Sotomayor's confirmation

Sonia Sotomayor's nomination to be the next Supreme Court justice started today. TPM has her opening statement. The NY Times has detailed coverage, particularly on their Times Topic page on her. I want to take a moment here and give some serious props to the NYT for their Times Topic idea. They collect lots of relevant information and articles about a topic in one place. That's just fantastic. This is what the Web should be for. This is what innovation on a newspaper Website looks like.

OK, back to Sotomayor. There is no question that she will be confirmed. Republicans are trying to paint her as biased in favor of minorities. Good luck on that one. White guys in suits - on camera - complaining about unfair treatment for other white guys is just pathetic.

For me, what's important to note about this is that it's one of the first moments when Obama can make a clear difference. He's already done that in several areas, but this is one time when he can nail a decisive victory. It's a slam dunk. More than that, it will also be an occasion to party. It will be an occasion to fire up the troops. There are, of course, some liberals and progressives who are disillusioned with Obama for various reasons. This is utterly normal. But moments like this are opportunities for Obama to remind those whose dreams have faded a little what is at stake here. A Hispanic woman, from a poor Puerto Rican background, is about to become a Supreme Court justice.

What's most important about this is not the fact that a Hispanic woman is about to become a Supreme Court justice, but that this particular earned this, and deserves it. In her statement, she said

The progression of my life has been uniquely American.

When I was a freshman in high school, one of the first assignments in my English class was to write about the American Dream. This would be a great example. Sonia Sotomayor, by living the American Dream, by personifying an idea that absolutely refuses to become a cliche, is doing two things at once. She is living that dream for herself. But she is also doing something that is itself quintessentially American: she is expanding the definition of the American Dream to include people like her. She is staking a claim to that dream, and there ain't a damn thing the most obnoxious Republican out there can do about it. Fortunately for all of us, there are lots of Republicans who are applauding this dream come true.

And now back to Obama again. Obama himself has done very little work to bring this moment to fruition. All of his staffers did the work to select her. He hasn't had to campaign much for her - her nomination is a foregone conclusion. He won't do anything once she is sitting on the bench. But he is the reason this is happening.

As momentous as this occasion is, however, it's also important to notice that this moment itself doesn't change anything. Sotomayor is not on the Supreme Court yet, and even after her confirmation, she won't be there for a couple of months. And then she won't issue any opinions for months after that. Then those opinions won't necessarily take effect immediately. Those effects will then take a while to manifest themselves.

But the effects of her presence on the Supreme Court will, in all probability, last for decades, and effect millions. Obama has done a lot of things since becoming president that have not had much effect yet; we are still fighting two wars, debates are still raging about torture, we don't know how well the stimulus package will end up working, GM and Chrysler haven't started making money yet.

But a Hispanic woman is about to become a Supreme Court justice for three reasons: 1, because she is qualified. 2, because this is America, and this can happen here. And 3, because Barack Obama nominated her.

UFC 100

I watched UFC 100 last night. For the uninitiated, which until last night included me, UFC means "Ultimate Fighting Championship," also known as "mixed martial arts." It's a combination of boxing, wrestling, and martial arts. Two men in a ring slug it out with padded gloves. Their fingers extend beyond the ends of the gloves, so they don't have as much padding as boxing gloves, but they can get a better grip on things, like their opponent's face. That's just one difference between this and boxing. They can also tackle each other, grapple and kick, besides punching and wrestling. It's generally a much more violent sport than boxing, if that can be believed. And it's very real - the floor of the ring ends up with lots of red splotches - that's blood from the contestants (each event has several fights). The matches are also short - the rounds last 5 minutes, but there are only 3 or 5 rounds. Championship matches last 5 rounds, and we watched two last night, along with several other fights. Matches only last 3 to 5 rounds because that's all the contestants can take. Many matches end with a TKO or submission before the end of regulation. There are three judges, again like boxing.

I would normally have no interest in this bloodsport, but a friend of mine invited me to watch it yesterday. This friend of mine has a good sense of adventure and a fine sense of the absurd, so I went. We watched it as bar called Big Wangs, where the waitresses wear low-cut black t-shirts that read "SIZE MATTERS." This is a place where "subtle" means less than 80 decibels.

So I watched a sport not quite as civilized as boxing at a bar not quite as sophisticated as Hooter's.

But I have to admit that I had a good time, even though I watched some guys get their asses kicked. Fans, of course, would say that I had a good time because I watched some guys get their asses kicked. In the welterweight championship match, a guy named Georges St.-Pierre, from Montreal, just decimated Brazilian Thiago Alves. That was actually rather fascinating. St.-Pierre has a fleur de lis tattooed on his leg, a nice touch for a French Canadian. He's also much smarter than Alves, which, oddly enough in this very physical sport, gave him a big advantage. Even more important, he knows he's smarter, which is one hell of an advantage. When he sensed an opening, he would just attack, lunging straight forward, and he almost always took Alves down. He won in a unanimous decision. Gotta love those macho French Canadians.

The heavyweight championship match, which was the highlight of the night, such as it was, pitted a mountain/animal with human organs named Brock Lesnar against a slightly more normal human named Frank Mir. Mir is only 20 pounds lighter than Lesnar (245 vs. 265), but Lesnar just seemed to dwarf him. Mir, however, won their first match, a year ago, so Lesnar was out for blood, literally. He had Mir pinned against the cage and landed several good pounds on his face before the referee jumped in and stopped the match. Mir walked away, but his nose was more blood than flesh.

The most amazing sight of the night came in a match between an arrogant Brit named Michael Bisping and an American, Dan Henderson. Bisping is quite the trash talker. He's also quite the dancer, moving all the time. Henderson, however, had his number, and clocked him good. Bisping went down, and was basically defenseless, but Henderson jumped on him and landed a haymaker on his face before the ref jumped on him. You couldn't have choreographed a more powerful scene. I told my friend that that image isn't leaving my brain for a while.

I also told my friend that I was very glad these guys have some way to channel their aggression. I'm particularly glad of this because apparently they need it. After he won, Lesnar walked around the ring (an octagon) and flipped off the crowd. With both hands. He also said that he was going to go home and drink a Coors (it's sponsored by Bud Light). Supposedly he apologized, but the damage was done. To Frank Mir's face, several million of his brain cells, our civilization's sense of decency, and, quite possibly, my own reputation as a sensitive, artistic kind of guy.

But I did have fun.

And the beer was cold.

And I tipped the waitress well.

HSX: Week of July 10, 2009

Only two movies opening this weekend, both comedies. Let's get the easy one out of the way first: "I Love You, Beth Cooper" (ILUBC) is opening with the least amount of buzz for a wide release that I can remember. I have not seen any publicity whatsoever, which is strange in Los Angeles. I barely knew it was opening. The stock is at H$21, which is off of the high of H$27, but it's been climbing quite steadily. It's directed by Chris Columbus, who is NOT one of my favorite directors (he directed Bicentennial Man, which is one movie I am sure Robin Williams wishes was erased from the planet Earth). The strike price is H$10, which may have made sense a couple of weeks ago, but is now officially absurd. The call (IBCCA) is at H$1.74, surprising only in that it is above H$1. The put (IBCPU) is at H$3.30, which is a very bad sign. It's at 13% on rottentomatoes.com, a really, really bad sign. Nary a positive sign in sight, really.

Stock: Short

Call: Short

Put: Long

Next up is Bruno (BRUNO), Sacha Baron Cohen's second alter ego to hit the big screen, after Borat. This could be either a huge hit or not so huge a hit. It will make a lot of money, the only question is whether it will make massive amounts, or just lots. The subject matter is stirring up strong reactions and controversy, which is not necessarily a bad thing. It's at 70% on rottentomatoes.com, and we love that. I've laughed quite a bit at some of the trailers, so I am planning to see it, although I am not quite sure what to think of how politically incorrect it is. At least one gay friend is seriously bothered by it. I am reserving judgment, but I do plan to see it. The stock is at H$108, down from H$124, but holding up. The strike price is H$40, which is exactly in line with the stock price. The call (BRUCA) is at H$5+, but the put (BRUPU) is at H$3.30. I am not surprised at these split signals, given how controversial the movie is. The stock is predicting an opening of $40 million, the call $46 million or higher, and the put about $36 million or lower. I think the call might be on the high side, but I'm going to keep it long, because of the danger of too much upside. I have one reason for optimism in particular: Borat opened on only 837 screens, but did $26 million. With a lot more screens, and much more publicity, I think Bruno could do much, much better than that.

Stock: Long

Call: Long

Put: Short

Update Sunday night: Looks like I picked the wrong week to believe in outrageous British satire. BRUNO had a solid opening on Friday, $14 million. It looked like it would meet the strike price, if not much more, but then it plunged on Saturday, and only would up doing $30 million for the weekend. So I got burned on all three securities. ILUBC, however, tanked as expected, so that made up for it a little bit.

Michael Jackson

Michael Jackson's memorial service was here in LA on Tuesday, at the Staples Center, our big indoor arena. There were 17,500 tickets, distributed free through an online lottery. 1.6 million people applied. People came from around the country; some people came from other countries. Streets were closed; buses were rerouted. But apparently it was not a mob scene, and very tasteful. The LA Times captured the mood:

In the end, they brought Michael Jackson to the one place where his life always made sense -- beneath a spotlight and in front of his adoring fans. The superstar, in a gleaming gold coffin, was celebrated in a Staples Center memorial service that was beamed around the world and, like the icon himself, strove mightily to be all things to all people.

I'm not a big Michael Jackson fan, although I like many of his songs. But as I was watching the "Beat It" video the other day, I realized something about him. It's a good video today, but it was a great video back then. It seems standard now, maybe even cliched, to see the singer leading a dance routine. But it was groundbreaking back in the day. Of all the great male rock and pop stars, Michael Jackson was far and away the best dancer, one of the only ones who had the natural talent to move with that kind of grace. Elvis, of course, was famous for his moves, but he was also mostly standing in one place while he shook his hips. The Beatles? Rolling Stones? The Police, Jimmy Buffett, The Beach Boys, Led Zeppelin? Mick Jagger is very athletic and charismatic, but even he doesn't have the kind of rhythm Michael Jackson did.

Most lives worthy of celebration have their share of controversy, but death has a way of rebalancing the scales of fame. Michael Jackson was famous for his talent and his art, then he was famous for being famous, then he was famous for being weird. Now he's back to being famous for what he was originally known for; some damn good music.

Michael Jackson started on the road to stardom a long time before MTV was born, but he did it, and it did him, some very large favors. Like most people between the ages of about 25 and 55, I have long since lost interest in MTV. I'm one of those old-fashioned people who like music videos. This is why I like YouTube. I watched "Beat It" on mtv.com, but then tried to find some other favorite videos, and of course was greeted with a message that they were somehow lost. But MTV was going to get them back! That's just sad.

But in honor of The Gloved One, I'm going to end this post with a link to mtv.com.

Ross Douthat Insults the Working Class

Ross Douthat takes on the thankless and somewhat odd job of sort-of defending Sarah Palin after her completely bizarre announcement that she will be resigning as governor of Alaska. I'm glad the New York Times believes in ideological diversity, because his argument almost sort of makes sense, but only in the funhouse that is the conservative punditry's attempts to come to terms with Sarah Palin. I'm glad he made this argument on the pages of the New York Times, because that means that many people will have an opportunity to refute it. He opens with a simple five-word sentence: "She should have said no." Meaning that she should have said no to John McCain, because then her life, both inside and outside of politics, would still be somewhat normal.

He then proceeds - let me repeat, on the pages of the New York Times - to attack liberal elites for denigrating her because of her working class roots. Taking the fight to the enemy, that's what he's doing. Sort of. He writes well, and might actually believe this argument. But that doesn't change the fact that it's a terrible argument.

I have a five-word response: Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton. Both of them were from the working class. Neither of them were elites, until they worked their way into the social and economic stratosphere. But they both worked for it. I disagreed with Reagan on just about everything, but he did work for his success. I've also realized, long after his presidency, that he wasn't as stupid as I thot he was. I saw a video of him in the mid-1960's attacking communism, and I couldn't believe how articulate and profound he sounded. Bill Clinton was from farther down the social ladder than even Palin - he was white trash. But he went to elite universities, Georgetown, Yale Law, and Oxford, because he's smart, ambitious, competent, hard-working, and curious about the world.

Here's another two-word answer for Mr. Douthat's claim that Americans judged Sarah Palin poorly because of her social class: Abraham Lincoln.

Americans love an underdog who climbs up from poverty to success. Michelle Obama's father was a municipal employee in Chicago.

All of my grandparents started out in life as members of the working class. But they ended up solidly middle class - both of my grandparents became professionals who owned their own businesses and sent all of their kids to college. And they were thrilled when I went to an elite liberal arts college in the East. I had plans once to earn a Ph.d., and my fundamentalist grandmother's response was "We'll finally have one."

Sarah Palin's failure as a candidate, as governor, and as a politician in general had nothing to do with either her gender or her class. There are lots of very successful women politicians in this country, and many very successful politicians from the working class.

Sarah Palin failed in so many respects because she's incompetent, lazy, and irresponsible, not to mention a pathetic wimp and delusional and pathological liar. She's a whining idiot who is incapable of either admitting her mistakes or taking responsibility for her failures. None of those traits mark her either as a typical member of her gender or her class. To imply otherwise is to insult women and people who make an honest living with their hands.

My grandparents started out as members of the working class (one of my grandfathers was a coal miner at 16), and, like Sarah Palin, were conservative Republicans and devout Christians. Unlike Sarah Palin, however, they were also smart, honest, competent people who didn't complain about their lot in life, took responsibility for their decisions and actions, and finished the jobs that they took on.

Quote of the Day

"He’s a stud.”

-Pete Sampras on Roger Federer after Federer broke Sampras' record of 14 Grand Slam singles titles by winning Wimbledon. This is Federer's sixth Wimbledon singles title. Sampras also commented that Federer might win 17 or 18 before he's done.

Sarah Palin in 2012: Nail In The Coffin

Some people are arguing - and I am not going to bother linking to them - that Sarah Palin's resignation is a brilliant move in her strategy to run for president, because now she has more time.

These people are forgetting one thing: Barring unforeseen circumstances, she will be running against Barack Obama. During the 2008 campaign, Obama's biggest obstacle was his lack of experience. Just about every candidate in the Democratic field had more experience than he did. John McCain certainly did. Sarah Palin, however, did not, and does not. This is one of the (many) reasons McCain's choice of her as his running mate was such a bad move; it weakened one of his best arguments against Obama: that he, McCain, was more experienced. Democrats and Republicans traded charges of who was more or less experienced - Obama or Palin? What counts more, being a United States senator, or a governor? Does being mayor of a small town count as "executive" experience? Is that somehow more important than the "legislative" experience Obama had?

But in 2012, all that will be moot. There were many people who had serious doubts about Obama in 2008 because of this lack of experience. In 2012, not so much. Obama was always a great candidate - inspiring speaker, great story, very charismatic. In 2012, he will have the experience to match.

But Palin will only have a little more than two years as Governor of Alaska. Her last notable decision in that position will be to quit.

Thinking of it in these terms, I think I have a little bit more of a clue as to why she quit. Right now, she hasn't failed at anything. Other than being governor, that is. She's still very popular with the Republican base. If she really wants to be president, she should run for reelection in 2010, to address the experience issue. Being a one-term governor would still mean questions about her experience - two terms puts that to rest. But Being governor in 2012 will interfere with her ability to campaign, considering how far away Alaska is from, say, New Hampshire.

More importantly, being governor in 2012 and running for president will also interfere with her ability to make money. She won't be able to go on quite as many highly lucrative speaking engagements, etc., etc.

So suppose she doesn't run for reelection in 2010, but does decide to run for president. She'll be spending almost all of her time doing that: raising money, meeting people, etc. Fundraising for her presidential bid will interfere with her fundraising for Todd and the kids.

But there is one little six-letter word which really captures the great impediment to her ability to make money: losing.

If she runs for president in 2012 and is the Republican nominee, she will get creamed by Obama. Unless he completely screws up, and it looks like he won't, he'll win in a cakewalk. He's already done it, he'll have all the advantages of incumbency, and most demographic trends are going his way. He owns the African-American vote, the young vote, and Hispanics are ever-more alienated from the GOP.

But she probably won't even make it to the point of being the nominee. Remember Rudy Giuliani? Haven't seen him on a talk show recently. Whether or not she is governor in 2012, she might very well get whacked in the first primary.

I think she quit because she knows she has to strike while the iron is hot. Part of her appeal, let's be honest, is the fact that she's beautiful. But she's 45, and she's not getting any younger. I think she's bored and frustrated with being governor of Alaska, and she knows that if she runs in 2012, she may very become even more of a laughingstock than she is now.

She'll always have fans. But right now, she has the most she will ever have. The vast majority of them do not live in Alaska, but would love to vote for her, and are willing to do so with their wallets and purses. She's doing exactly what conservatives advocate as a basic tenet of capitalism - acting in her own best self-interest. What I find odd is that there are still people who think she will somehow act in their best self-interest, too. You don't have to fool all the people all the time to make some good money.

Happy Fourth of July From Andrew Sullivan and Jimi Hendrix

I had technical problems trying to embed this, so click here for the most amazing rendition of The Star Spangled Banner as a guitar solo that you will ever hear.

This is one great example of why we have the First Amendment and freedom of expression.

Another Shot of Weirdness From Sarah Palin

Well, that's weird. Just in time to make everyone's Fourth of July really interesting, Sarah Palin resigns as governor of Alaska. Her resignation speech, at least what I've read of it so far, is just bizarre. Here's a taste;

Life is too short to compromise time and resources... it may be tempting and more comfortable to just keep your head down, plod along, and appease those who demand: "Sit down and shut up", but that's the worthless, easy path; that's a quitter's way out. And a problem in our country today is apathy. It would be apathetic to just hunker down and "go with the flow".

Nah, only dead fish "go with the flow".

"[O]nly dead fish 'go with the flow.'" OK, first of all, somewhere Taoists and Buddhists are screaming, but I suppose Sarah Palin isn't worried about losing that constituency. But what is this nonsense about keeping your head down and plodding along being a "worthless, easy path?" Huh? I was under the impression that meeting your commitments was a fundamental part of "being responsible."

Speculation is flying as to why she's doing this. So she can spend more time campaigning for president? Maybe, but quitting your job as governor is not a great way to demonstrate effective leadership. I think there might be a clue in one line in her speech:

Todd and I are looking at more than half a million dollars in legal bills in order to set the record straight.

She's referring to all of the ethics investigations that she is going through. That's a chunk of change. I think that might be part of it; she needs to make more money in the private sector to be able to pay all of these legal bills. But doesn't she have some kind of legal defense fund?

The speech is just riddled with the kind of boilerplate nonsense that is too stale to even pass off as cliched. But I love this euphemism:

In the words of General MacArthur said, "We are not retreating. We are advancing in another direction."

Then there are lines that just befuddle:

I cannot stand here as your Governor and allow millions upon millions of our dollars go to waste just so I can hold the title of Governor.

Millions of dollars will go to waste if you hold the title of governor? She's found a way to sound noble and proud about the fact that she is quitting her job well before it's done. How does this woman stay sane?

Josh Marshall and his crew are having a field day with this. I'm having fun just reading the headlines of their posts. My favorite so far is "Surreality Only Beginning."

Andrew Sullivan, who has made chronicling her lies (he's up to #30) a mainstay of his blog, had this comment, which sums it up pretty well:

I'm too stunned to say anything else, to tell you the truth. And yet not surprised at all.

Sully also gets some style points for quoting Wittgenstein. The quote is in German, which I don't know at all, but there is really one line from Wittgenstein that is a famous quote, and is somehow appropo for today: "Beyond that which we cannot speak, we must remain silent."

Oh, no. There's a lot we can say about this. And will.

Daily Kos has a great poll about why she's quitting. The number #1 answer, with 70%, is "There's another shoe left to drop." There is something else going on here. Maybe it's another good sex scandal!!! Let's not think about that. It's tacky. Funny and potentially very entertaining, but tacky. Also possibly sexist.

I think the person who may come out of this the best is David Letterman. I don't know this, but my guess is that he has felt somewhat chastised by his unfortunate encounter with her when he made that crack about her daughter. Not anymore! Now that she is, once again, proving herself to be a soap opera all by herself.

I think the best quote to sum all this up is from Hunter S. Thompson:

"When the going gets weird, the weird turn pro."

Sanford Should Leave

Josh Marshall wrote yesterday that he thinks Gov. Mark Sanford should leave his wife for this woman in Argentina, who he calls his "soul mate."

But am I the only one who thinks that he appears to be deeply in love with this woman and should just go be with her?

No, Josh, you're not the only one thinking that. I agree. What seems increasingly unusual about this scandal is that Sanford is actually in love with her. He really went out of his way to see her. In just about every other political sex scandal I can think of, the other woman (this feels a tad perverse, but I am somewhat looking forward to a sex scandal involving a woman politician and another man - a milestone for equality!) was fairly close geographically and professionally. Except in the case of Eliot Spitzer, obviously, but at least those women were within a few hundred miles, on the same continent.

One great question, of course, is whether or not he can save his marriage. Josh doesn't think so.

The marriage seems clearly to be over. And if it wasn't on his first day back from Argentina, it's hard to conceive how it isn't now.

Jenny Sanford released a statement today opening the door to reconciliation. She's in a little bit of a bind. If she lets him go, she retains some dignity, but she also gets rejected for another woman. OTOH, if she keeps him, people will forever wonder about her motives for doing so, although she is apparently very successful on her own. Look at Hillary. She's stayed with Bill, but she's also paid a price for it - there are a number of people - primarily women - who just don't trust her because of that.

The best outcome for Jenny Sanford would probably be to divorce Sanford, extract a good settlement, and then go find another man. I'm sure she will not have much trouble in that regard.

Sanford is quickly losing support among Republicans in South Carolina. Jim DeMint, A Republican senator from South Carolina, is quoted at length in an article in The State, South Carolina's major newspaper, about Sanford. DeMint uses just about every rhetorical trick in the book to call on Sanford to resign without actually using the word "resign." It's a textbook example of spin.

“I have just encouraged him to do what’s best for the state and if we give him a little room, I know he will”

. . . . .

“A lot of us are talking to him behind the scenes in hopes that he’ll make the right decision about what needs to be done.”

. . . . .

“They say, when you are explaining, you are losing. And particularly on that subject, I think, he was,” the senator said. “I’m concerned of whether or not he is in a position that he can continue to lead the state.”

Protocol demands that a senator, in some respects senior to a governor, be the last person to demand a resignation like this, because as soon as he does, it's over. A senator is one of the only people besides the governor who represents the entire state, and therefore has his pulse on what everyone in the state is thinking. DeMint clearly wants Sanford gone, but he also doesn't want to be the one to pull the trigger. He would like Sanford to "do the right thing" and thereby retain a shred of dignity. DeMint is pretending to have some respect for Sanford, probably because he's known him for a while, and it's the decent thing to do. But Sanford is toast. The only question is, when does he realize it and act accordingly?

So why exactly do I think Sanford should give up his marriage, his kids, his career? He is apparently deeply in love with this woman, but he has spent years building this life - there might be some way to salvage part of it. She lives in a different country - all kinds of logistical problems immediately loom large. So why exactly should he give up everything for her?

Because he already has.