Mr. President, Close. Down. That. Prison...

The Government Accountability Office ("GAO") found that the prison at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba can be safely closed and the remaining prisoners transferred to prisons on US soil with no ill effects. This should be done immediately. First off, this was a promise made by President Obama before his FIRST term in office, yet we are still discussing it (barely) four years later. One of the prime reasons for using Guantanamo was for security reasons and as a means to keep these enemy combatants from having the right to habeas corpus. With the GAO largely dismissing the security concerns and those combatants left are mostly being held without charges, why is it still open?

With everyone currently raving about Lincoln, rightfully so having seen it myself, there is an applicable part of the movie where President Lincoln is discussing with his cabinet the various things he has done because he felt them necessary and right despite the possibility of the actions being unconstitutional. He was mainly referring to the Emancipation Proclamation but of equal import was his suspension of habeas corpus using his powers as a war time President. These powers were again evoked, with a nod towards President Lincoln and the exigencies required by war, after the attacks of September 11th. The difference between the two, however, is that unlike the Civil War, the Authorization for Use of Military Force that followed the 9/11 attacks and preceded the official War on Terror is very open ended. Thus, the suspension of habeas corpus for those at Guantanamo Bay, and many previously at Guantanamo have been found to have done nothing related to terrorist activity but were simply picked up during the fog of war, remains open ended.

The point of that previous paragraph's aside being, President Obama did not open Guantanamo for that use and has no skin in the game. His promise to close the prison is now almost half a decade old and the GAO has stated that it is more than plausible to safely close it and transfer the prisoners to the continental U.S. So, does President Obama recognize the moral hazards of making decisions that may exist in the gray area where the President's war powers and the unconstitutionality meet like President Lincoln did? And, if so, why is the prison still open at the same time the President is winding down the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan?

Basically, Mr. President, please do as you promised and close down that prison.


IMAGE: Wikipedia.com

The Day the NY Jets Crashed

The day they got clowned by Harry Reid. Here we have just another one of many examples (See Fireman Ed's retirement due to harassment by fellow Jet "fans," anything related to Tebow or manufactured QB controversy, etc.) that has Jets fans hoping for a Mayan Apocalypse before the year is out. Now Harry Reid used to box so I am going to go ahead and assume that he's not a "let us got to the match of football" type Mormon like Mitt Romney, but he still kind of looks like an aged Harry Potter pwning the entire Jets fan base. It is truly embarrassing. The most astonishing part of this Jets season, however, is that they are actually in contention for a Wild Card spot and, due to their cream puff of a remaining schedule, they could win out and crash land (PUNS!) into the playoffs. Considering that the Jets played almost the entire year without their best offensive and defensive players, that would be an accomplishment and very quiet, almost whispered, testimonial to Rex Ryan's abilities as coach, despite all the distractions, and hopefully keeps him at the helm.

Not that anyone should be holding out hope for miracles in the future. The Jets, thanks to the incompetent mismanagement by Tannenbaum and Johnson (I don't care what he says, Woody was definitely instrumental in pushing the Tebow trade), have a hole-y (PUNS!) mess of a roster. Although the offensive line is generally good, there are almost no weapons on offense outside of Holmes. Keller has fallen off despite showing promise last year, a #2 receiver hasn't revealed himself yet, and Shonn Greene has proven himself to be a bust. Bilal Powell has shown some ability this year but he is a small upgrade, if anything, over Greene. Concrete Hands McKnight has yet to shown anything to open up hope that he could be an effective back and, Sparano be damned, the Jets still have not figured out how to use Tebow in the Wildcat. The defensive side, though still looking good this year, is old and much of the Jets' scheme revolves around a healthy Revis. To be fair, Cromartie did a good job in his absence and Sexy Rexy and his lieutenants did a good job of adjusting the defensive scheme so that the D was still effective.

Unless some changes are made, and I do not even know if the front office is competent to make them, the Jets may squeak into the playoffs this year but will most likely remain grounded next. Here's to hoping, I am wrong.


IMAGE: amazon.com

Is Hot Bag of Air That Is Grover Norquist Finally Floating Away?

According to a lot of press lately, which was even accompanied by some minor scolding from his own party, it seems as if Grover Norquist might be losing his kung-fu grip on the balls of the republican party when it comes to anything and everything involving his favorite four letter word... tax. But in the harsh light in the post-election morning, GOP politicians are beginning to realize that the napoleonic GOP tax emperor has no clothes. Or more realistically considering the climate and how the Republicans are polling against the President on the so-called fiscal cliff, they realize that threat of Mr. Norquist holding (most of) their previous anti-tax pledges against them in a future primary battle is rather hollow in the face of refusing to let the Bush tax cuts expire against the highest two tax brackets (I am not even going to get hysterically started on how the Bush tax cuts were ALWAYS supposed to sunset after 10 years). The majority of people support the raising of the wealthiest and most will also blame the GOP if a deal gets done. The bet being made many is that it is a lot more dangerous to the electoral prospects of those involved to obey Grover rather than to ignore him.

The party has not put Grover in the corner yet, however. He is now trying to use the debt ceiling to get what he, and many far-right conservatives in the House as well (to be fair), wants on the fiscal cliff. Boehner has now even stated that "everything has a price" as an barely implicit threat to use the debt ceiling despite the fact that it threatens the full faith and credit of the US, led to a downgrade of the US' credit rating last year and 60% of Americans support raising taxes on the top 2% of Americans (oh, and that little 332 and 51% election win by POTUS).

Due to that last bit, and because the majority of Americans will blame the Republican Party for a failure to avert the fiscal cliff, the President is refusing to back down from either his promise to raise taxes on the top 2% OR his conviction to take the debt ceiling off the table for the future so it can no longer be used as a threat nuclear option bargaining chip by the GOP. As President Obama still appears to have a massive chip stack in front of him, it strikes me as the right play. Not only is the raising of taxes on the wealthiest something he ran hard on and won on this fall, but the debt ceiling argument last year cast a black cloud over the United States last year. The President did not get overly blamed on that, but it still caused many to doubt the sanity of the political process. These negotiations during this lame duck session may be an important step to illustrate that this past election was the first sign that sanity is starting to creep back into our Congressional halls.

Here's to hoping, because the world is still watching. Maybe only with one eye because they have their own shit going on over in the EU and China, but watching nonetheless.

IMAGE: Mediaite via Google Images

THE RETURN

                                                       


No, not of blog posts here. No one gives a damn about that. This is about the GLORIOUS return of the flat top haircut. More specifically, on the basketball courts of this nation.See Exhibits A, Iman Shumpert on the left, and B, Nerlens Noel on the right, and just really soak it in. The world hasn't seen a resurgence of the hair tower of power since the golden years of Patrick Ewing and Kendall Gill (although Shump is looking more like he rolled out of Kid N Play).

I, for one, could not be more excited. I can only intuit that this means a banner year for the NBA, and a NY Knickerbocker's championship banner (he said with the slightest, and saddest, but of hope in his voice). Cheers to you Flat Top. And welcome back.

An Open Letter to President Obama

Dear Mr. President:

In all honesty, I have no idea how to start one of these things. Do I go fawning and describe how I was an insta-supporter after the 2004 DNC and that the support only strengthened throughout your eventual Presidential campaign/election? Do I mention my recent disappointment, not Andrew Sullivan-like but there nonetheless, at the first debate and the related tightening of the polls? I guess I go lazy and lead with those questions (what hackery!). I was not, however, one of those was most angered by your seeming malaise in the debate but was rather incensed at how easily Mitt Romney lied, obfuscated and changed tack throughout. I suppose he should have been called out, but the shamelessness of it all was almost unbelievable. Even sadder, the American people bought it and, at the very least, Mr. Romney is basically tied with you in the national polls and is right on the bumper in many swing state polls. Some say you should be as pugnacious as Vice President Smokin' Joe Biden, but I, for whatever that is worth, would pledge caution. Call Mr. Romney out, certainly, but do so calmly and civilly. This should not be your concentration, however, as the real reason Americans fell for Mr. Romney's schtick is because they believed it as a viable new course for America that would set them back on the path to prosperity (despite the fact that that path was actually lined with heaps and heaps of cow patties).

With that in mind, why not reframe the debate and bring your own vision for the future to the fore. For instance, the 47% Mr. Romney so easily dismissed are not too lazy or too downtrodden to find work that they must rely on the government dole, many jobs they would have been taking no longer exist because of productivity gains or because corporations looking to pad their already overstuffed earnings have shifted them abroad. Instead of counting them out or writing them off, let's empower them. They do not need redistributive "handouts," they need training for the post-recession new normal. How about we redistribute the money that we have, for far too long, pledged in corporate welfare? Oil companies making billions do not need billions more in subsidies and favorable tax treatment. The banks that have been the beneficiaries of the public's largess derived from our tax dollars are sitting on that money rather than making loans or lowering mortgage rates. They say they are in the business of making profits, not public welfare; I say the American public is no longer in the business of helping them do so. Mr. President, any Wall Street money you were getting is probably already in so there's no holding back now. Mitt Romney is the ultimate plutocrat, so why no embrace the populist within you? Instead of practicing corporate welfare, that money is going to be "earmarked" (let's take that word back too!) for education. And not just improving education in pre-K and kindergarten, areas where it is proven to have the most impact, but also job training to help those out of work land more highly skilled jobs. Lets create more of these jobs by encouraging the modernization of our grid and the retrofitting of buildings that will not only lead to more jobs but will have the added benefit of eliminating wasted in providing heating and electricity for our homes. It even has a tailor-made tagline: "It's not about welfare for people suckling at the public teat, it is removing the already fattened corporations from the teat so our middle class can start the American comeback." Or something. I'm sure your election team can work on that...

Once you've laid that out, ask Mr. Romney was his plan is. Specifically. Ask him how those that have been looking but cannot find a job are going to be helped by the Romney/Ryan plan. Ask him if we are REALLY just hoping for the magic tax cut bean to spur growth once again? How are the policies currently espoused any different from the previous Bush plan? Shouldn't the fact that R.Glenn Hubbard, main Conservative tax cut cheerleader for decades, is the chief economist and seeming architect of economic plans belie the fact that a Romney administration will just be repeating recent history rather than learning from it?

And if Mr. Romney brings up a plan to privatize social security, whooo boy! It could not be easier to point out that the only benefit such a plan would bring would be to Mitt's buddies on Wall Street who would be chomping at the bit to get their hands on that money. They could then charge hundreds of millions of dollars of management fees for the possibility to mismanage the American public's money as bad as the banks did before the Great Depression. Doesn't that sound great?!?

How about immigration? If it doesn't get brought up, bring it up. I think the vast majority of people who are against the DREAM Act were probably not voting for your re-election anyway Mr. President. Ask Mr. Romney where he stands and, if he changes his tune, why he is standing to the left of the spot he stood two months ago. Stress the importance of the need to keep highly educated and highly immigrants, especially those who came to this country for that education, in the country. These are the drivers of innovation and growth that we so desperately need.

I cannot even be bothered to go into the social issues as I've already run too long and I think almost everyone knows where Romney/Ryan stand on that anyway (aside from abortion; where do they stand on that? Okay, maybe bring up abortion after Ryan's VP debate performance). Do not run on the past, except where you need to emphasize that Romney/Ryan will be repeating past mistakes. President Bill Clinton already made the case for you record, it is time for you to make the case for why you are the man to look to for the next 4 years. The refrain from the DNC and from numerous commercials has been about "moving forward," so how about you show the American people where you will be driving us. Many of your supporters are already in the tank and are confident you are to lead us on the right path. It is high time to show the rest of America. You rode into office on the inspirational wave of the change you would bring and you need to inspire Americans to their better natures again.

Thank you for your time Mr. President. The American people are counting on you.

With the utmost sincerity,


NoMas Paine

Opie and Ned: The Effectiveness of Emotional Investment

SPOILER ALERT: Stop reading here to avoid spoilers about both Game of Thrones and Sons of Anarchy.






Forward thinking shows have less and less of a problem offing main characters. Recently, however, certain shows have taken the next leap by having very popular main characters, often representing the "good" in the show, murdered.

The first that comes to mind for many is Lord Eddard (Ned) Stark from Game of Thrones. Amidst all the royal intrigue and jockeying for the Iron Throne, Ned was the ever loyal right-hand man who tried his damnedest to stay a bit above the fray and always do what is right. Despite this, all his good deeds got him, once his homeboy King Robert died, was a shocking (for the TV audience) decapitation. I remember, at the time, sitting in shocked silence with two friends not knowing what to make of this. Game of Thrones, the trend setter that it is, had just killed off a character that had, until that moment, seemed like an integral and necessary part of the show to the viewing audience. HBO was playing a dangerous game as, at least as far as I can remember, a TV show had not killed of such a character until the very end of the show's run. Even Tony Soprano, despite all the beefs he had and the fact that he was a mob boss, did not maybe die until the last episode cut to black.

Ned Stark was very much in my mind this past Tuesday when another favorite show of mine, Sons of Anarchy, killed off the biker gang's Vice President, and Pres Jax Teller's best friend, Opie. The response was a little bit different here as shock was replaced with a light sadness mixed with a tad bit of outrage. Opie was the only character on the show who truly felt fundamentally unchanged by the club and true to who he was. He seemed relatively untarnished. He was easy to like. Not to mention the fact that the initial shock provided by good ole Fast Eddard helped soften the blow of a similar move being made. All that being said, whether it was conscious move by Kurt Sutter and the other show runners, there were striking similarities between the situations. The "good guy(s)" in the viewers' eyes were in the clutches of there enemies and there were scores to be settled. Blood had to be spilled as "blood will have blood." Even how the scenes were shot are strikingly similar (see above). Both main characters take up the center of our (the viewer's) screen as the off-center and only partially seen murderer does his work. And though there are slight differences in the characters' expressions, Opie with his face forward defiantly wearing a smirk and Ned head and shoulders down waiting for the steel, they are both accepting of their fates. Ned is just reluctantly accepting while Opie, due to all the tragedy he's faced, is ready and more than willing for the cruelty of his life, and this life in general, to be over.

The shock and/or sorrow felt by myself, and viewers generally, is quite effective in tying the viewer to the show if done right. And it most likely will be done right since the fact that you are tied enough to the character to care, the writing is pretty damn good already. I guess what I am saying is it in an interesting evolution in television, but future practitioners might want to tread carefully. If the audience is not already invested in the character, it is just a gimmick that will fall flat. But not for you Justified. Make moves.


IMAGES: both Google Images; upper left is Ned Stark and lower right is SAMCRO's Opie.

Repetitions of History

In last week's New Yorker, an article written by Salman Rushdie described his time in hiding after Ayatollah Khomeini declared fatwa against him, sentencing him to death, for writing the novel The Satanic Verses. The article is interesting in general but what really stuck was Rushdie's opinion that a lot of the offense and anger that was ginned up was done so for various individuals' and groups' political gain. In Mr. Rushdie's words:

The book that he had written would vanish and be replaced by one that scarcely existed, in which Rushdie referred to the Prophet and his companions as “scums and bums” (he didn’t, though he did allow the characters who persecuted the followers of his fictional Prophet to use abusive language), and called the wives of the Prophet whores (he hadn’t—although whores in a brothel in his imaginary city, Jahilia, take on the names of the Prophet’s wives to arouse their clients, the wives themselves are clearly described as living chastely in the harem). This nonexistent novel was the one against which the rage of Islam would be directed, and after that few people wished to talk about the real book, except, usually, to concur with Hermione Lee’s negative assessment.

In essence, much of the Muslim world was taking offense from a nonexistent book as they did not bother to read the real book, which was respectful of Islam. Then various leaders decided to take the deliberate misconception and utilize that to strengthen their own power bases. As stated by Rushdie:

Prime Minister Benazir Bhutto was on a state visit to China at the time, and it was speculated that destabilizing her administration had been the demonstrators’ real aim. Religious extremists had long suspected her of secularism, and they wanted to put her on the spot. Not for the last time, “The Satanic Verses” was being used as a football in a political game that had little or nothing to do with it. 

 What is striking is the similarities between the context of Salman Rushdie suffered through and what is currently occurring with the protests over the recent, inflammatory YouTube film "Innocence of Muslims." While, unlike "The Satanic Verses," the latter is clearly meant to be inflammatory, the exaggerated response seems to be the same. In a post-Qaddafi world, there is still a power vacuum that various factions are filling and, in a predominantly Muslim country, raising the ire of the electorate seems a good way to solidify a power base. A new football in the same political game. Further, much like the threatened violence that Rushdie faced, the protests launched against "Innocence of Muslims" was used as cover for a horrific terrorist attack against the U.S. Embassy in Benghazi; an attack in which a dedicated public servant, U.S. Ambassador to Libya J. Christopher Stevens lost his life.

I guess, despite the "Arab Spring," the more things change, the more they stay the same.

P.S.: I planned to go on about how the purposeful break from reality was also analogous to the entire modus operandi of Fox News, but I don't feel like going on a rant today and, as bad as that network is, they should not be compared to terrorists.

IMAGES: Google Images taken from somewhere else; and Google Images via Newsweek.

The REAL Mittens: An Addendum

I am sure I am not the first to write about this and it this case has been written more eloquently elsewhere, most likely by Ta-Nehisi Coates, but it fits in so nicely with what I wrote yesterday. The above depicts a familiar talking point for those who've been following the 2012 Presidential race. Or even before, actually. Conservatives, once they got tired demanding his birth certificate, have been loudly demanding the release of President Obama's various school transcripts. As shown above, we all know Mittens is BAWSE because he graduated BYU with high honors and HBS/HLS in the top 5% but how do we know that President Obama really DESERVED to be the first black Editor in Chief of the Harvard Law Review (because, y'know, they probably just give that away). The clear implication, though never expressly stated, is that we do not know if President Obama has deserved any of this because blahblahblah affirmative action. Up to and including the Presidency; which is nicely exhibited by the "in over his head" comments on the President.

On the other side, of COURSE Governor Romney has worked hard for/deserved everything he has achieved. And I'm sure he as (just like President Obama). But both Governor Romney himself and, seemingly, the right-wing talking heads discount all the built in advantages that he enjoyed throughout his life. Prep school. A stock portfolio bequeathment that he and his wife lived off of while in school. And I'm sure it probably does not hurt that your father was the CEO of American Motors and the Governor of Michigan. It seems, and I could very well be wrong, that in Mittens' mind, this was all predestined. He earned ALL of it, with no help whatsoever, and he DESERVES the Presidency.

In my mind, the Romneys' green paper was/is a lot more advantageous than Barack Obama's black skin. It'd be nice if some people would step back and realize that from time to time.


IMAGE: some moron from http://polination.files.wordpress.com.

Jon Stewart's (not so) Furious Anger

Jon Stewart's first segment of last night's Daily Show, where he verbally struck down Fox News with great vengeance and not so furious anger those (Fox News) who would attempt to poison and destroy his brothers, was a tour de force. Man crushing went to DEFCONs "Question Sexuality" and "Would You Convert."

There's not much that I can add to his perfect mix of legitimate anger and clear disdain towards the Fox News talking points, aside from the all too clever reworking of the famous Pulp Fiction quote, so please just click the link and watch for yourselves.

WARNING: may cause possibly incurable man crushing. You may want to consult with a medical professional if you have a family history.


PHOTO: I'm assuming from Comedy Central, via Google Images, via katywidrick.com

VIDEO: Samuel L. Jackson being Samuel L. Jackson-y in Pulp Fiction via YouTube.

The REAL Mittens Showed Up... Or Did He?

Ever since Mother Jones' fateful unveiling of Mitt Romney's 47/53 opinion from a private fund raiser, there has been much talk across the journobloggingtalkinghead-o-sphere about whether we've FINALLY seen the real Mitt Romney. Depending on who you were reading, these opinions have taking both good and bad connotations. Personally, in your humble bloggers opinion (IYHBO?), I agree that it is impossible to pin down the REAL Mitt Romney politically and still think that this WAS the real Willard.

Wah, wah, wwwaahhhhh, you say? Well, I do not necessarily believe that the talk revealed much of anything about his political beliefs and that he would be anything to anyone to get elected POTUS. At the same time, from my long experience having dealings with self-entitled douchers, it fits a pattern where, at each turn, Romney peels a layer to further reveal his self-entitled doucher core. The first instance of this was revealed when it came out that he was the ring leader of a group that harassed a fellow student by pinning him down and cutting his hair. Many cried homophobe when this was revealed, but it sort of just seemed like the seedling of a self-entitled prep school doucher (of course, the most common of all douchers). This trend has continued with his absolute refusal to release any tax returns outside of the two years he already has, despite requiring his VP candidates to give him 10 years of tax returns, essentially telling the American public to just trust him on this. Self-entitled douchers who think their deserved presidency is an essential fait accompli do NOT show the general public anything more than what they want to. Facts. In his mind it is probably unfathomable that he would not be President considering that the markets would rise upon his election.

The truly indicative phrase in Governor Romney's talk at the fundraiser, however, was not about the 47% of the electorate who will never vote for him. Do no misunderstand me. That little tidbit was certainly damaging and the coup de grace of calling them too lazy to rise up was horrible. But to really get into the mind of Mitt Romney (the self-entitled doucher) look no further than these words:

By the way, both my dad and Ann's dad did quite well in their life, but when they came to the end of their lives, and, and passed along inheritances to Ann and to me, we both decided to give it all away. So, I had inherited nothing. Everything that Ann and I have we earned the old-fashioned way, and that's by hard work and…[applause] I see that—

I say that because there's the percent that's, "Oh, you were born with a silver spoon," you know, "You never had to earn anything," and so forth. And, and frankly, I was born with a silver spoon, which is the greatest gift you could have, which is to get born in America. I'll tell ya, there is—95 percent of life is set up for you if you're born in this country.  

These are the words on a man who was born on third base but continues to suffer from the misperception that he hit a triple. Or, to be fair to a man who did work hard to get where he is but still had a TON of help and advantages along the way, the words of a man who hit a blooper for a single and then got to third thanks to a series of unforced errors. Though it IS fantastic that he did very well for himself in private equity and gave away any money left to his family from both sets of parents, he still does not recognize that he was still born with a silver spoon and all the built-in advantages that infers. This idea was further reflected in Ann Romney's admittedly great RNC speech where she talks about their struggles living in Boston while Mitt pursued his graduate degrees while leaving out the fact that they were living off of a vast, and bequeathed, stock portfolio that most people couldn't dream of.

Though clearly not the same level of megalomaniac, Romney's self-perception reminds me of figures like James Dolan or Woody Johnson (sorry about the NY sports team references but they are the only examples I can bring to mind of this phenomenon, since they are the co-banes of my existence; pun not intended) who go about doing whatever they want, infuriating their fan base, because they think they deserve it.

Anyway, long story short, Governor Romney probably does not hold disdain for 47% of the voting public. I doubt that he really thinks about 90% of the voting public at all. He's just a self-entitled giant doucher, surrounded by people of his ilk, who felt comfortable to let out his dawgs contained douchiness. I think his own self-entitlement matter a lot more in that talk than any other entitlement that he addressed.


IMAGE: Mittens goes for the full Boehner at the Univision Forum from miamiherald.com

An RNC Mystery Speaker... OOOOooooOOOOO

The Wall Street Journal reports that the Republican National Convention has scheduled a speaker in the televised prime time spot just before Sen. Marco Rubio speaks. As most big name Republicans are already scheduled to speak, and since both former President George W. Bush and former veep Dick Cheney have said they will not be attending, some are very intrigued by who it could be. Donald Trump triumphantly mounting the stage (sexually) in a "I haven't been asked to speak" fakeout? Sarah Palin "Mama Grizzlying" her way back into the GOPs hearts and bestowing her many blessings upon Willard? General Petraeus finding politics and setting the stage for a possible 2016 primary run against his body type opposite in Chris Christie?

Nope. They are all wrong. The only possible explanation is Ronald Reagan's hologram. You've lived up to your name and started a revolution Tupac. Makavelli lives on and he's bringing his eff'n GOP homeys.

IMAGE: Ebony.com

'Nuff Said, Featuring Amare

My buddy sent me the above link. The following is my e-mailed response, verbatim. 'Nuff said.

So much to love about this video. Amare had nuthuggers while Hakeem has shorts below his knees. The bug sunglasses. The fact that there is something that exists called STAT TV. Just epic all around.

CLASSIC Amare!

LIBOR and Self-Regulation

While the head has been cut off of the snake at Barclays PLC, with the CEO, Bob Diamond, the COO and the Chairman of the Board all resigning, the proverbially shit still has a far way to go before it hits the fan. Although the collusion between banks to set the rates, the implicit wink and nod from the Bank of England to get Barclays to lower their rate and, especially, the callous collusion between traders in various banks to rig the market so they could make more money are all shocking, how LIBOR (the London inter-bank offered rate) was set in the first place provided the biggest offense. As described in last week's The Economist:

For LIBOR, a borrowing rate is set daily by a panel of banks for ten currencies and for 15 maturities. The most important of these, three-month dollar LIBOR, is supposed to indicate what a bank would pay to borrow dollars for three months from other banks at 11am on the day it is set. The dollar rate is fixed each day by taking estimates from a panel, currently comprising 18 banks, of what they think they would have to pay to borrow if they needed money. The top four and bottom four estimates are then discarded, and LIBOR is the average of those left. The submissions of all the participants are published, along with each day’s LIBOR fix.

Emphasis added. This is patently Linsane as is it that anyone is surprised by this. The banks involved are only required to give an estimate, based on nothing else than what they think/feel is right, and people are surprised that this system did not work like gangbusters? The article goes on to point out that banks/traders were actually incentivized to rig the numbers as millions of dollars stood to be made based on where the LIBOR was at. I mean, I know hindsight is 20/20, but how did no one think about this beforehand? We are supposed to ignore the obvious conflict of interest and hope that those good chaps in the white shoe financial firms will work in everyone's best interest? This scandal again illustrates the ridiculous amounts of problems with self-regulation in banking. As much as folks like Jamie Dimon state that regulation will handcuff, prevent growth and curb stomp the entrepreneurial spirit because firms will not invest, why would anyone believe that self-regulation is remotely possible in an industry where tinkering with a few numbers or changing a few assumptions in a few projections can mean the difference in hundreds of millions, if not billions, of dollars?

Self-regulation is clearly not the answer, but government regulation has to be, if not effective, then at least competent. The Wall Street Journal pointed out last week that Tim Geithner was at least somewhat aware of these problems in 2008 and wrote to Mervyn King, the Bank of England Governor, suggesting possible changes that could improve the LIBOR. The simplest change, however, seems obvious: to affix the LIBOR to what it actually costs banks to lend and borrow. In most cases this process would become straightforward and could easily be backed up by hard data. The Economist concurs and goes another step:

Two big changes are needed. The first is to base the rate on actual lending data where possible. Some markets are thinly traded, though, and so some hypothetical or expected rates may need to be used to create a complete set of benchmarks. So a second big change is needed. Because banks have an incentive to influence LIBOR, a new system needs to explicitly promote truth-telling and reduce the possibilities for co-ordination of quotes.

The Economists recommendation, as delivered by Rosa Abrantes-Metz of NYU Stern, is to increase the number of banks on the LIBOR panel drastically so that the average is harder to game. That's all find and dandy, but we are long passed the era of the gentleman banker. In the 1970s and, especially the 1980s, with the rise of more aggressive money making schemes through hostile takes overs, LBOs and the development of overly complicated derivative trading strategies, gentlemen banks were replaced with ravenous financial wolves on the hunt for pure profit. Promoting truth-telling seems foolishly naivete. Hopefully, after one of these scandals, people will start to see and accept that.

IMAGE: The Telegraph Online

Is It Linsane Not to Match?

UPDATE: The New York Times is now reporting that, as of 4 PM today, the NY Knicks have essentially decided to not match the Rockets' offer.


In one man's opinion, well not just one as there's Stephen A. Smith (wait am I about to agree with Stephen A. Smith. *Shudder* Momma. I feel so cold. What's happening? Were the Mayans riight??), it is not, in fact, linsane.


First and foremost, for a Harvard guy of (apparently) good, moral, Christian upbringing, it is hard to believe that Lin was stupid enough to take Jim Dolan's assurances that the Knicks would match back to the Rockets in hopes of getting more money. I mean, don't get me wrong, in general this is a smart business move to leverage whatever information you have in order to further solidify your position and get more money. ShaoLin, however, was dealing with Jimmy Dolan. So go ahead and throw "general situations" out the window. OF COURSE, Dolan was going to take that personally as a breach of trust. He's a selfish, solipsistic man-child. Further, it backfired. Lin made no more money, I believe the offer actually went down from a balanced $28 million with $9 million a year, the Rockets just went the "poison pill" route and backloaded his contract in hopes that the Knicks would not match because of that monstrous $14.9 million (or whatever) third year. This would put the Knicks far over the cap in Lin's third year and cost them an additional, roughly, $35 million in luxury tax penalties under the new CBA.


Despite Bill Simmons' opinion, I don't think a ton of the actual Knicks fans care that much. Casual fans surely will be disappointed (only so many players have caused people's moms to comment on the Knicks; "How 'bout that Jeremy Lin, huh?"), but they'll also move on within a couple of days. Sure, Linsanity was an exciting run, but it was also a run primarily under Mike D'Antoni. There is no guarantee that Jeremy would be anywhere as good under Woodson's ingenius(ly repugnant) continuous Carmelo Iso, especially considering what a turnover machine Lin was. Unlike Jason Kidd, Lin doesn't have the cache to direct Melo; as any Knicks fan saw on more than one occasion last year. Simply put, the sample size was far to small to dedicate this type of money to the kid. As much as I despise everything about Dolan, and despite how much I distrust the front office to do anything that makes a semblance of sense, I cannot blame them from deciding against making what amounts to a $40 million gamble. And, yes, I hear y'all saying that worst case scenario is that Lin gets traded in the 3rd year as an expiring contract but who says that will work out. And who are the Knicks going to get in return so that the contracts work out? The league's love of expirings does little to take away from the gamble. 


If it's true that Lin is gone, I wish him all the luck in the world. He seems like a good dude and a hard worker, so I'd like him to succeed. But all the screeching from various sectors about how this is more Knicks front office ineptitude, or that Knicks fans should switch allegiance to Bk if Lin isn't resigned (ahem, pump thebreaksGrantland, ahem), needs to stop. If nothing else, you are not really a Knicks fans if you can't let front office ineptitude roll off your back like so many rain drops off a duck's and just hope for the better. And if Lin IS back. Eff it. Kidd's going to mentor him and we'll figure out year 3 later. Woot. Let's roll into '12/'13 'Bockers.


At worst, I can just continue to nourish myself on the Jimmy Dolan haterade. 

In recent days, two people briefed on the Knicks’ deliberations said it was unlikely the team would keep Lin. Yet both cautioned that the decision was not final and would ultimately be made by one person: James L. Dolan, the Madison Square Garden chairman.

Either way, win-win for me.


UPDATE: For a conflicting but still astute take on the now confirmed decision to not match the Rockets' offer to Lin, check out Jay Caspian Kang over at Grantland. We both agree though, wholeheartedly, that Jimmy Dolan, like many trust fund babies, sucks at life.


IMAGE: NBA.com

The Newsroom- A Critique of the Critics

Everyone has seen the complaints. Yes, the show is preachy as hell. Even the fucking song in the show's open credits seem preachy  in it's attempt to reach back to the simpler, more morally correct, broadcast news time of yesteryear; an attempt to copy Mad Men but to a much poorer effect. But everyone knows that Sorkin is preachy. Who cares?. And, sure, Sorkin always seems to come off as a world class doucher. But where is the surprise here as well? No one who's heard him speak denies that. It almost seems like the casual backlash always given to the popular for no reason a la Dave Matthews fandom in the 1990s. The fact of the matter is, in my humble opinion, its a fairly enjoyable show. It is hard to go too wrong when you are throwing Jeff Daniels, Emily Mortimer and Sam Waterston out there (I particularly like Waterston as the seemingly perennially drunk Charlie Skinner). Then you have the supporting cast of Dev Patel, Alison Pill and the somewhat surprisingly good Olivia Munn. 


I can certainly see how preachy could get annoying, but maybe what we need is some preaching. In the latest episode, Will McAvoy, although nominally a republican, comes out swinging hard against the Tea Party. But who is to say that that is so wrong. I found it particularly enjoyable and certainly wished that some of the questions he asked HAD been asked in 2010. We are now in the media world where objective news reporting and phrases like fair and balanced are now a punch line. Literally. By Jon Stewart nearly every night because of the unadulterated horseshit coming from certain sectors of the news media and the pussies in the rest of the news media  who treat all stories as if they were created equal. And this point was actually made, almost verbatim, through the show as I felt myself unconsciously nodding in agreement. Furthermore, I found the business argument presented by Jane Fonda's character extremely interesting and something that I don't think many people ever think about when consuming their news content. News media seems to get a pass these days and I think it is great that there is a show pointing out these flaws, albeit in a sometimes annoyingly quirky Sorkinian patois.


Anyway, in my view, this seems like much ado about nothing and very similar to the insanely nit picky questions raised about Girls, a phenomenal show, right off the bat. And, yes, maybe the critics who got to screen the episodes in advance are correct and the show falls off the map in next week's episode 4. I, however, plan on riding this one out for a bit and seeing where it goes. I think after the fawning critical love of many of Sorkin's previous shows, he deserves that much.


IMAGE: Jeff Daniels as Will McAvoy via hbo.com

NERD ALERT: Higgs-Boson Has Been Found?!???

Early last week, exciting news was released that scientists are both Fermilab and CERN were getting closer and closer to pinning down the location of the so-called "god particle," otherwise known as Higgs Boson. Then, this past Wednesday as America celebrate the 4th of July, nerds around the world had their own fireworks as they announced that Higgs Boson had indeed been found. With a 5 sigma signal, meaning that there is less than a one in a million chance that the findings are a fluke, scientists the world over could deem the particle found. Declared the "god particle" because of its relation to the "Big Bang," or the moment of the creation of our universe, this particle has been deemed crucial by physicists because they hope it can answer the previously unanswerable about the actual existence of dark matter, the possibility of additional dimensions or universes, and hopefully to finally confirm the unified field theory that finally brings beautiful symmetry between Einstein's theory of gravity and quantum physics involving subatomic particles. According to Peter Higgs, half of the namesake of the discovered particle:

"I had no expectation that I would still be alive when it happened," he said of the speed with which they found evidence.

"For physics, in one way, it is the end of an era in that it completes the Standard Model," he said of the basic theory physicists currently use to describe what they understand so far of a cosmos built from 12 fundamental particles and four forces.

Although this probably swept beneath the general public's rug of consciousness, it's kind of a big eff'n deal. It is WAY above my pay grade to truly describe what the Higgs Boson does (here is a good, and fairly simply explained, primer from the Atlantic) and why it is important, but here is the basic gist:

Scientists struggling to explain the theory have likened Higgs particles to a throng of paparazzi photographers; the greater the "celebrity" of a passing particle, the more the Higgs bosons get in its way and slow it down, imparting it mass; but a particle such as a photon of light is of no interest to the paparazzi and passes through easily - a photon has no mass.

So, essentially and more complexly, the exchanges between various fields and bosons, a general class of subatomic particle of which Higgs is a type, is called the Higgs mechanism, which is still not fully understood, and it is through these exchanges that particles gain mass (Thanks Atlantic Monthly!).


Phew. You still with me? Because at this point I'm just continuing to write to help myself fully understand. But that's all folks for now. Unless you want to really step up your nerd game and read the philosophic interpretation of our inability to readily grasp the workings of Higgs Boson. Because that's right here. You nerd...


UPDATE: In a closer reading of the material released, it is not entirely a settled matter that it is exactly the Higgs Boson that has been found (although many believe it is so). According to Reuters:

What scientists do not yet know from the latest findings is whether the particle they have discovered is the Higgs boson as exactly described by the Standard Model. It could be a variant of the Higgs idea or an entirely new subatomic particle that could force a rethink on the fundamental structure of matter.  

The last two possibilities are, in scientific terms, even more exciting. 

Sooo, definitely very exciting nonetheless. 


IMAGE: ibnlive.in.com

StewBeef's No-no

Old post that I did not manage to get to the past month. But that glorious screenshot is from Jon Stewart's self-shot video of his reaction to Johan Santana's no-hitter for the Mets last Friday that was aired on The Daily Show on Monday. As a fellow Mets sufferer fan, I know how he feels.

The Mets, very surprisingly after the loss of Jose Reyes, have been winning with an unheralded squad (outside of David Wright) and are currently in second place in the NL East, right behind the almost as surprising Nationals. The poster boy for this squad would have to be knuckleballer R.A. Dickey who just recently went on a historic run on 1-hit shut outs.

Long story short, much like Stew Beef, I love this Mets team and their equally unheralded manager, Terry Collins. I think it may be time for people to start meeting these Metropolitans and do some heralding.

Image: Daily Show screenshot via Huffington Post

Wes on Wes on Wes

First things first, please enjoy this amazing tour of the Moonrise Kingdom set with the inimitable Bill Murray, slightly sauced on spiced rum.

All set? It was amazing right? Oh, BMurr.

Now onto the movie itself. Underwhelming is the word that immediately came to mind. To be fair, I saw the above video before the movie and was expecting big, comedic things. My advice to you, dear read, is don't. While there were certainly some funny and many charming scenes, the beach dance party between main characters Sam Shakusky and Suzy Bishop comes to mind, for the most part it was, as has been stated by critics ad naseum, Wes Anderson out-WesAndersoning himself. I suppose it is my own fault as one should temper their expectations when they see the main characters populated by kids, but I could not help myself once I saw the BMurr, Frances McDorman, Bruce Willis (underrated comedy chops), Edward Norton (ditto) and Anderson mainstay Jason Schwartzman. It turns out, however, that these luminaries are just a sideshow to the chilrens and that this movie, in general, is more akin to The Fantastic Mr. Fox rather than Rushmore/Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou/Darjeeling Unlimited (which I really liked actually but haters gonna hate).

Since the central conceit seems to be the relative maturity of the Sam and Suzy compared to the childish antics of the adults (drunken tree chopping/police car canoodling/shoe assaulting). The children are actually preternaturally adult with their playing of house, aforementioned dance party more reminiscent of Vincent Vega and Ms. Mia Wallace then two young kids, which is doubly appropriate since there is, in fact, a teenage wedding and at least one old(er) folk wished them well (and I'm pretty sure that Pierre really did love the mademoiselle). EXTENDED ALLUSION POINTS! Bruce Willis makes this explicit in his scene with the young Mr. Shakusky later in the movie.

I enjoyed the movie enough just because of Anderson's talent (what's up with directors with the last Anderson, by the way?) but my recommendation would be to temper your expectations. This one does not bring much of the funny.

On to P.T. Anderson's The Master? 1 out of 2 Anderson's wouldn't be bad.

Serge Ibaka as WCF MVP?

As counter-intuitive as the purposely provocative title might sound, it just seems tomeIMHO like  the Thunder are a MUCH better team when defensive beast, and future People's most beautiful people listee, on the floor. The numbers somewhat back this up as he put up his two best games in the first two Thunder wins, especially his 26 point, 9 of 9 from the field, game 4. Even yesterday, when he was limited to 20 minutes of playing time due to foul trouble, he still put up 9 points on 4 of 6 shooting, 2 blocks, and 5 rebounds. Ultimately for me though, it is how the Thunder look as a unit when he's on the floor. They just seem more cohesive. More whole. More of an actual basketball playing unit. His weirdly consistent jump shot helps to spread the floor so that the slashers (Westbrook/Durant/Harden in no particular order) can operate. If his man cheats off of him, he's going to drain that shot from 18 feet and in. Further, and perhaps more importantly, he's the defensive anchor in the paint. He's averaging 2.6 blocks a game these past 3 wins, which is not too crazy for him but still damn good,  but even his presence on the floor ends up changing innumerable shots of anyone getting to the paint. I mean Westbrook's passing during his shooting drought has been fantastic, Durant is obviously All-Universe (seriously, he and LeBron would be my picks if another Space Jam tournament to free the Loony Tunes comes around), and Harden is more than capable of taking over a game for stretches himself. However, considering the various troubles each of those 3 have had, I am not so sure that Ibaka is not the most valuable for the Thunder IN THIS SERIES. (Emphasis very much required/double negative alert).

One quick departure for a larger look at the Thunder and Spurs, the past two games have illustrated an underrated advantage that the youth of the Thunder affords them... shorter, defined rotations. I missed this as well in my previous Western Conference Final preview post. Not to put too fine of a point on this, because I do no think it has all that much of an affect, but in the last two games the Thunder have had an 8 man rotation compared to the Spurs' 12 and 9 to SA's 11, respectively. OKC's younger legs can take the punishment of the shorter rotation and it keeps only the 8 best men on the floor in any given game. Of course, there are dangers here considering their general, and Ibaka's in particular, foul trouble but I feel like a limited rotation, if possible, is always advantageous.

UPDATE:
Clearly the entire idea of the post only applies if the Thunder win the series, which is very far from certain. If not, it is not a possibility and the MVP is a really close vote between Manu Ginobili and Manu Ginobili's bald spot with Manu himself winning in a walk. Seriously, did you see him last night? Ridiculous. He looked like a slightly balding Argentinian Tasmanian Devil out there.


Image: counterkicks.com

Cuomo Out to be the Millennial Candidate in 2016?

New York Governor Andrew Cuomo, with the support of Mayor Palpatine Bloomberg and Police Commissioner Kelly, will request the the legislature decriminalize the possession of small amounts of marijuana in order to mitigate the disproportionate affect the city's "stop and frisk" policy has on young minorities. The possession of less than 25 grams of marijuana would be a violation, almost like having an open container, rather than a misdemeanor; i.e., you get a ticket rather than going to jail. Clearly this is a good policy but does not do enough to counter the many problems with stop and frisk and certainly does nothing to fight marijuana's ludicrous classification as a schedule 1 drug. Nonetheless, I like what Governor Cuomo is doing here. Whether he meant to or not, he's clearly differentiating self from "No Soda Nanny" Bloomberg in how he is deciding to leave his NYC legacy.

When one considers this latest legislative move by Cuomo in light of his push for the recognition of gay marriage, it is hard to believe that Governor Cuomo is not setting himself up for a 2016 run as the candidate of the mostlikely newly economically powerful and more mature millennial generation. It is a beautiful political play as, between his continuously rising favorability numbers and the support of the Bloomberg/Kelly duo, he's basically bulletproof here. State GOP can attempt to call him soft on crime, but that is pretty hard to pull off when you have the Mayor and the Commish in your corner. So he has no political liability and gets to ease off of another law that millennials find ridiculous... illegality of marijuana. Impressive anyway you look at it.

I actually hope Cuomo does run as he seems to be really cutting his teeth as Governor and I think he'll be ripe by the time 2016 comes around. He has strong political ideas and ideals and I know many a millennial who will support his sensible policies.

Quick Mini Rant:

Please indulge me briefly. Or don't and just stop reading here. It's my rant and I'll do what I want to. How EFF'N RIDICULOUS is it that marijuana is still considered a schedule 1 drug? Just so we are all on the same page, here is the DEA's definition and examples of a schedule 1 drug:

Substances in this schedule have a high potential for abuse, have no currently accepted medical use in treatment in the United States, and there is a lack of accepted safety for use of the drug or other substance under medical supervision.

Some examples of substances listed in schedule I are: heroin, lysergic acid diethylamide (LSD), marijuana (cannabis), peyote, methaqualone, and 3,4-methylenedioxymethamphetamine (“ecstasy”).

Really? REHHEAAALLLYY? Take a look at that list and please tell me which one doesn't belong. And which one of those is the scientific name for cocaine again? Oh wait, it is not on there because it is a schedule 2 drug because of it's medical benefits! Please read this whole rant again. We can have medical cocaine, but not medical marijuana without state DEA's, ostensibly with the implicit okay of President Obama, busting things up. Because that make sense.

UGH... I need to go smoke a joi pack of cigarettes and nail back a fifth of whiskey. Legally.

Image: NY Daily News

Dolan Out the Existential Pain

In the (I think) latest New York Magazine, Will Leitch has an article outlining how Carmelo Anthony has essentially hijacked the Knickerbockers franchise by pushing out one coach (Mike D'Antoni- TRUE), insisting on the hiring of another coach (Mike Woodson- PROBABLE) and then forcing the latter to drop his agent and join CAA to further kill any leverage the new coach might have (SEEMS LIKE HIM). I agree with the gist of the article in that Melo has too much power on the Knicks and it is going to be a problem for the franchise going forward. I especially agree that the isolation (ISO) sets on offense favored by Carmelo Anthony and Mike Woodson (i.e., why he was hired) are not how one wins a championship. All four teams playing right now move the ball until they find the open shot with the two favorites, San Antonio and OKC (yes, I think whoever comes out of the west wins the title), currently being the best at it. In fact, when the Thunder ran much more Iso sets in the first two games San Antonio slapped em around like petulant school boys.

My quibbles come with his almost throw away Phil Jackson point and his blame falling solely on Melo. While, admittedly, Mr. Leitch may have access to sources that I do not, nothing I've read indicated that Jackson had any real interest in coming to NY. There was that brief period where there was one report that he'd do it for $40-50 million, but, any time the Knicks have had a coaching opening, there was always a rumor that Jackson was coming for some ludicrous amount of money (that I would GLADLY pay). I wasn't holding my breathe waiting for Jackson to come riding on his zen-like steed as a white knight version of Tywin Lannister to save the day at Basketball Mecca. Further, and more importantly pour moi, Melo and his newfound power, if anything, are a symptom of the ultimately problem rather than the actual disease... James Dolan.

I do not care what Bill Simmons or anyone else say, the Knicks gave up too much for Melo in the first place. Despite the argument that one has to do that trade for who the Knicks gave up, they were only bidding against themselves because Jimmy Dolan got involved. What the Knicks gave up was unnecessary. In the same vein, the problem of Melo's coup d'etat came not because of his genius strategy of not playing to his ability, but because Dolan exacerbated the issue by making it clear that it was Melo's franchise and that D'Antoni had no real support. Then, as the final rabbit poop of a cherry on top of the frozen hobo piss sundae, Dolan removed the interim tag from Woodson and required, as a condition precedent for a contract signing, that Woodson switch representation. I firmly believe Woodson deserved the extension for the stretch run, but did Dolan really have to cut him down at the knees before he even has had a chance to actually coach Melo full time? JD, who appropriately makes me need a shot of something, is a facilitator for everything bad Melo brings to the team. It's depressingly Isiah-like all over again. And, because there is no getting out from under the roster we now have because of the unmovable contract, Knicks fans are stuck with what they have. It's not enough.

Welcome back futility; that brief interlude of excitement and hope during that now distant Linsanity thing made me miss you all the more. Time to go back to realizing the Knicks are, as always, not a contender with no hope in sight for the immediate future. Can't wait until the next time I fool myself into thinking the Knickerbockers have a shot and then realize that the team is still owned James Dolan longsigh.


Image: NY Daily News

OKC Foreign Exchange Students Bring the Ruckus

Thabo Sefolosha (Switzerland), I'm guessing he enjoys chocolates, and Serge Ibaka (Congo via Spain), he of a STUPID freakily cut body, put together an amazing showing to help the Thunder break the Spurs' 20 game winning streak dating back to the regular season. While they both played well offensively, the normally offensive anemic Ibaka throwing down 14 points on 5 of 9 shooting and Sefolosha playing 37 minutes, scoring 19 points while shooting 40% from the 3, it was on defense where they both shined (IMHO). Ibaka had 3 blocks but played well on switches and altered an innumerable number of shots in the paint helping to keep the Spurs to a relatively low, for them, 24 points in the paint. Sefolosha, on the other hand, played a number of minutes he rarely, if ever, sees and was one of the main defensive presences on the perimeter for the Thunder. He used his length to grab six steals and swallowed up countless passing lanes to help bottle up the Spurs potent ball movement while adding six rebounds as the two guard. I was personally very, very impressed by Thabo's play. Though probably a bit overlooked, he was easily one of the best players on the floor the entire game. While Russell Westbrook's pass and, especially, shot selection were making me leave palm imprints on my head, Thabo's smart defensive plays, in particular his come back block on Jax, that left the real impression on me. That game would not have gone nearly as well without him.

In general, the Thunder made the right adjustments to come out strong last night, especially on offense. That being said, Fisher (or some other approximation of a PG) needs to get a hold of that offense and get the ball out of Westbrook's hands when running the O. I know Westbrook is a good player, and he still had a good +/-, but he makes stupid, stupid, 7 seconds or less type decisions. The reason their offense worked well last night is because it was predicated on ball movement. Basically taking a page out of the Spurs' book and making the extra pass to get to the open man (a la Harden's possibly ill advised, but ultimately worked out well, cross court pass to Thabo for a wide open 3). If they go back to Westbrook's one on one bullshit, the Spurs will work them again. Interesting to see them play as they did last night though. This may be a series after all.

As long as Pop continues to rub off on Scotty Brooks. If only Brooks could give two word, hilariously angry, in game interviews like Pop....

Image: Sportsnet Canada

A Simple Request

I know it is usually Music Video Mondays but this had to be posted for a number of reasons:

1) both the video and, more importantly, the song are fantastic.

2) I may or may not have been in love with Fiona Apple in, like, the 7th grade or so.

3) this video was directed by Paul Thomas Anderson. For realsies. Look it up. The guy who directed this, and this, and this, and this upcoming one. How was I not aware of this? Is P.T. Anderson just a huge Fiona Apple fan (I'd get it) or does she have some crazy dirt on him? Does Maya Rudolph make him do it because she's home-girls with Fiona? I have a million questions about this artist-director relationship and I would watch a complete documentary on it. So, Mr. Anderson, please get crack-a-lacking on that documentary. Thank you sir and have a fantastic Memorial Day Weekend. I look forward to The Master and, as always, to making fun of Scientologists generally.

Angry Men in Miami, But Still No Mad Men

Why does Magic City not succeed where Mad Men does? I'm sure it is a question that Starz execs ask themselves every day while cursing AMC's name. They are both period pieces featuring good actors, star Jeffrey Dean Morgan is an always good and very frequently underrated actor and Danny Huston is pretty fantastic as Anthony Bourdain the gangster Ben Diamond, that let us look into a better dressed and more booze-soaked era. Family drama often caused by an overbearing patriarch feature in both. As Mad Men is essentially an office drama, Magic City has much lusher settings. One could see that Starz was making a play for a similar audience, much in the way that Spartacus and Game of Thrones were shooting for similar audiences. So what went wrong? There are a couple of easy answers. Starz does not have Matthew Weiner and, in a similar vein, probably does not have as good of a writing staff. And it shows a little bit. Further, Starz does not have nearly as many subscribers as, say, HBO and thus has no hope of matching the possible eyes that could be on the screen. Starz doesn't have AMC's cache. That all makes sense. It is interesting, though, that the show is not getting any critical love. The writing is not bad by any means. Many of the settings are gorgeous. The acting can be quite good and, in particular, I think Danny Huston is fantastic in the show. He always seems on the edge of violence, smarmy and shark like, without really nearing a "jumping the shark" moment. The show throws in the obligatory historical references, a possible Jackie O visit, etc., but to no avail.

Don't get me wrong. I love Mad Men and Magic City is no Mad Men, but it is a show worth checking out at least. And maybe with some more critical love, more people would.

Image: Vanity Fair

Kathleen Parker Wants to Go Toe to Toe on Bird(brained) Law

Washington Post columnist Kathleen Parker (she's on the right) had a perfectly inane opinion piece about "The public trial of Justice Roberts." It argues that President Obama and the left are trying to inappropriately influence Supreme Court Chief Justice Roberts through the media. SPOILER ALERT... Kathleen Parker is not a lawyer. Or familiar with the law. Or the separation of powers really. In her own words,

I leave this debate to others more worthy, but the idea that decisions must be popular and/or bipartisan is silly on its face. Just because something is popular doesn’t make it “right” or legally correct. And, difficult as this is to accept in our Twitter culture, Supreme Court justices needn’t be popular.

Let's unpack this a bit, shall we? She will leave this debate to others who have, at least, a fleeting familiarity with the law but then goes on to say the arguments of those she is attacking revolve around the decision on the Affordable Care Act (ACA) being popular/bipartisan. She's quite right that that would be "silly on its face." The only problem is that no one is arguing that. What the Jeffrey Rosen article that she links to and picks choice quotes from goes on to say is that:

But, by voting to strike down Obamacare, Roberts would also be abandoning the association of legal conservatism with restraint—and resurrecting the pre–New Deal era of economic judicial activism with a vengeance.

A bit different there, eh? The real issue is not that a decision to strike down the ACA would be unpopular/bipartisan, because she correctly points out that the role of the Supreme Court is decidely not to be popular or bipartisan, it is that such a decision would be legally wrong and against the proper role of the Supreme Court. A properly conservative, rather than an activist, Supreme Court would respect judicial precedents laid down and act under the presumption that a statute passed by Congress is Constitutional. The  latter point is what POTUS was speaking to in the Rose Garden quote Parker uses. The strong majority isn't supposed to be boosting the law popularity street cred, it is re-enforcing the fact that the law thus should be presumed Constitutional by the judges. Further, as put by Jonathan Cohn and Jack Balkin, the Court should not limit itself to the arguments presented but should, and must, according to their mandate (pun intended) look at all possible ways to deem the law constitutional. Much like our criminal law system, Federal statutes are constitutional until proven not. As put by Mr. Cohn in arguing that even if the Court wasn't convinced that the mandate was constitutional as argued it could EASILY be found a constitutional tax:

Nor does it matter that Congress did not specifically invoke the tax power in its findings of fact. As the Supreme Court explained in Woods v. Cloyd W. Miller Co. in 1948, “[t]he question of the constitutionality of action taken by Congress does not depend on recitals of the power which it undertakes to exercise.” Federal statutes are presumed to be constitutional, and the courts are required to consider if they fall within any of Congress's powers even if the statute doesn't explain its constitutional basis. (Most statutes don't.) One might object that a special rule should apply for taxes. If the government is going to change the tax laws, it must state this clearly so that the people can express their displeasure by voting their representatives out of office. But this has never been the law. Moreover, the existence of the mandate has not snuck up on the public unawares, and anybody who has not been paying attention by now will figure out it out soon enough when they file their form 1040.

It has long been obvious that Parker is a shill for the GOP, but articles like this just make it that much more obvious. What support of this article by people such as Randy Barnett at Volokh Conspiracy, a sharp legal mind and vociferous opponent of the ACA, shows is that they are equally (new word alert,) "shilly". Which is truly sad.

All of this sound and fury could have been easily avoided by the Obama administration and the Solicitor General if this was tackled in a proper way, without a mind to politics, but that is a rant for another day. For now all I'll say is, Ms. Parker please please PLEASE "leave this debate to others more worthy" next time.

UPDATE: Jeffrey Rosen very reasonably defends himself against Kathleen Parker in a recent The New Republic article. The very reasonable gist of the response is:

The idea that I was trying to “intimidate” or “bend” the Chief Justice came as a surprise to me. The justices have already voted in the health care case and are hardly influenced, in any event, by legal punditry. On the contrary, I suggested that this is a moment of truth for Chief Justice Roberts because I’ve been a staunch supporter of the vision of bipartisanship that he articulated when he became Chief Justice, and have continued to defend him during the past six years when others have denounced him for failing to live up to the standards he set for himself.

IN 2006, AT THE END of his first term as Chief, Roberts told me in an interview that he thought it was bad for the Court and the country when the justices handed down decisions by ideologically polarized, 5-4 votes. Roberts said he would make it his mission, as Chief Justice, to persuade his colleagues to avoid 5-4 rulings on constitutional grounds and instead to converge around narrow, unanimous opinions that both liberals and conservatives could embrace. “I do think the rule of law is threatened by a steady term after term after term focus on 5-4 decisions,” Roberts told me. “I think the Court is ripe for a similar refocus on functioning as an institution, because if it doesn’t, it’s going to lose its credibility and legitimacy as an institution. And to the extent that my colleagues share that concern, we should be able to make some progress.”

Ouch, actually quoting the Chief Justice himself instead of making reflexive partisan reactions about his inability to withstand pressure from big liberal bullies. That's got to be embarrassing for those of the Parker/Barnett ilk. Especially since Barnett should know better. So really Ms. Parker, leave it to those, well nevermind more worthy, how about those more qualified. Except Randy Barnett.

Image: Mediabistro.com via Google Images

The NBA's Generational Death Battle

After each put a whooping on the two LA teams, the San Antonio Spurs and the Oklahoma City One Of the Worst Nicknames in Sports Thunder are facing off in the NBA Western Conference Finals. As reluctant as I am in to wade in to appraising this series as I know I have at least ONE reader and he's a die-hard Spurs fan, I am too excited to watch this series to let it be.

A lot will be made by many, including my post title above, of the young v. old aspect of this match up and this makes sense to a degree. There is a 10 year average age difference between each respective teams "big three" (goodgawd is that term played out) with the Tony Parker/Tim Duncan/Manu Ginobili trio averaging out at about 33 years and the trifecta of Russell Westbrook/Kevin Durant/James Harden at roughly 23 years old. This is important in that those three players mean the most to each team respectively as far as production and leadership go and the young guns from OKC have a lot less mileage on those legs. If one looks at the teams as a whole however, as was pointed out in brief by the PTI guys yesterday, that average age gap drops significantly with the Thunder at about 26 and a half years and the Spurs at 29. This makes sense, and is noteworthy, as the Spurs get solid contributions by some of their younger players, acquired through years of good draft picks and upper management, like DeJuan Blair, Gary Neal, Tiago Splitter and, especially, Kawhi Leonard.

Whether any of the above will matter or not in the series is anybody's guess. Talking heads have been predicting the demise of the Spurs due to their aging core of players for, at least, the past three years. And yet, here we are with those old fogies on an 18 game winning streak that stretches back to the regular season. You can never really discount the wily veterans and their old man strength. I feel like many people will doubt the Spurs and this could  help drive them a bit with the whole "the only people who believe in us are in this locker room" deal. (c) Bill Simmons. And it is hard to pick against one of the best power forwards of all time and one of the best coaches of all time. Greg Popovich could easily be the difference in this series.

With ALLLL that said, and despite the fact that Durant and Westbrook fashion themselves as even more ridiculous hipstersno seriously when are they going to decide to move to the Brooklyn Nets together as they really should be in Greenpoint I still gotta pick the Thunder in 7. My reasoning is simple: I'm going with who I think has the best two players right now. Although it is razor thin, really could not be thinner, I have to pick Durant/Westbrook.

And I already think I may end up regretting that pick. I hope you enjoy never ever ever in a million years having this anywhere near you this bulletin board material Spurs. Not that you need it.


 Image: Google Images