Pet names

I'm intrigued by what people call their pets.

My brother named his cat "Skookums" after the Chinook word for the creature otherwise known as Sasquatch. Mark Twain is said to have dubbed his housecats "Famine," "Pestilence," "Satan," and "Sin." One of my law professors has a little dog she styles "William the Conqueror." My dad had a law school classmate who kept in his carrel a goldfish named after the eminent American jurist Learned Hand.

I like the idea of naming animals after historical or literary figures. We'll probably end up getting a cat after I graduate and we move into a house rather than an apartment. We've decided that his name will be "Count Leo." If I had a golden retriever I would call him "Lord Byron." If we ever got a husky or malamute, his name would be "Pushkin."

I also like the idea of giving the pets a title as part for their name. It exalts the animal kingdom tongue-in-cheek and points out the utter silliness of our human pretense. It seems to me that it uses humor to advance the great mandate that "ye shall not esteem one flesh above another."

One of my favorite names ever is the alliterative moniker of the the Supreme Court Justice Felix Frankfurter. The great thing about this name is that if takes two words, one Latin and one German, that both begin with F, but that, by some hilarious miracle of history, both begin with H when translated into their American English cognates. Felix Frankfurter becomes Happy Hot-dog. It's a wonderful name. And Felix is of course, a archetypal cat name. So naturally, I also would like to name a cat "Mr. Justice Frankfurter."

Calling all ska fans!

I'm writing a paper on ska and its fans, and I created a little survey to help me collect some data. If you are a fan of ska (and only if you consider yourself such a fan), please click on the link and take the survey. It's pretty short--should really only take you five minutes or so. Thanks!

Click Here to take survey

An experiment.

I find many passages of scripture to be poetic, but I find the numbered verse format to be rigid and stifling, and not conductive of the lyrical beauty that I'm convinced is often there. After amanda's recent post soliciting thoughts on light, I've been thinking about one passage in particular. Here's an experiment with line breaks---an attempt to bring out the rhythmic beauty I hear in these words.

Doctrine and Covenants 88:6-13.

This is the light of Christ.

As also he is in the sun,
and the light of the sun,
and the power thereof by which it was made.
As also he is in the moon,
and is the light of the moon,
and the power thereof by which it was made;
As also the light of the stars,
and the power thereof by which they were made;
And the earth also---
and the power thereof,
even the earth upon which you stand.

And the light
which shineth,
which giveth you light,
is through him
who enlighteneth your eyes,
which is the same light
that quickeneth your understandings;

Which light proceedeth forth
from the presence of God
to fill the immensity of space—

The light
which is in all things,
which giveth life to all things,
which is the law by which all things are governed,
even the power of God
who sitteth upon his throne,
who is in the bosom of eternity,
who is in the midst of all things.

What say ye?

A dumb euphemism

So my new calling is to teach Sunday school to the 12-18 year olds. Yes, that's right, all the youth are in one class. One of the many joys (I'm saying this seriously, not ironically) of a small ward. It can be a challenge to teach in a way that is both interesting to the older kids and not boring to the younger ones, but sometimes I do it.

Anyway, this past week went really well. We studied Jacob 1-4 in the Book of Mormon. We talked about how Nephi got old and decided that separation of church and state seemed like a good idea, anointed some nameless dude to be king, and consecrated Jacob (and Joseph, as a footnote) to be preachers. We talked about how Jacob took his calling as a preacher very seriously and we talked about the three main sins he preached against: (1) love of riches/pride, (2) sexual sin, and (3) racism.

As I prepared the lesson, though, I noticed how the manual only once uses the word "sexual" and only once uses the word "unchastity". Instead, it refers repeatedly to "immorality." First, I just thought this was strange. It seemed like some kind of weird, harmless, victorian squeamishness. Then I started to think about the (probably unintended) implications of this particular euphemism. The manual says

"After warning the people about pride and the love of riches, Jacob called them to repentance for their immoral behavior. How were the Nephites rationalizing their immoral behavior?"

It then asks

"Why is it important to be morally clean?"

And then this:

"What must a person do to be forgiven of immorality?"

My problem with this particular wording is that it implies that "pride and the love of riches" are not "immoral behavior," that avoiding sexual sin is equivalent to being "morally clean" and that there is some kind of different, harder kind of repentance to be forgiven for sexual sin than for other kinds of sin.

The danger of this euphemism, I think, is that using "immorality" as code for sexual sin allows us to let ourselves off the hook too easily. And it reflects, I think, a larger problem. We are so obsessed with sex in our culture, that at times (especially for the youth) it begins to eclipse every other sin. The danger is that we may begin to think that if we're not fornicating, we're doing just fine. I'm all for being more optimistic and I believe strongly that discouragement and guilt are almost always diabolically inspired. One of Satan's most effective lies is that forgiveness is too hard. But his other lie is that it is too easy.

If a prophet says "don't do anything immoral" and I think, "well, I may be a hypocrite and grind on the faces of the poor, but at least I'm not a fornicator, so I'm alright," then I'm not in a good position. Of course if I listen to everything the prophets say, then I'll probably get the message that there's more to it. But in our sound-byte world, that may be asking a lot. For example: how many times did we hear the phrase "tender mercies" in 2005? Now we even have a song about it. Now, how many times did we actually read or discuss the talk Elder Bednar gave where he quoted Nephi talking about the tender mercies of the Lord? I even heard people talk as though Elder Bednar had authored the phrase rather than Nephi. I don't fault Elder Bednar for the fact that people listened to only one phrase of his talk, I just think it reflects the fact that our society does not do well remembering anything longer than a sound-byte.

Now I'm sure that the CES committee that wrote the manual didn't use the "immorality" euphemism with some ill-intent to make it easy to justify ourselves. I'm sure they really were only motivated by an odd, perhaps subconscious, victorian aversion to speaking of sex. But the point is that words matter. See, e.g., Elder Holland. We can't afford to be careless with our words. We should be precise and accurate, we should speak in a way that we cannot easily be taken out of context and twisted, confused, or misremembered. All sexual sin==immorality, but all immorality=/=sexual sin. I bristle at this euphemism. Let's just call it what it is. As Nephi said, I glory in plainness.

When did the NYT hire Speilberg as a photographer?

If it weren't for the fact that what's happening in Pakistan really is a tragedy, this would be hilarious. As it is, it's just funny. The other day I went to the NYT website to keep abreast of of world events, and as the page loaded, I beheld this.



Now, is it just me, or does this picture not look like a poster for a bad action movie? I can hear the trailer voice-over: "In a world where no lawyer is safe, how can one man in a black suit survive? How can he find the woman he loves when barbed wire and tear gas are stacked against him? Will they escape? Will he shoes be unscuffed? Coming this spring, an fast-paced, high-stakes action adventure, 'Justice without Mercy,' starring a low-budget Bollywood Burt Reynolds look-a-like."

Read the story here. Turns out it has nothing to do with Burt Reynolds.

Why is this not on the headline of every paper?

My perusal of the drudge report last week yielded this: "Automated Killer Robots are a Threat to Humanity."

I have three reactions. First, it's redundant. Aren't all robots automated? Isn't "automated" a derivative of "automaton," which is just another word for robot anyway? Second, that kind of seems like a no-brainer. I mean, if there really are automated killer robots out there, isn't it pretty obvious that they would be a threat to humanity? Third, if automated killer robots actually are threatening humanity, why is this not being trumpeted from the rooftops? Must be the liberal media with it's pro-robot agenda.

Cinematographicus: Across the Universe (2007)

We picked this one up at Target last week. I remember being intrigued by it when it came out, hearing classmates review it positively, thinking I might see it, and then forgetting about it. The main idea is that it is a love story / hippie drama musical pieced together out of Beatles songs. The first comparison that comes to mind is Mama Mia!. Except that Across the Universe was not on Broadway, and of course, that it is an insult to all coolness to compare the finest rock songs of the 20th century to the disco drivel of Abba.

Watching this movie is kind of like watching two hours of MTV---old school MTV, when there were actually music videos instead of a mind-numbing, horizonless expanse of "reality" TV programming. Like any decent music video, there's a heavy emphasis on creative camerawork, and making the visual aesthetic reflect the music. The difference is that there is some plot continuity, less overt hero-worship of musicians, and no straight band-playing scenes.

No, it's actually closer to Moulin Rouge, both stylistically and thematically. Both films depart from the standard stage-inspired musical template by weaving the music into the plot, and keeping the story going through the songs. This makes for a more pleasant viewing experience than the stage-based template where the plot is continuously put on hold to show off the singing or dancing abilities of the actors. It's better adapted to the screen, where long singing and dancing scenes can invoke more yawns than smiles. See the 1965 film version of Rogers & Hammerstein's Cinderella as an example of the worst offenders.

And both films deal heavily in the ideal of the restricting and destructive nature of society pitted against the liberating ideals of love, sex, music, art, and of course, drugs. The absinthe-happy bohemians of Moulin Rouge are a pretty straight parallel to the psychadelic hippies living in New York in Across the Universe.

But the hippie narrative departs from substance-induced reveries and love fest of Moulin Rouge, when Across the Universe portrays the social upheaval of the 60s---the Detroit riots, the assassination of MLK, and the specter of Vietnam brooding over the whole film throughout. This adds a bit more weight and substance to the film (but not that much---it's still a musical). The Vietnam sequences also create some of the more interesting visual imagery---a spectral, almost skeletal Uncle Sam singing out of a recruiting poster and an Iwo Jima-esque group of young men in underwear and combat boots, struggling to carry an enormous statue of liberty over rice paddies and jungles in "I want you (she's so heavy)," and flaming strawberries dropping out of an airplane's bomb bay over the jungle in "Strawberry fields."

Like with the Beatles' own music, there's also a thematic progression. The opening scene is a sad, seaside rendition of the opening lines of "Girl" basically lifted from Moulin Rouge's rendition of Nat King Cole's "Nature Boy." The next scene opens to "It won't be long" with a picturesque sock-hop scene and continues with stereotypical high-school scenes of football players and cheerleaders. But by the end, the darker and more more psychedelic tunes dominate as it all takes a downward spiral. The low point is "Happiness is a warm gun" when we see one of the main characters, shell-shocked in a military hospital, sung to and tranquilized by a nurse played by Selma Hayek. But it all ends predictably with "All you need is love."

I had two favorite scenes. The first, "Let it be," is sung to the backdrop of the Detroit riots cross edited with scenes of a family learning of a soldier's death. It eventually turns into a gospel song at a funeral, and is actually kind of moving.



The second, "Revolution" shows off the integration of music, and especially of lyrics, into the plot. It's also just a great song.



There are things I could have done without. There was a scene, for example, where the main character, who is clichédly an artist, draws his sleeping naked girlfriend. We see a nipple. But it's not just the nudity that bugged me about the scene, it was the uncanny parallel to the naked drawing scene in Titanic. Anything that reminds me of Titanic gets minus 10 points at the outset. But this was doubly wrong because the chain of connections leads incestuously back onto itself: Titanic starred Leonardo DiCaprio, who also starred in Romeo and Juliet which was directed by Baz Luhrmann (who names their kid Baz, anyway?), who also directed Moulin Rouge, which serves in many ways as a template for Across the Universe. That's only four connections. That's like marrying your cousin and is totally unacceptable. Unless of course your cousin is Kevin Bacon. Then it's inevitable.

And the psychadelic descent, while interesting (and while maybe an accurate portrayal of the spirit of the 1960s), got a bit too weird for me. On the up side, it did include Bono making a cameo appearance to sing "I am the walrus."

Overall, my reaction is positive, but don't set your expectations too high.

Jobs Americans Won't Do: Win Oscars

All acting Oscars went to foreigners this year, and foreigners also won various other Oscars as well. I'm waiting for some nonsensical rant from an anti-immigrant zealot to declare the end of the American film industry since non-Americans are doing so well.

Cinematographicus: "Serenity" (2005)

In a move that would once more prove that Fox is a network of complete morons, Firefly died in 2002, shortly after seeing the light of day. Its questionable numbers in viewership were certainly not helped by the fact that Fox aired the episodes out of order (the very pilot wasn't aired for two or three weeks after the SECOND installment was shown!), juggled its time slot like a hopped-up circus clown, and unreasonably would go weeks on end without airing a new one. The last four episodes of the season had been produced but never saw the light of day until the DVD release a couple years later.

The show's premise was creatively original and fresh, something that hadn't been done in some time. Classified as a "Sci-Fi Western" (side note: did you know that "Star Wars" was originally labeled a western?), the show followed a retired Confederate rebel who'd earned his veteran status in an intragalactic battle with the Alliance, the future's Man and governing body that performs unspeakable acts of horror and downright intrusion in the name of justice and peace. Mal, now captain of a small crew aboard a ship they use to run their business as smugglers, spends his time running jobs and quietly avoiding run-ins with the Alliance by keeping his work as far into the outskirts of society as possible.

What's more to add to the very Western feel of the premise is that, despite advancements in technology, shotguns and revolvers are still common weapons. Mal carries a sidearm in a holster around his waist on a regular basis. There's also an episode that involves the transportation and herding of a large number of cattle. Certainly an unorthodox setting for an attempt at pop culture success, but nonetheless delightful. Mal's the type of character you love to watch. He doesn't put up with the silly, cliche-type setups that most pop culture icons find themselves in (he's more likely to blow a bad guy's head off than listen to his attempt at a monologue), and thus provides a critique of formulaic storytelling and melodrama. Each and every member of the crew is also a treat in his or her own respect.

Joss Whedon, creator of Firefly (and Buffy the Vampire Slayer, among others), managed to draw a cult following after the show's cancellation. It was strong enough to get the studios to back a feature film that took us back to this universe, and it was the preview of this film that sparked my interest in these characters (I didn't watch any television, aside from bits and pieces of Carita de Angel, from 2001-2003 and therefore missed the series' original airing). An old roommate of mine owned the DVD set of Firefly and let me watch the pilot before hitting up the theater for the film.

Hands down, "Serenity" is one of the most well-constructed movies I've ever seen. In addition to all the excellent elements carried over from the TV show, the visuals are greatly enhanced by the budget of a major motion picture, the story's intensity is kicked up about ten notches, and the action sequences are all the more stunning. You know how, in most films, you can somewhat predict the overall outcome of the story, depending on their genre and inciting incidents? Well, the genius of Joss Whedon's tale here was that it somehow managed to keep me guessing the entire length of the film! In fact, there was a long stretch of the story where I felt an utter sense of hopelessness for Mal and his crew -- there was NO way they were going to walk away from this situation, even if they were to succeed in their ultimate objective (and, in fact, some of them don't). The sense of doom was thicker than Christina Ricci's forehead!

The other major element of "Serenity" that makes this movie so interesting to me is its message that teaches the viewer to never be a fence-sitter, but to rather take a stance on issues (of any magnitude) and proactively stand by them. This theme is illustrated as Mal finds himself having to wrestle with the fact that merely "staying out of the Alliance's way" is detrimental and imprisoning, not to mention unjust to the people who have less power than he to oppose their iron fist. The point is not to always come out on top, the point is to do what you feel is right and embrace that part of you. The theme is a very important message, and a very unique one at that, given the large number of films that seem to teach us no more than "don't get carried away with science" or "BFF's are more important then selling out for romance."

Finally, if NOTHING else convinces you to rent this movie right away, know that it's jam-packed with awesome action sequences. Not only are there some complex, explosive space battles (side note: Whedon opts to go with a slightly more scientific approach to the outer space battle sequence in that, when an explosion occurs in the vacuum, there is no accompanying "kaboom!" sound), but one of the major characters (who is an inciting incident for the entire series) surprisingly breaks out of her mellow shell and delivers some fan-freakin'-tastic hand-to-hand combat scenes that WILL blow you away.

I give this film a definite 10/10 rating and sincerely hope a sequel is made one day.

Playlist for Chicago.

So I'm going to the Windy City on Thursday to compete in the Jessup International Moot Court Tournament. I need a good collection of tunes to accompany my travels and entrance into the land of the Bulls and Bears. I'm thinking a of a good mix of Chicago-related songs, oral argument related songs, and just plain good tunes.

So what are some good ones to include?

I only make one stipulation. The "eye of the tiger" is not allowed. That song wasn't too bad but then it got way overused as a psych-up song for high school sports teams. Then it got even worse when it got overused as a psych-up song for middle-school girls basketball teams. Then it plummeted even further when it got overused as a psych-up song for cheerleaders. To use it as a psych-up song for a moot court team would just be adding insult to injury.

Maybe I need three lists: one to enter Chicago, one to leave Chicago triumphantly if we place well, and one to leave Chicago despondently if we get knocked out early.

McCain raises the stakes in celebrity tough-guy endorsements

John McCain sees Mike Huckabee's Texas Ranger and Raises him a Rambo and a Rocky. The ironic thing is, in a competition for whose celebrity endorsement will make the biggest difference in the end, both these tough-guys lose to Oprah.

Bill Clinton caught sleeping in church

Attacking Obama all weekend, Bill must have just tuckered himself out. From the New York Post:

Debate Reactions

A few thoughts:

1) Why is Edwards still running? The guy hasn't won a primary yet, hasn't come close to winning one, and is not going to win one. At one point, when Clinton and Obama really got into it, Edwards asked "Are there just two people in this debate." The funny thing is, actually, there really are only two serious possible candidates.

My thought has been that he's trying to pull some decent percentages to use as leverage to be the VP candidate. But that's not a good strategy if he waits too long. Edwards' support comes mainly from the health-care/labor faction of the Democratic party--a faction that will be less relevant as the focus moves from party nomination to general election. The reality is that Edwards will not win. There are, I suspect, a good number of voters who know for sure they don't like Clinton, but who can't decide who is the better Clinton alternative. At this point, about the only thing that Edwards' candidacy is going to do is weaken Obama. As both Clinton and Edwards turned on Obama, the one thing that seemed clear was that Clinton sure is glad Edwards is still running.

2) Obama did seem a tad Janus-faced when he attacked Clinton and then asked for more civility. On the other hand, for me it's forgivable. With the attacks coming from the Clinton campaign lately, it's not realistic to expect Obama to not respond by giving her a bit of her own medicine. One thing he did do well was to actually have an explanation for what Clinton calls inconsistencies in his record.

He did get off one of the best lines of the night on this topic. When he said that Bill Clinton was distorting his record on behalf of his wife's campaign, Hillary tried to draw the focus away from Bill saying "I'm here, he's not." Obama shot back, "Well, sometimes its hard to tell who I'm running against."

Actually, I think Obama played a good rhetorical move by constantly bringing up Bill. You might think that Bill's popularity might make Obama want to draw the focus of him, but by constantly mentioning him in the same breath as Hillary, Obama continually reminded audiences that he's up against the Clinton machine, not just Hillary Clinton. It raises the unseemly specter of a behind the scenes third-term Bill behind his own version of a Manchurian candidate. It also makes Obama the underdog, and it allows him to write off his losses as the result of having been double-teamed.

3) Obama is better at responding to attacks than Clinton is. I think it's perfectly fair for a candidate to use personal attacks in politics. I also think it's perfectly fair for candidate to call the attacker to task for it.

It all started when Clinton started attacking Obama for having something nice to say about President Reagan. Obama's response:

What I said -- and I will provide you with a quote -- what I said was is that Ronald Reagan was a transformative political figure because he was able to get Democrats to vote against their economic interests to form a majority to push through their agenda, an agenda that I objected to. Because while I was working on those streets watching those folks see their jobs shift overseas, you were a corporate lawyer sitting on the board at Wal-Mart.

Fightin' words. So Clinton tries to respond. But rather than explain her ties to Wal-mart, she hits back.

CLINTON: Well, you know, I think we both have very passionate and committed spouses who stand up for us. And I'm proud of that.

But you also talked about the Republicans having ideas over the last 10 to 15 years.

OBAMA: I didn't say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, you can read the context of it.

OBAMA: Well, I didn't say they were good ones.

CLINTON: Well, it certainly...

OBAMA: All right, Wolf.

CLINTON: It certainly came across in the way that it was presented, as though the Republicans had been standing up against the conventional wisdom with their ideas. I'm just reacting to the fact, yes, they did have ideas, and they were bad ideas.

OBAMA: I agree.

CLINTON: Bad for America, and I was fighting against those ideas when you were practicing law and representing your contributor, Resco, in his slum-lord business in inner city Chicago.

So what's worse, being on the board of Wal-mart, or representing a slum-lord? Close call. Both provide something that there is a market for, I guess. But compare Obama's response to Clinton's attack to her response to his attack:

BLITZER: I just want to give you a chance, Senator Obama, if you want to respond. Senator Clinton made a serious allegation that you worked for a slumlord. And I wonder if you want to respond.

OBAMA: I'm happy to respond. Here's what happened: I was an associate at a law firm that represented a church group that had partnered with this individual to do a project and I did about five hours worth of work on this joint project. That's what she's referring to.

Now, it's fine for her to throw that out, but the larger reason that I think this debate is important is because we do have to trust our leaders and what they say. That is important, because if we can't, then we're not going to be able to mobilize the American people behind bringing about changes in health care reform, bringing about changes in how we're going to put people back to work, changing our trade laws. And consistency matters. Truthfulness during campaigns makes a difference.

Way more effective. Rather than hit back tit-for-tat, he corrects what he calls a lie on Clinton's part by putting his own spin on it, and then bringing it back to his theme about truthfulness in the campaign.

Another moment when Clinton's attacks seemed to backfire was when she accused Obama of being evasive and unwilling to talk about his record. She brought up the fact that he voted against an amendment that would have capped credit card interest rates at 30%. Obama explained that he voted against the amendment because he thought 30% was too high, and he wanted to see serious debate on the issue before voting for anything. The irony of it all, is that even though Obama voted against the amendment, he still voted against the bill it was attached to, while Clinton and Edwards both voted for it before changing their minds and voting against it. But Clinton's attack did not go well, and it was the only time a candidate drew audible boos from the audience. She said:

Well, you know, Senator Obama, it is very difficult having a straight-up debate with you, because you never take responsibility for any vote, and that has been a pattern.

You, in the -- now, wait a minute. In the Illinois state legislature...

(AUDIENCE BOOING)

4) This is my most superficial observation. Compare the three candidates when they raise their voice. When Edwards does it, he drawls more and it just accentuates his folksiness. When Obama does it, his voice deepens and becomes more resonant. When Clinton does it, it grates on my ears. She sounds feisty, yes, which is what I think she's going for, but she also sounds shrill. It's not good for her. I think she would do better to keep an even-keel. I know there's a certain misogynistic connotation associated with the word "shrill," but I honestly can't think of a word that better describes Clinton's voice.

5) One last thought. The last question of the debate was "If MLK were alive today, why would he endorse you?" Edwards actually answered the question fairly well. He said that King's life was dedicated to eradicating poverty and that his campaign is as well. Obama said that King would endorse none of them because he would let people make their own choices. Clinton basically ignored the question and talked about how nice it is that there's an African-American, and woman, and a "son of the south" (zip-a-de-doo-dah, zip-a-dee-ay! My dad worked in a mill, so vote for me!) running together. While Obama came the closest, none gave the answer that I wanted to hear. If it were me, this is how I would have responded:

Well, I fundamentally disagree with the premise of that question, that we ought to be speaking for Dr. King and claiming him as our own to use as a weapon against each other in our political fight. Rather than speak for him, we ought to let his life and his work speak for itself. I refuse to claim Dr. King as mine alone because his legacy is one that belongs to all Americans. But I will tell you how my vision for America is consistent with Dr. King's dream...

Anyway, here's the transcript of the debate.

Happy Birthday, Walter Mondale!

Walter Mondale, namesake of my Law School, former VP and one-time presidential candidate turned 80 today. I gotta say, he looks pretty good for his age. Too bad he's endorsing Clinton.

A few observations on the Iowa caucus speeches last night

I'll leave the parsing of the percentages and all that to abler analysts. What interests me more than the results are the speeches that followed. I didn't stay up to watch all the speeches, I was mostly interested in Obama's and Huckabee's as the winners. But while waiting for those two I did catch Edwards' and Clinton's.

First was Clinton. She was predictably stilted and only barely stifled her rage at Obama and Edwards. It was a stale, safe, innocuous, boring speech. The highlight was seeing Madeline Albright over her right shoulder.



Next was Edwards. I suppose it's no surprise that Edwards did well in Iowa, what with his populist pro-union, anti-free trade, universal health care shtick. Not surprisingly, his speech hit the health care theme hard, complete with anecdotes of individual Americans who get sick and can't pay for treatment delivered in a charming, folksy drawl. It's his bread and butter. It's his theme, and he plays it well. He played it well as a trial lawyer and he still does well. The only problem is that he's a bit of a Johnny-one-note. My other stylistic criticism of Edwards he does the Bill Clinton thumb point. The idea is that pointing is rude and a subtle thumb emphasis is more friendly. But when Clinton was in office, the thumb point was satirized to death by late night comics ("Ah feel your pain"). Edwards doing it now is almost self-caricature.



Then came Huckabee. It was about what you would expect. A lot of folksy grandstanding, a lot of talk about our American (i.e. evangelical Christian) values, and a lot of drawling. He talked about how it's a "new day" in American politics---an throwback, I think, to Reagan's "morning in America." The funniest part of Huckabee's speech was the way a be-flanneled Chuck Norris hung, fawning, on his every word like, grinning giddily like a twelve-year-old girl at a Hannah Montana concert. And for some inexplicable reason, the unshaven Texas Ranger shifted from Huckabee's left shoulder to his right shoulder midway through the speech.



Obama's was the best speech of the night. I like to compare it with Edwards. Edwards' message really plays only to working class Democrats. That's not a bad thing, particularly in a Democratic primary in Iowa, but it is limiting. Obama's message has a more universal appeal. He eschewed the Clintonian anecdotes of individuals and went for a more abstract, but more unifying message hitting hard on hope, unity, and possibility. Such abstractions can be hard to visualize and can often make for a forgettable speech, But Obama countered that with his personal stage presence. I appreciate that Obama does the real finger point rather than the Clintonian thumb point. I don't think it's rude, I think it's forceful. He was by far the most energetic, the most passionate. This highlighted his youth and energy, which in turn complements his message of change over Clinton's of experience.




Speaking of Democratic youth, energy, and idealism, I couldn't help but see shades of Kennedy. Not only is Obama a young man who appeals to the unifying transcendence of American values, but he also has a young, attractive, graceful wife, and two cute kids to boot. And if you look at Michelle Obama, it's not hard to see a shadow of Jacki Kennedy, especially in her conservative, chin length, flipped coif---specially last night, wearing pearls and a conservative dress that would not have been too out of place in the 1960s. All she needed was a pill box hat, and a pair of gloves. It was to the point that I almost wonder if it's on purpose.

But after two Bushes and a Clinton, I guess we could use another Camelot after all.

Anyone see Romney's?

Why I want Romney to win the Republican nomination

This is cross-posted at the Council of Fifty.

I don't like Romney's politics. I've said this before. I also think he has come across as insincere and seems to be more a conservative of convenience than of conviction. I also can't get his support for President Bush's foreign policies.

But I want Romney to win. As I've said before, I think it would be good for the Republican party. So what do I, a Democrat, care about having a good Republican party? Well, if my party screws it up, there's only one other alternative. Sure there's a lot of dissatisfaction right now with the current Administration, but Congressional Democrats aren't that far behind he President as targets of public bile. In this atmosphere, neither party is all that likely to win an overwhelming Congressional majority. And the fact is, no matter which party wins the White House in 2008, the other one will still have a significant amount of power. So even if there's a Democrat in the White House, the Republicans will still have plenty of influence. I want them to be shepherded by a party leadership that is moderate, pragmatic, reasonable.

An additional reason: it would make Clinton less likely to win the Democratic nomination. If, say, Huckabee gets it, he would stand no chance against Clinton, and the liberal party elite would have an easier time getting Clinton the victory because the concern about drawing moderate votes would be essentially irrelevant. If, on the other hand, the Republicans put up someone with a real fighting chance to beat Clinton, the Democrats would be more likely to give their nomination to a candidate less polarizing than the ex-First Lady, someone who could draw more moderate voters.

Romney is more Presidential, arguably more moderate, and most importantly, better funded than any of the other Republican candidates. He stands the best chance against Clinton. If he wins, the Democrats will be forced to think more carefully about nominating Clinton. A strong, moderate, electable Republican candidate gives more leverage to the Edwards and Obama campaigns to argue that Clinton, a elite northeastern liberal connected to perhaps the most hated Democrat (at least among conservatives) in recent memory, can't win in the heartland.

And on a personal level, it comes down to this: I don't want to vote for Clinton. And at this point, Romney is the most appealing Republican.

So what's my beef with Hillary? Well, for one, it goes back to before my mission when she first started trying to be a Senator from my home state (actually, I voted against her by absentee ballot). I had no problem in theory with the idea of Clinton running for, or even being my Senator. She's certainly capable. But the fact that she wasn't from New York and hadn't lived there, that she bought a house to barely met the residency requirements, and that it was obvious that she had chosen New York only because it was a liberal enough state to elect her to a calculated Presidential launching pad---well, that bothered me.

And to make matters worse, the state Party leadership didn't even make her run the primary. They just handed her the nomination. That bothered me even more. Now, the interesting thing about Hillary Clinton is that most of the other members of the New York Delegation in Congress can't stand her, personally. These are the people that have worked with her, not those that are paid to stump for her. But they won't say that in public because of the huge amount of influence that the Clintons hold over the party machine. I trust their opinions, and I don't trust her.

Another problem with Clinton: We've already had eight years of the second half of a Republican political dynasty. Do we really want the same thing coming from the Democrats? Do we really want the last few decades of our history to go Bush-Clinton-Bush-Clinton? Are there really so few qualified people that we have to keep picking from the same two families?

Of course, it would be cool to say that we had finally elected a woman to be President. But do we really want to show the world that the only way a woman can be elected in this country is if she schemes for three decades, finagles her party leadership, and rides on her husband's popularity? Wouldn't we rather have a woman who gets elected on her own merits?

So I want the Republicans to choose someone that will give the Obama and Edwards campaigns a better chance against Clinton. Nobody but Romney can do it: McCain is too old and crazy, Huckabee is too trailer park and Ted Nugent, Fred "Cadaver" Thompson (AKA dead man walking) can barely keep his eyes open during interveiws, Guiliani ought to be disqualified for running a campaign based entirely on 9-11, and Ron Paul, well, come on, it's Ron Paul. If he wins, the Democrats might as well run Kucinich so we can distribute the crazy equally on both sides. It's got to be Romney.

On the other hand, if Clinton does win, that would make Bill the first First Gentleman, which might get him into the news more often and provide some excellent political comic relief.

Book Review: Leaping, Brian Doyle

Ways that Brian Doyle has changed my life (I went to three of his presentations when he visited campus last month and just finished Leaping):
a) I've come to realize the gift that artistic inspiration is. He quoted his dad as saying "the difference between writers and non-writers is that writers record the things they think about in the shower or lying in bed." Doyle also introduced half the essays he read with a story something like: "I met this incredible old woman/fireman/baseball playing kid, and they told me this story and after hearing it I shuffled off to my office as fast as I could to get it down." He talked about stories having expiration dates, that you have to write ideas down when they're fresh and interesting in your head. And how true this is. How many times have you had an interesting idea and put off doing anything with it? Soon enough either you forget it or it gets tired and brittle and is worth nothing. So I'm a little better at writing things down. And hope to get even better.
b) He made me a better Christian. Inspired me to be. First through this idea of stories: that people are stories and people want to share their stories and when you're humble enough to really listen you invite connection with people and I'm a huge believer that connection is our most urgent imperative in regards to our fellow man (John 15). Second through his example of a man unashamed of his faith and love. Moved to tears by stories of great sacrifice and of his children. Third, through what he taught me about grace. "God's love is more powerful than your sin hands-down, any day of the week." Why didn't I know this? Why have I been clinging to a wienie and watered-down version of grace hoping that this shadowy whisper of an omnipotent being's love was enough to pull me to salvation? Grace.

Leaping itself is pure gold. And think elven gold a la Tolkien--dancing and shimmering in inexplicable ways. It's a collection of essays on Christ and Grace and Children, but in the way of the best essayists, Doyle approaches inexpressible truths through the mundane and the ordinary. His essays feature summer camp and Bruce Springsteen and altar boys being boys. I regret that my review has taken such an ridiculous tone of the superlative because probably it undercuts my credibility, but the truth is that Doyle is a hilarious, human, and humble man with an eye for detail and a faith that shoots each essay through with a spark of the divine.
He manages it without dwelling in the dark and heavy. A tribute to the dead of 9-11 is somber and thought-provoking without being hopeless or vengeful.

I'd like to compare Leaping with Leap by Terry Tempest Williams for a minute. The two are both non-fiction, both attempts to defining and understanding faith and the way the glory of God works in a fallen world. Granted, their aims and audiences are different, but the fact remains: Williams' memoir is dark and jarring and the redemption at the end is a relief that just only justifies the vale of sorrow that readers have been pulled through. Doyle's short-ish pieces are grounded solidly in the muddy mundane (sorry, I've spent the afternoon reading Maxwell) but the heights of giddy redemption they reach are enough to pull you through dark winter finals weeks. Thoughtful and hilarious and human.

In my experience, when I feel closest to the divine I don't get sobby or somber, I want to dance and sing and laugh. That's the kind of divinity that Doyle captures. ke

Best and Worst Christmas Movies

Good:
It's a Wonderful Life. This one has real staying power, if nothing else. It's also sentimental enough for Christmas without being overly manipulative. It's a great story, the family and friends theme is both Christmas appropriate and timeless. It also has the interesting characteristic of an historical relic, with its strains of progressive (almost socialistic at times) politics.
Merry Christmas, Charlie Brown. This one is really more a TV special than a movie, but I think it has transcended its original context. Great music. The pacing is nicely done, moving back and forth at just the right speed between Snoopy's antics and the kids' story. Extra points for being the only one to quote the entire Christmas story from Luke. Linus is my hero.
Elf. The best recent one without question. Will Ferrel can be be tiresome in the wrong role, but this one suits him. Also, this one has the best Santa Claus---a cantankerous old connoisseur of NYC pizza. Extra points for making fun of the puppet movies. Best line: "Don't listen to Leon, he's never been anywhere; he doesn't even have feet!" Runner-up: "Bye, Mr. Narwhal."
A Muppet Christmas Carol. Christmas Carol adaptations could really be a separate category. Really, the only way to see it is on the stage. On screen, this one is my favorite.
Home Alone. Great characters. Physical comedy. A great soundtrack. An old man beating robbers with a shovel. What's not to like?
Scrooged. I like this overlooked Bill Murray performance. It doesn't have the festive-ness or the fun of the muppets, but it stays true enough to the story to be recognizable and plausible, while at the same time varying from it enough to avoid being nothing more than a remake of the George C. Scott version.
The Snowman. I'm not crazy about the altar-boy vocals during the flying scene. But telling the entire story sans words and keeping it engaging takes skill.
How the Grinch Stole Christmas. No, I'm not talking about that abomination with Jim Carey. The original is a classic. Who would have thought Boris Karloff would star in a Christmas film?

Mediocre:
All the stop-animation puppet films. Okay, I know these are pretty much a holiday staple. But they're so overrated. If you sit down and watch them without the nostalgia, you realize they're really not all that good. One exception: The Year Without a Santa Clause gets extra points for the heat miser and cold miser routines, and Yukon Cornelius is the best character this genre ever produced. Also, extra points for having a yeti as a main character.

Bad:
The Christmas Story. Another staple, but I'm going iconoclast with this. Maybe this movie isn't completely no good, but it is hugely overrated. It's so deep in nostalgia that it can't even see the plot. It has some funny moments, no doubt. But it certainly doesn't deserve the 24-hour Christmas Eve marathon it sometimes gets. Minus extra points for inspiring The Wonder Years.
Santa Claus: The Movie. This is a 1985 gem starring Dudley Moore, the 80s' favorite low-budget excuse for Paul McCartney. It gets points for doing a pretty decent job with explaining the origins of Santa and for doing a' decent visualization of the North Pole. It loses points for starring John Lithgow and having a very dated sound to the music.
Any sequel to any Christmas movie. Due to the electromagnetic force generated by the earth's rotation and tilt, the law of sequels (explained here) is several magnitudes stronger around the winter solstice.

Just Plain Ugly:
George and the Christmas Star. In this heartwarming animated tale, the title character decides his tree needs a start and decides to go on a space journey to get one. This is the worst Christmas movie ever produced. And probably rivals "Plan 9 from Outer Space" for the title of worst movie ever. Minus 10 for using Paul Anka to write the music.

Gun, Control.

Last week the NYT published an editorial by Adam Freedman about the Second Amendment case we're waiting for the Court to hear. Freedman blogs at Party of the First Part about the ongoing battle between legalese and plain English. I like Freedman. I identify with his obsessive disdain for legalese and love of plain Anglo-Saxon syntax. Freedman's editorial does a good job of summing up the textual wrangle in way that is precise, thorough, concise, and accessible. Well done.

New post on new blog: Why Democrats should be pro-life.

I've been invited to blog over at The Council of Fifty, a new blog about politics and Mormons (the name was my idea).

The original Council of Fifty was organized by Joseph Smith just prior to his death. The idea was that it would be a sort of political wing of God's Kingdom, while the church was the spiritual wing. The wikipedia article on it is pretty good. Two articles published in BYU Studies in 1980 give a more complete historical treatment. The first, by Michael Quinn, lays out the basic chronology and purposes. The second, by Andrew Ehat, attempts to answer some of the questions that Quinn raised and gets more into the theological background and purposes of the council.

This Council of Fifty is about discussing politics as it relates to Mormonism. My first post is about why the Democrats should be more open to running pro-lifers, especially for the Presidency. Here's a summary of my line of thought:

A less militantly pro-choice Democratic party would diffuse the potency of the abortion card. This would be good for the Democratic party, good for Mormons, and good for the Republican party as well. It would be good for Democrats because they could expand their base. It would be good for Mormons because it could help bring balance to the one-sidedness of political affiliation among Mormons. This in turn may give Republicans more incentive to attract Mormons, or at least to stop tolerating the anti-Mormon rhetoric from the fundamentalist wing of the party.

Of course, this is all speculative. But that’s what makes it fun.

So, really this post comes down to a few observations and a conclusion: (1) the Democrats are trying to ride a wave of populist discontent with the Bush administration and its blunders, (2) populist movements are only successful if they represent what is popular, (3) a hard-line pro-choice stance is out of line with what is popular, and (4) a hard-line pro-choice stance is not crucial to the party’s most important goals and ideals, especially not in presidential politics. Therefore, it makes sense for the party to moderate bit more on the abortion issue.

Read the entire post here. Leave comments about the argument there, comments about other stuff here. I don't want to poach the discussion.