Thursday, March 18, 2004

TiVo Alert!

Saturday evening, C-Span says they're broadcasting an hour-long panel discussion entitled, "Political Humor and Campaigning" that was taped in Aspen at the recent U.S. Comedy Arts Festival. The dais includes Garry Trudeau and some people who don't draw comic strips. The current schedule says it airs at 8 PM Eastern time and runs 65 minutes...but C-Span has been known to juggle shows around so I'd suggest checking their website as late as possible if you want to catch or record it.

• Posted at 9:11 PM · LINK

DVD Dilemma

Hey, remember how I waxed (somewhat) enthusiastic about the Panasonic DMR-E80H DVD Recorder? It was back here if you don't recall. Well, the machine has worked flawlessly until today when it has begun working...well, whatever the opposite of "flawlessly" is. Suddenly having big problems. I'll let you know if and when the Panasonic folks straighten things out but for now, I hereby put my recommendation on hold.

• Posted at 8:07 PM · LINK

Another Change of President

To the surprise of few, Charles Holland has stepped down as President of the Writers Guild of America, West. Holland was elected Vice-President in our last election and ascended to the presidency when it was determined that the elected President, Victoria Riskin, was ineligible for the job. Daniel Petrie, Jr. was named Vice-President when Holland moved up and now Petrie will be Prez as we head into what looks to be a very nasty contract negotiation.

Holland came under fire when it was charged that he has told numerous lies about his past, including claiming military service and some football honors that never occurred. Fibbing about your past is not actually against the WGA Constitution but a pretty loud group of Holland's detractors circulated e-mails and demanded that he do the "honorable thing" and step down. The premise here was that in the coming battle, it would not do to have the WGA led by someone so controversial. From a practical standpoint, that's probably true...but there is something unbecoming all around. There is a due process for removing someone from office and this ain't it.

Petrie is a good choice as he has unquestioned credentials as a writer (most famous credit: Beverly Hills Cop and its sequel) and he has been President before, so he knows the territory. The Board will probably appoint someone equally credible — like Frank Pierson or John Wells — to be the new Veep.

I still think the WGA is facing a down-and-dirty round of bargaining which could lead to either a long, destructive strike or a short, destructive collapse. Most folks in Hollywood think it's time for the "talent unions" (the Directors Guild, the Screen Actors Guild and us) to get a larger share of DVD revenues...but SAG recently settled without getting into that issue, and the DGA never sets precedents that help other unions. So the WGA is out there fighting this battle on its own at a time when the economy is not good. And it's going to be bloody.

• Posted at 7:03 PM · LINK

From the E-Mailbag...

Dennis Donohoe writes...

I am one of many (I hope) who find Saletan's shrill hostility against Bush unpersuasive. I am curious, and I bet a lot of your other blog addicts are also, what you find compelling about Kerry that would get you to vote for him. If it is just an attitude of "anybody but Bush", I can sort of understand that since that is what I thought about Clinton. If it is something else, who knows - maybe if you blog it you could persuade people over to the Kerry side, not that you have any obligation to do that. I hope your leaning toward Kerry is not just knee-jerk voting for the Democratic candidate, regardless of the merits. Somehow I can't believe that is the case.

No, it isn't. I've voted G.O.P. at times and long disdained party-line voting. (I always think it's high on the ridiculous scale when we see "news stories" that Bill Clinton has endorsed the Democrat in some race or that Bob Dole has endorsed the Republican. Like those guys have taken an unencumbered look at the contest and honestly come to the conclusion that the guy from their party is by far the best choice.)

You have not seen me post much positive here about Kerry because, frankly, I haven't seen anything yet that gives me a reason to cheer on his candidacy. Then again, I haven't seen anything particularly negative...so I guess to some extent, I am operating in "Anybody but Bush" mode. Perhaps between now and November, I'll find reasons to get enthusiastic about Kerry. If not, I'll probably vote for him with the same "lesser of two evils" motivation that has underscored too many of the ballots I've cast in my lifetime.

I don't find Saletan "shrill" by any definition. In the last piece I linked to, he quoted Bush and his crew, then cited what seemed to me like pretty solid evidence that those charges are not true. He didn't call anyone a pathological liar or a "scumbag" or any of the hysterical insults that too often infect political discussions. Do you think Saletan was wrong? If he wasn't, then he was doing his job as a political commentator. If he was wrong, then that's the problem with his piece. (I should confess to another of my prejudices here: I think about 90% of all political "attack" ads are not only nasty but are written with the deliberate intent of distorting the record and quotes of the attacked candidate.)

For reasons I've mentioned and others that will be posted here between now and November, I think Bush has been a terrible president, making things worse in almost every category. The one thing I'll give him is that he's done a good job of convincing a large segment of the population that he's being "tough" and that Daddy is in charge and protecting us from the mean ol' terrorists. That is not a small thing but I do think a lot of it is illusory. When I finish a deadline I'm presently battling, maybe I'll write more about this.

[The above message was updated at 7:05 PM to clean up some sloppy phrasing.]

• Posted at 5:39 PM · LINK

Today's Political Babbling

Anyone who reads this page knows I hope George W. Bush does not win the election this November. But if he does, I really hope he wins a clean victory and not one that winds up going to the Supreme Court.

As you may have heard, Justice Antonin Scalia today declined to recuse himself in the matter of the Sierra Club's suit against Dick Cheney. Even to a legal layman, his 21-page memorandum [Adobe Reader required] has to raise some eyebrows. He claims, for instance, that if Justices recuse themselves, there can too easily be 4-4 tie decisions. Okay, fine...but isn't a tie preferable to a 5-4 decision that will widely be perceived as dishonest or tainted? More to the point, when a Justice retires or dies, we always go through a long period where we have eight members on the High Court. If an even number of Justices is so undesirable, why has no one proposed whatever legislation would be necessary to hasten the confirmation process and get us back to nine? And of course, during those long periods of eight Justices, one recusing him or herself eliminates the possibility of a tie, so recusal doesn't always result in judicial gridlock.

The following passage also struck me as flailing about to find some way to argue his side...

...while friendship is a ground for recusal of a Justice where the personal fortune or the personal freedom of the friend is at issue, it has traditionally not been a ground for recusal where official action is at issue, no matter how important the official action was to the ambitions or the reputation of the Government officer.

Perhaps there are few (if any) precedents but I don't see the distinction here. If Dick Cheney loses this case and is forced to reveal that which he has fought to keep hidden, he could suffer enormous personal embarrassment. He could be sued or even lose his job. What the heck difference does it make to argue that — well, technically — it's his official action not his personal fortune. One could also make a pretty good case that Cheney's personal fortune has been enhanced in huge amounts by his official actions. Wait 'til later, when it's too late for Bush to drop him from the ticket and the Democrats begin unleashing the "war profiteering" accusations. At some point, we're going to hear Democrats saying things like, "Dick Cheney isn't really that interested in a second term. He wants to hurry back to Halliburton and collect his commission on the war."

In any case, it seems to me that recusal is not about the technicalities of a conflict of interest but about making sure that the court's decisions are above suspicion. Is there anyone today who feels, in light of Scalia's attitude, America is more likely to embrace the next 5-4 decision that favors the Bush administration with Scalia among the five?

• Posted at 1:50 PM · LINK

March 19, 2004 • Current • March 17, 2004