I wouldn't mind being Jewish. I wouldn't mind. Really.

--Kobe Bryant The article goes on to note that while there are 24 Jewish players in the NFL, and 18 in Major League baseball, there are none in the NBA, which, when considering the make-up of the sport before WWII, is ironic. [link via Deadspin]

Kevin Drum has a good post on the trivial nature of blogger obsessions...or not trivial, as the case might be. Plagiarism might not have been part of the original indictment against Mr. Domenech, but this speaks to an utter lack of due diligence by the Post. They gonzaga'd this one. [updated on 3/24].

Star Princess: Back in '02, I had the pleasure of sailing on the cruise ship in the news today. Large cruise ships, as I wrote then, do not provide the same enjoyable experience as their more homey brethren.

The Princess line has about five comparable ships to the Star, with three dining halls, two smaller restaurants, a 24-hour buffet, a casino, about a half-dozen boutiques, a disco situated at the top of the ship, and bars everywhere, and can accomodate about three thousand people per cruise. There's an orientation before the ship "sets sail" where you're supposed to learn what to do and where to go in the event of an emergency, but it generally receives the same sort of attention from passengers as the obligatory recital from airline attendants of what you're supposed to do in the event of a drop in cabin pressure. Today's story will inevitably focus on the death of one of the passengers, of a heart attack, but someone dying on a cruise ship is actually not uncommon, largely due to the advanced age of many cruisers.

About half the members of the Democratic caucus in the Senate voted for cloture concerning the nomination of Samuel Alito, including six (by my count) Senators from Blue States. Three of those Senators are facing tough primary battles, including Daniel Akaka of Hawaii, who actually has to run against a Democratic Congressman.

So why is Lieberman the only one who gets attacked? Just asking....

Is George Bush the worst President ever, or merely a run-of-the-mill bad President? I'm in the former camp...it's hard to put anything in the "plus column" with Shrub. His popularity is at historic lows, and that's without any of the normal factors, such as high unemployment, runaway inflation and/or a prolonged string of criminal indictments, that normally cause that particular phenomenum.

His competition for that title centers on the men who held the office before the Civil War, most notably James Buchanan and Franklin Pierce, but also including pretty much everyone who held the office, besides Lincoln, between Andrew Jackson and Chester Arthur. Pierce and Buchanan(who, incidentally, may have been the best-qualified man ever to hold the position) were Northern Democrats who pretty much fronted for the slavocracy, and did nothing to stop the South's drift towards intransigence on the slavery issue. Buchanan, in particular, endorsed the Dred Scott decision, tried to admit Kansas into the Union as a slave state, and attempted to run Stephen Douglas out of the party for his apostacy on that issue. Although, truth be told, the final outcome of the Civil War led to some very good results, it was a damn close thing that the country wasn't forever destroyed by his incompetence.

However, Pierce and Buchanan were leading a country that was, at the time, a militarily insignificant backwater. The position they held was not as powerful as it would become, and their ineptitude only affected a few million people. The whole notion of a national economy, that a decision made in Washington could impact farm prices in Minnesota, was still a generation away. Congress was still the dominant branch of government (the opposition party, the Whigs, even believed that a President could not veto an act of Congress unless he found it to be unconstitutional), so much of the blame for what resulted in the 1860's has to lie there. The notion that we could maintain a large peacetime army was one that most of the country, abolitionist and slaveholder alike, would have blanched at in the 1850's, and a national law enforcement entity, something that could have been used to arrest and prosecute seccessionist traitors, was not on the table.

Bush, on the other hand, is not merely the President; he's the World's Most Powerful Man. His decisions affect billions of people, in the most remote areas of the planet. Today, the Presidency is the supreme branch, and where, as here, the same party controls both branches, it is the Congress that is the rubber stamp. He inherited a strong economy, low unemployment, a budget surplus, and a nation that was at peace with other nations. And unlike his two immediate predecessors, he was given an opportunity that gave him almost universal backing from his own people less that eight months into his Presidency, as well as support from nations, both friendly and hostile.

It is safe to say that six years into this Administration, Bush has thrown all of that away. It's not just the fact that so much of what he touches has turned to shit in front of our eyes, it's that much of what he's done badly isn't even on the radar screen yet, so no one's paying attention, at least until the day another Katrina hits, and we have to stare dumbly at our TV sets and mutter, who are these morons? Will it be the economy tanking in 2007, because of high credit card debt, or the collapse of the Housing Bubble? Or will it be the return of the Taliban in Afghanistan? Maybe the foreign countries that have been financing our deficits will decide there are better investments elsewhere? With this President, most likely it will be all that, and much more besides....

What with the NCAA Tournament underway, I'm not going to be spending much time here the next few days, but my two cents on the Feingold Resolution is that it is appropriate, certainly more so than the whiny calls for impeachment, where a President has knowingly violated the law, as is the case here. Far from acting rashly, the junior Senator from Wisconsin's announcement over the weekend was long overdue. It is not simply a matter of acting like an "opposition party" for Democrats, it's defending the rule of law, a prerogative that should be of equal concern to Republican Senators who are perhaps tired of being rubber stamps for an Administration that has compiled some of the worst public approval ratings since the Carter Presidency.

And frankly, I don't give a rat's ass if this hurts the Democratic Party this November. Contrary to the opium fantasies at other websites, the Party is not going to win back control of the Senate this year. There, I've said it. The House, maybe, particularly if the President's numbers don't improve, but the Senate, nope. It's not going to happen. We're not going to net six seats, and we're not going to impeach the President's sorry ass.

That's why I'm bored with the argument that we need to rally behind the Party, as if the Democratic Party was some holy vessel, inviolate and pure, in which we can invest our hopes. It isn't; it's a loose confederation of hacks and interest groups, and means different things in different areas of the country. If the Democrats controlled the Senate, I wouldn't have a second's hesitation to assert that Roberts and Alito would still be on the Supreme Court, and we still would be fighting a losing war in Iraq. And the President would still be running roughshod over the Constititution.

So don't ask me to lift a finger to support Bob Casey. Or pretend that having Mary Landrieu chair some committee is going to matter a whit, as opposed to Pat Roberts. Liberals need to look at the problems of the day and come up with solutions, not obsess with the irrelevant intricacies of partisan politics during an era in which we are in the minority. Hopefully, the Feingold Resolution will allow us to see that the road back to power is a long one, so we can act accordingly.

Dennis the Peasant: Verrrrry conservative, funny as hell, and perhaps the baddest ass in Blogolia. First encountered the guy back when I was still allowed to comment on the pre-PJM Roger Simon blog, and was invariably torn a new one before I went fetal. Not for the faint of heart.... [link via MaxSpeak]

I feel just like Jesus' son....

Those who are both college hoops fans and love reading something that will make you run gagging and screaming from your monitor by check out this.

The Onion has the last word on the most-overhyped sports story of the week, here.

Any outrage I was supposed to have felt for the "revelation" that a baseball superstar has been on the juice for the past six years was quelched when the writers (and S.I.) apparently thought it newsworthy to publish the hearsay testimony of one of Bonds' former skanks that he only married the current Mrs. because she was black. It was a story of dubious relevance, at best, to the issue of whether Bonds had taken steroids and lied about it to a grand jury, even if Bonds had called a press conference and announced it to the public. The fact that it was an otherwise unsupported allegation made by an embittered and biased witness, the publication of which having the clear effect of hurting people (Bonds' wife and children) who are not public figures, is a truly scummy act by the book's writers and Sports Illustrated.

Profumo Dies: Until I read of his passing, I had no idea he was still alive.

I don't often write about high school sports, but tonight's Southern Cal hoops semifinal between No. 1-ranked Compton Centennial and No. 2-ranked Harvard-Westlake* is worth noting. In recent years, the two schools have developed one of the nation's most intense rivalries in high school basketball, more so because of how diametrically opposite they are. One is a predominantly African-American public school in one of the poorest neighborhoods in the region, the other, a prep school known nationally as a feeder for the Ivy League. While H-W is known as much for its role in educating the progeny of power lawyers, movie execs and bankers, Centennial is part of a school system that was taken over by the state awhile back for poor test scores and misappropriation of funds. It's Duke-North Carolina taken to the nth degree.

And yet, for some reason, the two schools have now played in four of the past five CIF title games, with H-W winning three of them, as well as several epic battles in the state tournament. Although H-W has won most often, the Apaches have the recent edge, knocking H-W out of the state tournament two years ago on the road, and winning the CIF title last Saturday. As always, it was a thriller: H-W coming from way back to take a two point lead with four seconds to play, only to have senior guard Tyre Thompson go from end-to-end on an Edneyesque run and hit a desperation trey at the buzzer to win the championship. This time, it's the Wolverines turn to travel to Centennial, with the winner advancing to the state semifinals next week.

UPDATE [3/10]: H-W won, 60-58 [O.T.]. Tar Heel-bound senior Alex Stepheson led the way with 26 points and 22 rebounds, to go with 10 blocked shots. The Wolverines play Artesia tomorrow for the So-Cal title.

*In the interest of full disclosure, my alma mater

A good exegesis as to why Crash won and Brokeback lost, here. The two biggest reasons, I think, come down to the fact that the winner had a much better pre-Oscar campaign (a DVD in every pot, as it were), and that it took place in Los Angeles, and was thus easier for the working members of the Academy to relate. For all the sanctimonious twaddle and hype during the ceremony about what a precious and unduplicable experience seeing a movie "before a crowd of strangers" on "the big screen" is supposed to be, in reality, the race came down to the fact that the winner had been released on DVD months earlier, and its studio took full advantage to make sure that every possible person with a vote would have a copy long before screeners for the other candidates went out.

The other reason, dealing with the locale of the movie, is perhaps counterintuitive, when one realizes that in the first 76 years of Oscar, not a single film set in the City of Angels had ever won the top honor, and only a handful of films had so much as a scene set here. Now that we've had back-to-back winners, it's useful to see what it is the two last two films (Crash and Million Dollar Baby) had in common: they are both films that inhabit the real city, not some glamorous or mythical stand-in for same. Classic films that came close in the past were either period pieces (Chinatown, L.A. Confidential) or were films about Hollywood (most notably, Sunset Blvd. and Singing in the Rain); obviously, such films, while admirable on an aesthetic level, have nothing to do with the ups and downs of normal, everyday life here. Most of the Academy membership are not, by any stretch of the imagination, stars; they may have made a good living off of films, but they still have to inhabit the same universe everyone else does. People who are "stars" can afford the luxury of owning homes on each coast, while dissing the city as fake and superficial; the rest of us just have to make do, and perform the same mundane tasks as everyone else, like go to the supermarket, drive their kids to school, etc.

For the most part, Academy members do those things in Los Angeles, so any film that broaches the topic of what Los Angeles is, as a community, has an appeal. Since most of what "L.A." symbolizes to the rest of the planet is based on what non-Angelenos think, there becomes a dichotomy between the real city and "Hollywood", and it becomes a very rare thing indeed to see that "real city" on the big screen. Not having seen Crash, I can't say for certain whether that film succeeded in doing so, but I can see why it might have appealed to a member of the Academy who isn't making $50 million a picture (the fact that it was shot in the city, at a time of runaway production, no doubt also played a factor). For good or ill, provincialism is universal.

A correction from last week: I have seen an Oscar-nominated film. Two, to be exact: Revenge of the Sith is up for Best Make-up, and Batman Begins is nominated for Best Cinematography.

I can safely say that I would not be watching tonight's Oscar ceremony were it not for a familial tradition. For years, my parents attended an Oscar-night party hosted by a family friend, and my late father, who like his son is not a movie fan, had the job of tabulating the results of the Oscar pool. When he passed away, I inherited the task, to my increasing discomfort, as I have come to see fewer and fewer films as the years pass. The two hours or so between major awards now leads to some big-time squirming, so I pass the time napping or catching up on my reading.

If this Patrick Goldstein article in this morning's L.A. Times is any indication, I'm not the only person greeting this year's ceremony with a yawn. Situating the Oscars in the context of other big events that have experienced significant drop-offs in TV ratings, Goldstein argues that there is less interest now in events that "capture the communal pop culture spirit". I would argue that we've entered an era in which movies are just not that important anymore, either as entertainment vehicles or as works of art, and just as film replaced vaudeville in the '20's, and TV obliterated radio drama in the early-50's, we now live in an age in which the time and expense necessary to leave home and see a movie on a large screen isn't worth it to a lot of people anymore.

Something similar is happening to the music industry right now: why buy an album when you can tailor-pick your musical selection over the internet, at much less cost, and without much of the annoying filler. Last month's simultaneous release of a Steven Soderburgh film (an Oscar-winning director, no less) on DVD and cable television indicates that someone gets it; the old methods of delivering the product from studio to consumers isn't necessary anymore, and people are more likely going to choose the method that is cheapest, most convenient, and gives them more control over when and how they see it. People will still choose the cinema to see comedies and slasher pics, since the communal experience in seeing a film with a group of strangers is most enhanced, as well as films that emphasize the visual spectacle (such as any Star Wars or Harry Potter film), but everything else is going straight to video. And that includes the five Best Film nominees, none of which would probably have seemed out-of-place (or, for that matter, particularly distinguished) had they aired on HBO first.

Speaking of "straight-to-video", my one rooting interest tonight will be in one of the early categories, Best Supporting Actress. Anyone who has ever channel-surfed in the middle of the night has probably seen the classic "sequel" to the Ryan Phillippe-Reese Witherspoon vehicle, Cruel Intentions (actually, a prequel). Originally shot as a TV-pilot called "Manchester Prep", with the same director as the original, the show was dropped from the Fox TV schedule in 1999 a month before it was to air, after Murdoch's minions saw the finished product and realized that it was trashy even by their own low standards. Quickly reedited, Cruel Intentions II subsequently became a late-night staple on cable; the Shower Scene alone is worth the two hour investment, though it adds absolutely zero to the plot. Inheriting the role played by Sarah Michelle Geller, Amy Adams is a true trash goddess in CI II, savoring each line with an Alexis Carrington-in-prep-school fury.

So for overcoming such auspicious beginnings, I salute you, Ms. Adams. Take home the Oscar, and make us all proud !!

Katrina: Bush lied.

UPDATE [3/2]: In what may be one of the more lamer attempts at defending Bush, Mickey Kaus writes:

A good deal of the gleeful Froomkinian outrage in the press and Democratic party over that pre-Katrina video seems to be based on what is at best is a semantic misunderstanding. After Katrina, Bush said "I don't think anybody anticipated the breach of the levees." In the video, Patterico points out, Bush is warned by hurricane expert Max Mayfield that there's a chance the "levees will be topped." Topping is different than breaching, no? When a levee's "topped," or "overtopped," some water sloshes over it and into the city. Then the storm passes and that's it. When a levee's "breached," there's a hole in the levee and Lake Pontchartrain pours in the gap and keeps pouring in until the city is completely flooded. What Bush said after the storm seems quite consistent with what Mayfield told him before the storm--i.e., he thought the levees might be topped by the storm surge but not that they'd be breached, with the catastrophe that resulted.

Yeah, that's the ticket...all Bush was warned of was that "some water" might drip over the levees and down into the Big Easy as a result of Katrina, not that there would be mass flooding as a result...such a trivial thing, too; I wonder why Mr. Mayfield even broached the subject. And technically, Clinton didn't have "sexual relations" with Ms. Lewinsky either.

Jeez, that doesn't even survive the giggle test. In fact, "topping" and "breaching" are the same thing, in this context. Both constitute a failure in the levee system to prevent water from flooding the city of New Orleans, and with Katrina predicted to be a Cat-5 hurricane when the President was briefed, the predicted result was going to be the same: a calamitous and overwhelming ocean of water entering the city, ruining everything in its path. It didn't matter if the water was coming over the levee or through it. Bush knew that this was possible, was warned about it before it took place, then denied he had been told anything of the sort several days later. This isn't even lame spin; it's insulting.

A fine wrap-up on Marshall v. Marshall, by Dahlia Lithwick:

It seems cruel to report that Anna Nicole then stood and exited the courtroom, leaving the building by a side door and again granting no interviews. I would love to tell you that she did something, anything, to distinguish herself from the thousands of appellants who have brought their cases into these marble walls. But the court has worked its magical spell of blandness, even upon Anna, and she is just another litigant with a probate dispute today. She has stepped into the only place in America where her breasts have no power.

Well, Clarence Thomas aside....

As if we needed more evidence that the Housing Bubble has burst, comes word that last month, home sales reached a ten-year low in Massachusetts, the state that saw the most sustained increase in home values over the past twenty-five years. I thought we caught a real break last year when the Bubble sustained itself through the expiration of the old bankruptcy law; the unsupportable increase in home prices over the last decade has been one of the things that helped limit the number of credit defaults, since people who sustained a medical emergency or job loss could always borrow money off the equity in their home as a last resort. Now that home values have peaked, and monthly credit card payments are soon to double, it may get very ugly again in the bankruptcy courts....

In re Vickie Lynn Marshall: Not much of substance to add about this case (for that, go here and here), except that the trial in her matter took place in the same bankruptcy court that I used to hang out at, in Downtown L.A. (most of my work is now done at the Woodland Hills branch). On occasion, I would drop by the packed courtroom (1575, on the 15th Floor, is where Judge Samuel Bufford holds court) and sneak a peek of the fat model listening to the proceedings during her trial. That she was initially awarded such a huge amount of money, in spite of the earlier decision by the Texas probate court, was no surprise, considering the strong pro-debtor leanings of Judge Bufford, whose obsession with the correct pagination and tabbing of motions and briefs has made appearances before him such a deeply pleasurable experience for all local counsel. And now Anna Nicole, like Dred Scott, Curt Flood and whoever "Wade" was before her, will live on in American history, to be studied and scrutunized by law students into the next millenia.

Political Relativism: Blogger Jane Hamsher writes:

While it's open to debate how much influence NARAL's decision not to support anti-choice Langevin in the Rhode Island race had on his decision to drop out, it was perceived as significant. Their endorsement may not mean a lot in Alabama, but it means a lot in solidly pro-choice New England states. Further, their decision to continue to support Lincoln Chafee and Joe Lieberman even after their disastrous vote on Samuel Alito is a signal to other Senators that is okay to vote like this in the future and keep your official pro-choice credentials in the process. NARAL and Planned Parenthood are rubber stamping these votes. How exactly do they plan on coming out and fighting the next Supreme Court Alito-lite nomination if they don't start yanking chains now?

Whenever major media outlets need an official quote from the pro-choice movement, they call NARAL and Planned Parenthood. If they are not speaking up against this bullshit, nobody is.

The problem is that in doing nothing they are actively hurting their own ability to do the good work that Planned Parenthood consistently does. If the South Dakota Rapist Rights bill goes through, it won't matter how many brave souls are willing to staff an abortion clinic, they won't be able to do so. I've said it before and I'll say it again: there is no more important task right now before the pro-choice movement than changing the balance of power in the US Senate and breaking up the Gang of 14....

I can think of nothing that will have less importance to the "pro choice movement" in the U.S. than electing a Democratic majority this November. However unlikely, at the moment, the prospect of taking seven GOP-held seats may seem, the prospect of taking over the Senate will be of almost no signifcance in preserving abortion rights, or protecting the privacy rights of women. That fight is now in the hands of the judiciary.

And if party stalwarts such as Daniel Akaka, Herb Kohl, and Maria Cantwell were not motivated to use the filibuster when the party was in the minority, and it was one of the only weapons in their arsenal to fight back against the far right, why should anyone believe they'll put up much of a fight when they gain the majority? And if the blogosphere doesn't care enough to send them a message, instead focusing all its wrath on the hapless Mr. Lieberman, why should other Democrats stick their necks out on principle either?

Based on recent history, the party's track record is not promising. One doesn't even have to look to the last four years, and examples such as the 2005 Bankruptcy bill or the confirmation of John Roberts and Samuel Alito, to realize what a worthless vehicle the party is in effecting worthwhile change, since there are numerous examples of what it did when it actually had a majority. In the five and a half years since 1990 when the Senate was controlled by the Democratic Party, it:

1) confirmed Clarence Thomas;
2) prevented President Clinton from ending anti-gay discrimination in the military;
3) failed to pass bills mandating access to health care (Hillary's plan, or any plan), public financing of elections, K-Street reforms, term limits, or efforts to curb gerrymandering;
4) passed the Patriot Act;
5) supported the resolution to go to war with Iraq, and generally supported the President's policies (before they opposed them);
6) created the Homeland Security Department; and, last but not least,
7) confirmed Michael "Heckuvajobbrownie" Brown to run FEMA.

That's quite a track record for a political party that's ostensibly supposed to be defending the great liberal tradition in this country. So pardon me if I don't get too exorcised about whether NARAL endorses Joe Lieberman or Lincoln Chafee, or use my small corner of the internets to whore for Democrats this election. Making the Democratic Party something worth fighting for can't be done by scapegoating a single Senator, not when almost half the party sucks from the same sleazy teat.

Le Menu Cunningham: I suppose when there's no one guarding the henhouse, it shouldn't be surprising that one Republican Congressman would not only sell his office, but would actually set out, in writing, a "menu" for what services he could provide in exchange for what level of bribe. This sort of corruption is never bipartisan, since the minority party can't offer government contracts, or any of the big ticket items that exist in this scandal. Yet it's a "Republican" scandal only because they currently hold the reigns of power; there is nothing in the modern ideology of liberalism that would make its believers any more pristine than conservatives. Moreover, this is a problem that can't be fixed by any of the normal palliatives, such as the public financing of elections, since the money doesn't go to campaign spending. Greed is greed.