"Writhing Funzos, in my sack! Makes me happy; makes me hurt my back!"

Pussies.

"Tell your parents, 'Buy me Bonestorm or go to hell!'"

I concur.

"Something something something Dark Side. Something something something complete."

I recently watched much of Star Wars Episode IV with little Jerkface. As I was watching, I was also holding a rather upset little Mrs. Jerkface who is only 10 months old. As she was crying and squirming in my arms fighting off sleep, I realized that so much of what the Emperor says to Luke during Episode VI also applies to children... very grumpy children:

"By now you must know that your father can never be turned from the Dark Side. So will it be with you."

"As you can see, my young apprentice, your friends have failed."

"The alliance... will die. As will your friends. Good, I can feel your anger. I am defenseless. Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete! "

"I'm looking forward to completing your training. In time you will call *me* master. "

"You will find that it is you who are mistaken, about a great many things. "

"Come, boy, see for yourself. From here, you will witness the final destruction of the Alliance and the end of your insignificant rebellion."

"You want this, don't you? The hate is swelling in you now. Take your Jedi weapon. Use it. I am unarmed. Strike me down with it. Give in to your anger. With each passing moment you make yourself more my servant. "

"It is unavoidable. It is your destiny. You, like your father, are now mine."

"Good. Use your aggressive feelings, boy. Let the hate flow through you."

"Your feeble skills are no match for the power of the Dark Side."

"Young fool. Only now, at the end, do you understand."

"If you will not be turned, you will be destroyed."

"You have paid the price for your lack of vision."

"Yes, I assure you, we are quite safe from your friends here."

[After Luke says, "Your overconfidence is your weakness."] "Your faith in your friends is yours."

"And now, young Skywalker... you will die. "

Okay, maybe that last one was a stretch... for now.

*The title of this post comes from this video.

"I'm not much on speeches, but it is so gratifying to leave you in the mess you've made. You're screwed. Goodbye."

I've done some reading this last week on the claim that President Obama is unqualified for the office because he is not an American citizen. I won't take the time to rehash the arguments, but they are being pushed by the unfortunately named Dentist/Lawyer/Crackpot/Possible Alien Orly Taitz. Someone else equally as crazy, but not as hilarious has expressed many of the arguments here. (Note: why is it that all crackpot websites have terrible layouts and designs? How hard is it to take the time to draft a coherent narrative... oh, I said "coherent." My bad.) I've read the arguments and am sufficiently persuaded that they are baseless. But, being the troublemaker that I am, I started to think about the next level.

Let's assume for a moment that everything everyone says about President Obama's ineligibility is true, that he's not an American citizen, that he lied on every public document he's signed since then, that he's had several different names and social security numbers, and that he lied on his FEC filings when running for president. Let's assume that ab inicio, "President" Obama is ineligible for the office.

What now?

This is a question that I have not seen adequately addressed in anything that I've read. I see a couple of scenarios:

1. A lawsuit successfully challenges Obama's FEC filing, making its way to the Supreme Court, who then invalidates the filing, declaring the election invalid.

Outcome: What then? Who becomes President? Biden? His filing/candidacy was necessarily linked to Obama's, so isn't it invalid as well? Do we have another election? How is it conducted? Etc. Also, I don't think the Supreme Court has the Constitutional authority to reach this decision, but I'll touch on that below.**

2. The House of Representatives initiates impeachment proceedings, which move through the Senate resulting in Obama's removal from office.

Outcome: This is the most Constitutionally appropriate course of action. There are already procedures and precedents in place governing this possibility. Furthermore, the only branch of government which has explicit Constitutional authority to remove elected officials is the Senate. This outcome is highly unlikely given the fact that the Presiden and Congress are of the same party and seem to be getting along. This would also mean that Biden would become president. Is that really what you want, crazy birth-certificate people?

3. Through some government action, Obama is asked to step aside, or be removed, or whatever, but he doesn't. He takes over in a military coup and ushers in a socialist paradise. Hooray, comrades! Once Glenn Beck is working in a labor camp, he'll be able to cry for real.

*Note: I have yet to see a decent argument as to why Obama is not a natural born citizen by virtue of his Mother's citizenship. But that's the sort of "argument" that is accepted without question by the Obamabots who drink the Obama Kool-Aid and are loyal followers of the ObamaNation as reported by the Obamedia. I wish people would just start calling us "Obamaniacs". Like the "Propaniacs."

**Update 10/15/09: In a Georgia case, Attorney Taitz was sanctioned by the court for filing a frivolous lawsuit based on Obama's alleged ineligibility for presidency. Toward the end of its opinion, the court addresses the constitutional authority of the judiciary to decide the issue. To sum up: I was right. (Scroll down to page 23 to see the political question analysis, but read the rest for fun!)

"I'm sorry, I think you must have me confused with an adult."

Wow. Just wow.

"Gun control means using both hands."

You morons had better not ruin it for the rest of us.

"Larry, what everyone needs to do is to take a deep breath, calm down, and start preparing their bodies for the Thunderdome. That is the new law."

[Ed. note: The first part of this post was drafted on 7/15, the second half on 7/16.]

Lately, I've been having a crisis of my lawyer faith. Over the last few weeks, I've seen some very bad people get away with taking advantage of good people because their lawyer said, "So what?", or the amount in controversy was just too small to justify the fight, or because the bad guys had more money than the good guys, so the good guys had to stop fighting. This wouldn't be so bad, except that this is happening in just about every case I've seen (not just the ones I've been involved in). The disparity between justice and the outcome has been too great to give me any satisfaction in my job.

I learned very soon after starting my career that our justice system is not actually about justice; it's about dispute resolution. We need to achieve finality in the disputes between our citizens, otherwise disputes will be resolved through other means (Two men enter, one man leaves), and our notion of civilization breaks down. By allowing third parties to resolve our problems, we avoid all of that entertaining violence and bloodshed, and replace it with entertaining shows about lawyers and police.

Rather than rely on third-party dispute resolvers to hand out arbitrary decisions (think "arbiter"), we attempt to bring some order to this system by writing laws and rules about how we address our disputes. We try to fashion those rules such that when properly applied, disputes are resolved and "just" results are reached. Our laws and rules actually only approximate justice.

This common misconception that our justice system is actually about justice has caused me a great deal of problems over my lengthy career as an attorney. (Yes, one year is lengthy.) My clients come to me expecting me to help them obtain justice, but are always disappointed when justice is not reached in their case. Even if they win, they always turn to me and ask, "How can they do that? How can they get away with X injustice?" I have to explain to them that our laws are not about justice, but about finality. They then become upset because they spent a huge amount of money on a fight that ultimately did not get them the result they thought they deserved. Herein lies the problem. Because our system openly claims to be about justice, it creates an expectation in people that justice will be met. People go to court thinking that their plight is one deserving of some redress, when in reality, imperfect lawyers make imperfect arguments to imperfect judges who issue imperfect decisions which are typically more about finality than justice. The unfortunate term "splitting the baby" (referring to wise King Solomon) is thrown around a lot to describe the most common outcome in cases: that each party walk away with equal blame and equal responsibility.

[7/16]

After wrestling with the above question all night last night, I finally pinned it and demanded an epiphany, which it reluctantly provided. This morning, I realized that I don't have to get justice for my clients every time. This is an imperfect system and it's unrealistic to expect it to dole out justice. Rather, it's more realistic to hope that I'll see justice just some of the time. I've arbitrarily picked 10% as a reasonable goal. If I can see justice in 1 out of 10 cases, I'll be happy.

I shared this idea with a wise older lawyer in my office, who explained that not only is the system imperfect, but our clients are as well. (He described them as "dumb".) No client goes into a dispute without having made any mistakes, and it's just for them to have to account for those mistakes. Therefore, if I settle a case where the good guy pays the bad guy some money, then that may be "just" because of the failure of the good guy to adequately protect himself. If I start out every representation explaining to the client that they've made mistakes, I'll lower their expectations and not get yelled at as much when I don't get them the results they want.

Finally, Mrs. Jerkface explained to me that in the end, even if I'm not getting results for my clients, I am paying the bills, and that ought to count for something. She's right; I'd just like to feel like I'm not participating in a farcical system where people are given an expectation of justice, only to have that expectation shattered when they are hit with the harsh reality of finality.

And I'd like to win more.

"Steven Spielberg is unavailable, sir." "Then get me his non-union Mexican equivalent!"

I used to wonder if Jason Chaffetz was stupid or just insane. I've decided that he's both.

1) Chaffetz is co-sponsoring an unconstitutional bill aimed at illegal immigrants. It's so cute how he thinks he can change the Constitution's citizenship requirements with an act of Congress.

2) On Chaffetz' website, he includes the text of an article talking about criticism he's received for proposing that illegal immigrants be placed in "tent cities" to await deportation. He then goes on to claim that his idea is aimed at all illegal immigrants, not just Latinos. He makes this claim despite the fact that the only ethnicity mentioned on his website talking about illegal immigration is "Mexican".

My hypothesis is further supported by the fact that he sleeps on a cot in his congressional office; lost a leg wrestling match to Stephen Colbert; subsequently whined about losing to the able-bodied Stephen; then was owned by Stephen on national television; and voted against the "Family Smoking Prevention and Tobacco Control Act".

After all, he's got big shoes to fill. (Although, for the record, Neil Cavuto is also a raging lunatic.)

Update 7/10/09: Really big shoes.

"Liberals, intellectuals, peacemongers, idiots!"

Yesterday, I was blessed with a comment from outside my usual readership. Hopefully, this is a sign of additional comments to come. Provided, however, that I didn't scare him off with my "nievete".

"Jimmy Carter? He's history's greatest monster!"

I recently took this quiz which asks the reader to read a series of quotes and then guess whether they were spoken by Ann Coulter or Adolf Hitler. I don't really think it's fair to compare Coulter to Hilter - Hitler was way smarter.

I got most of them right, missing only three, not because I am familiar with the works of either author, but because Hitler's thoughts, although crazy, were better written and clearer. Don't get me wrong, Hitler was evil and wrong about quite nearly everything (you have to admit, the Blitzkrieg was effective), but Coulter can't put two coherent thoughts together to save her life. Due to this fact, I'm sure Coulter loves being grouped with Hitler - it's a step up for her!

"The internet told us what some nerd thinks about Star Trek."

At long last, I finally took a break from keeping track of my life in six-minute increments and saw me that new-fangled Star Treks movie. I really enjoyed it. I won't bother to rehash the ground already covered by the many other people who have no doubt written on why it is a great movie. Suffice it to say, I giggled like a little girl through the entire film.

Today, I was confronted many times by the question, "Did you like it better than Star Wars?" What a stupid question. Despite the fact that I have a firm answer, I find that kind of debate meaningless and detrimental. Is it not enough that we have two great movie franchises that we can enjoy? Why must we waste our time in deciding which of two great things is better? Does something have to be "better" or "the best" to be enjoyed? Absolutely not. I repeat, what a stupid question.*

I also think this is a stupid debate because there are 13 other Star Trek movies to compare it to, not to mention the 4 spin-off shows plus the original. If any debate could be had, it would be over which of the movies is the best, but that too, would be a meaningless exercise.

Rather, I am happy enough to say that I very much enjoyed the movie. Was it the best Star Trek movie ever made? I don't know, I've only seen it once. Even were I in a position to have that discussion, the bar has been set very high (Kahn, Undiscovered Country, First Contact).

And yes, I absolutely will see it again.

*Notice that rather than engage in a meaningful analysis of the issues, I resort to petty name-calling and attacking the debate itself. Yes, I am throwing away 15 years of advocacy training. Good times.

"Aliens, bio-duplication, nude conspiracies!...Lyndon LaRouche was right!"

I was recently informed that I am but a shill in a multi-national, multi-species plot to enslave the human race. The source of this life-changing revelation was radical free-thinker and likely Vulcan, David Icke:

I'm still not sure exactly what his theory is, but it scared me into adding another layer to my tin foil hat. As I understand it, federal, state and local governments have given themselves the power to incorporate, thereby sidestepping constitutional law and moving themselves into the realm of maritime and contract law. This allows them to contract directly with citizens in such a way that citizens surrender their natural rights in exchange for certain "privileges" such as driving, practicing in professional trades, etc. As insidious as this sounds, it's only the tip of the iceberg.

This side-stepping of our natural rights is actually part of a far-reaching scheme to enslave the human race. This world is an illusion and every level of government in every country on the Earth has been infiltrated by a reptilian alien race from the constellation Draco:

They have successfully cross-bred with humans and can now change between their human and reptilian forms. All of our leaders are either one of these hybrids or one of their servants. I'm not sure what the Prophet Icke thinks is the aliens' ultimate goal, but I'm sure it's unpleasant. Probably something to do with cattle mutilation or rectal probing. I urge you all to learn more by trying to decipher what he says on his official YouTube channel! Human race - get off your knees!

Looks like Alec Baldwin was right.

"Oh yeah? Well, screw you guys, I'm going home!"

For a long time now, I've been wrestling with my own views on legalizing gay marriage. I wasn't really interested in posting on it until today, when by chance, I came across a blog written by the author of some of my favorite books, Orson Scott Card. I wouldn't normally give two figs what an author thinks about something, but Card is also known as Brother Card, and I'm moderately interested in his non-fictional ideas. I enjoyed the books of his that I've read, and my own brother seems to enjoy most of his work, including his religious work.

Card's blog delves into a number of topics, and for the most part, was pretty good. He does stray where he spends one post making a sane point, and then in another post, goes on to betray his own argument by buying into this crap. This is a topic that deserves its own post, and may get one, if I can find a logical reason why people need to "apologize" for being a member of our religion". (It's also worth noting that I am professionally familiar with the apologist in question and find him to be an insufferable jerk.) In addition to addressing some fairly innocuous topics in interesting and thoughtful ways, he attempts to justify the LDS Church's support for Proposition 8 in California which monopolizes heterosexual marriage. He addresses these arguments in a series of posts throughout his blog.

Unfortunately, like the vast supermajority of opponents to gay marriage that I'm familiar with, Card falls short of providing a logical, secular reason why gay marriage should not be legally recognized. Card's argument seems to rest on two points: 1) gay marriage is only the result of activist judges and therefore signals the fall of democracy; and 2) gay marriage is contrary to God's law which is the same as natural law. He's only half right, but I don't think he knows it. Rather, I believe that the only argument we can make as opponents to gay marriage is religious.

Activist Judges

Card seems to think that there will be significant democratic and civic consequences to allowing judges to legalize gay marriage. I agree that there will be societal consequences, but so-called "activist" judges are part of the American system and have not yet led to its downfall. "Activist" is a term used by anyone (I'm not just looking at you, social conservatives) who doesn't like the outcome of a case. The same thing was said about New Deal judges, civil rights judges, and now "leftist" judges. It's a crap argument and I'm tired of hearing it. Gay marriage is not the source of "activist" judges, but rather, something ruled for by "activist" judges in at least a handful of states. If "activist" judges are leading to the downfall of democracy, it is not because they are supporting gay marriage, but rather because they are "activist". To say that gay marriage is causing the downfall of society because it's breeding "activist" judges is erroneous. And stupid.

Card's argument further fails because a number of states have enacted laws recognizing gay marriages, either by referendum or through their state legislatures, demonstrating that the "candid debate" has occurred (at least according to the metric he provided), and thus the democratic process has spoken. Indeed, there is nothing more democratic than that. Gay marriage is not destroying democracy, at least not in the way Card says it is.

Contrary to natural law

Card goes on in other posts to explain that homosexuality is contrary to God's law, and that God's laws are not arbitrary, but are based on natural law. I agree with him on this point. However, Card fails to explain why God's law justifies monopolizing recognition of heterosexual marriage. (This is his term and I like it. It's much more accurate than "banning gay marriage".)

Card seems to rest on the idea that marriage, or unions between two individuals, occur for the sole purpose of procreation. As I'm sure you've all heard argued before, if that's the case, then we shouldn't allow sterile people to marry. I don't buy this argument.

There is a difference between opposing gay marriage in principle and opposing its legalization. This is the same difference between an eternal marriage and a civil marriage. One has heavenly meaning, the other has legal meaning. This is a nuanced argument, but is central to the issue. I've yet to see a person make a rational, legal argument as to why we, as a society, should define marriage based on this natural law.

The argument made by most people is that heterosexual marriage leads to continuation of the species/society, and homosexual marriage doesn't. It is because of this continuation principle that we have created incentives to marry, such as successorship, tax breaks, ownership, etc. These incentives are counterproductive when sterile people marry because they cannot reproduce, yet we allow them to marry anyway. Furthermore, homosexuals can reproduce - just not biologically with each other. Card further argues that children that grow up in heterosexual homes are more likely to turn out heterosexual. He's right on this last point, but wrong on the rest of his position.

The problem with this position is that we do allow exceptions to the rule. If the purpose of marriage is procreation, then we should only incentivize relationships that lead to procreation. But we don't - we allow the sterile to marry. Because we don't, equal protection seems to demand that we allow the exceptions for everyone equally - including homosexuals who cannot procreate. Some people say that allowing the sterile to marry is an unfortunate or necessary byproduct of allowing marriage at all, but that's a crap argument as well because of the eternal purpose of marriage, as I explain below. (Card also makes a ridiculous argument that under our current system, homosexuals can seek a member of the opposite sex to enter into the contract with them, thereby gaining the benefits of the incentives. This argument not only ignores the fact that we don't require the sterile to jump through that hoop, but also the fact that the incentivization is usually tied to cohabitation.)**

The Religious Argument

All of the legitimate arguments against gay marriage can be justified by a religious understanding of the purpose of marriage. My understanding (red flag! red flag! warning: false doctrine ahead!) is that the point of marriage is to join two people together in an eternal relationship so they can become like God, thereby producing offspring in the same way God produced us. This post-resurrection procreation requires a man and a woman, and thus, we should unite with a member of the opposite sex as God has commanded so we can become like Him. If we unite with a member of the same sex, we cannot attain exaltation because we will not be like God, i.e. able to produce spiritual offspring. This is why we can allow people who are mortally sterile to marry; when they reach exaltation, they will be able to produce. (Boy, I sure hope I explained that clearly. If you didn't understand it or think I'm nuts, please see this link.) This is why a religious argument against gay marriage is consistent. On the other hand, according to this argument, we shouldn't recognize any marriages that are not eternal, but absent an established religious state, we're never going to get that.

Card also argues that allowing gay marriage necessarily requires that we start to teach that homosexual relationships are acceptable, thereby increasing the likelihood that someone who is teetering on the fence between homosexuality or heterosexuality would choose homosexuality because it is no longer disfavored (Card says that most homosexuals are actually bisexual). This is his strongest secular argument, but still ultimately fails. People are more likely to engage in a behavior because it is condoned or accepted by society - but only to an extent. There will always be people that ignore because they don't care about the punishment or consequences, or because they believe that the probability of the punishment multiplied by the severity of the punishment is less than the benefit of the illegal activity. This also doesn't address the underlying question of why the government has a legitimate interest in discouraging homosexuality. His argument assumes ab inicio that homosexuality is bad for society, which he hasn't proved. I contend that the only viable arguments to be made against homosexuality are religious and can only be justified through LDS doctrine.

After making all of these arguments, Card writes this post wherein he seems to back down from a number of these positions. He moves to the position that:

"We do not believe that homosexuals, by entering into a "marriage," are personally hurting anybody."

He further states:

"Only those who try to use the force of law to promote homosexual behavior and homosexual marriage to our children, and who would forbid us to publicly teach and express our belief that marriage is only meaningful between heterosexual couples, move into the category of enemies of freedom."

(For the record, it bugs the poop out of me when people say, "We" without authority. Since none of what he's saying is supported by official statements from those with authority, he should start saying, "I", or clarify that he's talking about himself and like-minded individuals.)

Based on his earlier argument, his first statement is incorrect. But he's definitely right about the second statement, because freedom to teach your children whatever crazy crap you want is a fundamental right. As long as we're letting people have kids without a license, parents can teach them whatever crazy nonsense comes into their heads. That's why we let parents home school their kids - because weirdos have the right to raise more weirdos.

Card finally says:

"We do not think that any belief system, whether it calls itself a religion or not, should be imposed on other people by law -- we won't impose ours on them, and we won't let them impose theirs on us or our families."

He's definitely wrong on this point. We impose our belief system every single day. We live in a society where we have adopted through common consent a belief system that is now codified and imposed on others by violence (i.e., police, jails, etc.). I think what he means to say is that we have adopted a belief system that allows people to believe and say whatever they want (with some exceptions), as long as they don't act contrary to the law. In that sense, the government is entirely within its right to recognize gay marriage and force others to recognize it as well (again, to the extent the government can).

The bottom line is that Card's "secular" arguments against gay marriage must fail, leaving only religious arguments. Because the Constitution protects the individual's right to practice his religion, we have to recognize all religions, even those whose teachings are exactly contrary to our own. This leads to an unfortunate paradox: if the only arguments we can make against gay marriage are religious, how can we justify imposing our religious beliefs on other people in a society that protects individual freedom of religion? We can amend the Constitution, but that appears to me to be imposing our religious beliefs on others, contrary to the spirit of the Constitution.

Now, having said all that, I tend to agree with his ultimate conclusion that gay marriages should not be recognized. But without the understanding of the eternal reasons for marriage, I don't see how we can legally justify denying it to everyone based on a secular argument. That's why I think we should stop trying to. Our reasons are religious and we should stand by that; diluting our religious argument with secular fallacies only serves to weaken the strength of our position. We might lose the religious argument, but at least we won't compromise the strength and logic of our position.

In spite of his failings, he makes a number of good points about the debate itself, the parties, and how we should treat homosexuals. I just wish he wouldn't muddle up the debate by making fallacious and misguided arguments, distracting people from the real reasons why we should oppose legalizing gay marriage.



**I'm intentionally ignoring the slippery slope argument because it is stupid, like your mom. And to his credit, Card doesn't make it.

*** The good Mr. Colbert delivered this timely piece.

"Because I called his pitbull a gaywad at 106th and Park."

Yesterday, opposing counsel accused me of acting unprofessionally. I responded by referring to him as a dickwad. That showed 'em.

(In my defense, they were acting like dicks.)

"If you get rich off of this stuff, take care of my family for me - I don't want my kids to have to go to college."

I really hate Glenn Beck. Due to his rampant popularity, I've read a number of his articles, listened to some of his show, and tried to learn a little about him. All I've found out is that he is an ignoramus who substitutes pandering for argument and ignores or shouts down opponents rather than engage in a lively debate. He's not Bill O'Reilly bad, but he's still quite unlikeable.

This week, he was in Utah to raise money for yet another tiny institution of higher learning/fascism indoctrination camp. While here, he was confronted by a reporter who asked him how he felt about Governor Jon Huntsman as a rising star in the Republican Party. Mr. Beck responded by briefly complimenting the Governor on a personal level, and then saying, "But if that's the future of the Republican Party, the Republican Party is over." He goes to explain that the Republican Party needs to be led by a person of conservative conviction who does not appeal to progressives and Democrats. Because if there's one thing the Republican Party needs, it's more polarizing like-it-or-lump-it leaders.

Mr. Beck, could not be more wrong. Right now, the Republican Party is facing serious fallout from eight years of the Rove "50% plus 1" doctrine. This is the idea that to win an election, you only need 50% of the vote plus 1, i.e. this guy:



Under this theory, a party can alienate and ignore moderates and appeal directly to a core constituency of hardcore followers. This doctrine led to the last eight years of "my way or the highway" policies, which American voters seemed to reject during the last election, favoring a Democratic Presidency and majorities in both the House and Senate. Beck seems to be holding on to the idea that this 50% plus 1 approach is the key to Republican survival.

Beck is wrong for a number of reasons. First, and foremost, American political parties are built on consensus, not on alienation. Successful parties choose platforms that encompass the broadest range of people possible, so as to increase the number of voters who feel like they identify with that party. As voters' opinions change and shift, as they always do, successful parties change and shift with them, constantly modifying their platform to encompass a wider cross-section of voters. Unsuccessful parties choose platforms that polarize people and force them to choose between joining the party or not. It is this strategy that led to the defeat of the Republicans in 2008. Because Huntsman falls into the former, "encompassing" group, a party that followed his philosophy would be more likely to be successful because it casts its net wider, bringing in a higher cross-section of voters. If the Republican Party rejects the more inclusive approach, it will die or be transformed into something else.

Second, the Republican Party cannot now afford to become more conservative the way I think Beck understands the word. Beck seems to espouse selective conservatism, i.e. opposing government interference in taxes, guns, etc., but espousing governmental control in areas such as marriage, religion (i.e. creating a de facto state-sponsored religion), speech (including indecent speech), etc. This type of neo-conservatism is what led to the last eight years of increasing governmental control and spending. If the Republican Party wants to survive, it needs to distance itself from the neocons, and adopt a more traditional, pre-Reagan type of conservatism. Otherwise, people are left with choosing between the progressive style of the Democrats or the Fascist style of the Republicans. I can guarantee that Americans will choose socialism over fascism any day.

I suspect that Beck is just doing what he does best: pandering to a small constituency of hardcore neocons who want to be told they they are right and that everyone else is out to get them. He arms them with the ideas and allies they feel like they need and then profits off his imagined war. He lies and distorts facts (to get the good stuff, skip to 3:05) to suit his own purposes. Unfortunately, by playing this game, he is reducing the political debate in this country into a no-compromise zero sum game - the type of atmosphere we had before the Civl War. No, what America really needs right now is people who seek to raise the level of thoughtful debate and who believe in an America that embodies the ideals and philosophies that have made America a world leader.

America also needs Glenn Beck to just shut the crap up.

Update 7-23-09: Yup, he's a nutcase.

"If your Conan lasts more than three hours, consult a doctor."

This has been a surprisingly big weekend and is promising to be a great week.

1. The Superbowl. I only watched half of the SuperBowl because we had Stake Conference through the first half. I can tell I live in a rich Stake because of two things: 1) the high concentration of luxury sedans/SUV's in the parking lot; 2) the Stake President used the word, "yoke" and explained that he is not referring "to the yellow part of the egg that most of us throw away and don't eat." Stake Conference was also a parade of apocryphal stories about our holiest houses of worship. Good times.

2. Motion Practice. Today, I went to another hearing. I used to say that it was my first of its kind, which it was, but it's not my first hearing. I've been to 3 or 4 now, so now when I say that I'm experienced, it's no longer a lie, just an exaggeration. Anyway, the hearing went pretty well, and the judge indicated that our side would likely win. The official story is that we will win because of my superior advocacy skills. The truth is that the other side's major case in support of their position was overturned by the Supreme Court between the time they wrote their brief and oral argument. Oh, and we were very likely to win anyway. But hey, a win is a win.

3. TV. This week, all my favorite shows restart: Chuck, Heroes, Life, Law and Order, The Office, 30 Rock and Saturday Night Live. The great part is that last night after the SuperBowl, The Office ran an hour-long episode which was great on so many levels. My favorite line of the night: "Oscar, you're gay. Boom, roasted! Andy, Cornell called and said you suck, and you're gayer than Oscar. Boom, roasted!" It was a great episode.

4. Warmth. I hate winter. I hate snow and I hate cold. So, now that it's warmed up a bit, I'm in a much better mood. Now, if only the inversion could lift so I can go outside without risking my life, I'd be golden.

"Say 'hi' to your mother for me."

I've really enjoyed SNL lately. With the exception of the episode that aired on 11/14, it's been pretty darn good, and here's why:

1. Ridiculous original musical numbers.

2. Unnecessary and excessive violence.

3. Bill Hader, Andy Samberg and Will Forte (not the best Falconer sketch, but you get the idea).

4. Brilliant satires.

5. McGruber.

6. Laser Cats.

and

7. Childish name calling.

**For the record, I don't care much for Bobby Moynaughan or Fred Armisen. I'm also lukewarm toward Kristen Wiig and Keenan Thompson.

[Update 2-4-09] - Laser Cats are back! And McGruber has finally met his equal.

"Thank you for visiting Homer's Museum of Hollywood Jerks."

The prestigious Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences announced today their nominations for the best work in movies during 2008, a/k/a the "Oscars". I don't care much for the Oscars. I've never really liked them much anyway, but they lost all credibility in my eyes when "Chicago" beat "The Two Towers" for best picture. What a crock! Another robbery that year was snubbing Andy Serkis for best supporting actor, but I digress. Despite my many disagreements with the Academy's choices, this year I do agree on one thing: Wall-E does not deserve a best picture nomination. I will concede that I have not seen the other best picture nominees (nor will I), but I can say this: there were many other films last year that were much, much better than Wall-E. Don't get me wrong, Wall-E had its moments and was certainly not a bad film. However, I certainly don't think it was among the best movies I've ever seen, either. For example, "Dark Knight" was a much better movie (despite getting long-winded and preachy at the end).

I diverge from the rest of humanity because I don't absolutely love Pixar movies. My kid loves them, especially Wall-E, and that's great. I'm glad that he does. But he's three. He's not going to like a movie because of its plot, editing or stellar acting. See, Wall-E suffers from two of the major problems that accompany most Pixar movies: they are way too long and way too preachy. Wall-E could have benefited from a little more time in the editing room, especially toward the end when it started beating the audience over the head about its waste/laziness message. Come on, I know that your audience is only three years old, but they don't need to be told again and again about how awful it is to pollute the planet! They already know that! Shut up, already!

I have the same problem with "Cars". The first 15 minutes and the last 30 minutes of the movie were great. The 1:15 between them were unbearably long, preachy and annoying. I understand that you lament the loss of the slower lifestyle of the 40's and 50's, and that old things can still be useful, but did you really have to put in some long, boring, sappy and sad James Taylor song to make your point? And did you really have to give us over an hour of movie where virtually nothing happened? They could have skipped the whole storyline about the town being forgotten and just stuck with the Doc Hudson storyline to make the same point without being redundant. Learn to edit, morons!

I also hated "Finding Nemo", "The Incredibles", and "A Bug's Life" for the same reasons. The more watchable Pixar films were "Monsters, Inc.", "Toy Story" (which remains their best work), and "Toy Story 2" (minus the whole lost and abandoned toy storyline surrounding girl Woody). And among that list, even Monsters, Inc. was longer than it should have been.

My point is that for some inexplicable reason, people love Pixar movies and believe that they can do no wrong. People are dumb. Pixar needs an editor and a good kick in the mouth. Then they can start making movies again.

I also hate:

Renée Zellweger - Squinty-eyed spinster;

Chris Columbus - How on earth can you make the first two Harry Potter books boring? Really? And "Christmas with the Kranks"? You should be ashamed to ever show your face in public again.;

Julia Roberts - It's funny that they cast a horse as a hooker.;

Roland Emmerich - Why do people keep throwing money at you when your movies just keep getting worse and worse?; and

Angelina Jolie - Maybe I'm gay, but I don't find her attractive in the slightest. No, even gay people like her. She's a pretentious, snooty, self-important jerk. I also don't think much of her as an actress.

Obviously, this list could be much longer, but I've lost interest.

The final reason why I hate the Oscars is pretty tangential, but it's because people are surprised when actors do stupid stuff. I have news for you: actors are the drama kids from high school! I knew many of the drama kids, and only a few of them turned out normal (the ones that either got out of entertainment or parlayed their skills into real jobs). The rest of them were, and remain, total freaks who make poor life choices and are increasingly messed up as they gain fame and attention. We shouldn't be surprised that the weird behavior they exhibit is only exacerbated by their incredible wealth and attention. Please understand, I'm not complaining that actors behave like teenagers, rather, my complaint is with people having higher expectations of them. Actors are, for the most part, dumb. End of story.