty good choice. i know that i will get a lot of flack from my one reader (thanks baby) for this statement. but this is my take. religion is not something that you should be able to pick from. what's the point if you, as a mere mortal, get to decide what parts you like and what parts you don't like? especially when you look at something as dogmatic and (let's just say it) strict as Catholicism.

there are a lot of "cafeteria catholics" out there, picking and choosing what parts they like and what to have in their lives. But what's the point? if this is the word of god through christ, then shouldn't you buy it lock, stock and barrel? If it's the word of god through men, then how can you buy any of it? wouldn't it just be better to say you believe in the spirit of the words?

my point being this - benedict, being the keeper of the faith for 20 years, being the previous pope's right hand man, being the one responsible in the church for keeping down liberal thought, being the one who ensured as strict a reading of the bible as possible (given simple world reality, as well as the changes he says he's embraced from the second vatican ecumenical council - he's exactly the guy for catholocism. yay benedict.

Let me be clear though - I am not saying that if you interpret the Bible or the Koran or any other texts in your own way to make it work for you that you're a bad person. I just don't understand how you can.

What, Me Rant?

Well here goes.

As i Usually am about three to five years late on any "new thing" or "fad", i figured that meant it was time for me to start a blog. probably a lot like other blogs too, but what the hell? in this day, when anything printed is taken literally by at least someone out there, it's time for my own brand of wit and perspective to make the scene.

what will i rant about? probably pretty much everything. politics, movies, music, my friends (well no i won't do that), culture, san francisco (where i live), food... whatever. and i would love your feedback. tell me i'm right on or totally full of it.

so come back soon.

jeremy