I am sitting in the lobby of a hotel in Nashville (having just had my face melted off front-and-center at the first The Jesus Lizard show in the U.S. in over a decade) "enjoying" one of those complimentary, inedible chain hotel breakfasts with many of my fellow hotel guests. On the television is today's installment of the Sotomayor confirmation hearing.
buy lexapro online www.lifefoodstorage.store/wp-content/languages/new/prescription/lexapro.html no prescription
Dozens of Nashvilleans and Nashville visitors are positively glued to the set, letting out muffled sounds of displeasure when the judge says something displeasing (which, as best I can tell, is often) and slightly less muffled cheers when a rhetorical superstar like John Cornyn or Jeff Sessions performs a soaring, backboard-shattering tomahawk dunk (which, as best I can tell, describes every word they say).
If CNN or the other networks declined to cover this, I would probably be critical. I'd let loose with some torrent of indignation about the awful media and the collective dumbing down of America. But honestly, if I've seen anything less interesting or less newsworthy being covered live on CNN I can't remember it right now. This makes the Michael Jackson memorial coverage look relevant in comparison.
These proceedings:
1. Provide less-than-no insight into the nominee's judicial philosophy, personal beliefs, or favorite New Kid. As our nation has been through many of these hearings in the last 10-15 years it is readily apparent that the answers given are rehearsed exercises in obfuscation and monuments to meandering vagueness. And to the extent that the nominees provide any direct answers, they bear absolutely no relation to future judicial behavior.
2. Have a predetermined outcome, hence this is little more than a cheap opportunity for the majority Senators to lob softball questions ("Judge Sotomayor, I've heard you described as fair-minded.
Would you agree with that?") and the minority to show off for the combined audience of the 700 Club and the UFC.
The design of the Constitution in no way implies that the Supreme Court is the slightest bit accountable to the public. Neither the President who appoints them nor the Senate who confirms them were popularly elected in the original text of the Constitution. We don't need these hearings. If the Senators are interested in asking real questions and getting real answers, turn the goddamn cameras off and have these hearings in closed session. The Senators would be much freer to say "Look, this is what we really want to know" while the nominees could provide answers that aren't the product of excessive coaching and stage fright.
Neither I nor the knuckleheads mouthbreathing around the waffle iron in this room have a relevant opinion about this or any other judicial nominee.
If we want the Court subjected to public scrutiny and approval, Congress should grow some nuts and amend Article III. Barring that, what is the point of any of this?
buy acyclovir online taxmama.com/wp-content/forum/styles/new/engl/acyclovir.html no prescription
We're watching a woman give non-answers to grandstanding questions in a process of which the outcome was decided the morning after the 2008 election. The idea that the nominees owe this to the public or that the Senate is making the process more "democratic" with this spectacle reflects the cheapest, least informed kind of We the People demagoguery.
Misterben says:
"mouthbreathing around the waffle iron" – phrase of the day.
Devilham says:
Hey! I'm a card carrying liberal, and I like the UFC!!!! Love the blog my man, your posts are something I look forward to every morning, thank you for that.
JohnR says:
Thank you. Reading this and a couple others make living through the slide into the abyss a tad more bearable.
Vinny says:
Ya, it is Kabuki. You get to see Al Franken talk about watching Perry Mason with his family, just like Sotomayor did with her family. Awwwwww. And you get to see my former Representative from Brooklyn, Chuck Schumer, cry. Awwwww?
ladiesbane says:
I agree about the dog and pony, but is there anything that says proceedings must be made public? Not in the Advice and Consent clause itself, but affecting interviews, hearings, or anything similar?
On the face, it seems like a good idea to record the proceedings and publish them, in camera sessions seeming like old-boy deals behind closed doors, but I would prefer unreleased-unless-necessary tapings with published transcripts. (I can scan a transcript in a minute, but real-time video eats my lifespan.)
On the other hand, this process gave us Harriet Miers (an early dropout, but drama-rich), Robert Bork, Clarence Thomas…watchers might be hoping for (or against) another skeleton in the closet or outright train wreck.
SamInMpls says:
Wow.
Thomas over Griffey and now you just lumped me in with the 700 club.
Have to say I'm not too impressed with anything you've had to say about sports.
Ed says:
I have a strong bias in favor of traditional boxing. And you have to admit, no matter how much you enjoy it, that "MMA" is a magnet for white trash in the same way that NASCAR is.
Jon Grayson, Esq. says:
Agree that most of the UFC fans are douchebags, but its an enjoyable sport. I hated it until my roomate in lawschool let a friend stay with us for the summer who did it semi-professionally (was also a male stripper, but that's a different story). He got me into it, but it was also the summer so it was a sports dead-zone except for baseball. I appreciate it and can watch it now, although its still hard to swallow punching the other dude in the face while he's on the ground again and again no matter how many times I see it. Still not droppin 40$ to see the big fights on PPV. I know theyre exploding now, but it seems like you can't truly be mainstream with the PPV stuff. Ask boxing.
VALIS says:
Jesus Lizard!
SamInMpls says:
Ed,
Didn't J S Mill cover this?
Why would your opinion about boxing have anything to do with your opinion on mma? How the fuck does that make sense? I'm a Minnesota Twins fan and therefore much more involved with following the AL than I am the NL but I can add 2 + 2, I know that red is color and that the DH rule means the NL is the superior product.
I am forced to conclude that you have no idea what you are talking about as far as MMA audience demographics are concerned. If you go listen to Bill Simmons' podcast with Dave Meltzer, you will hear Meltzer explain that professional wrestling consistently pulls in higher ratings than does MMA but Spike TV dropped pro wrestling in favor of the UFC strictly due to the disparity in income between the respective audiences.
Let's take a look at the current lineup of UFC Champions:
Brock Lesner: A former WWE wrestler. (So far so good for your argument, Ed.)
Lyoto Machida: A non-English speaking Brazilian-Japanese Karateka/Sumo Wrestler.
Anderson Silva: A non-English speaking Brazilian Muay Thai Kick boxer.
Georges St-Pierre: A Québécois Karateka/Wrestler.
BJ Penn: A Hawaiian practitioner of Brazilian Jiu-Jitsu.
Beyond Lesner, I don't see any "culture heroes" for the NASCAR set.
I have read more than one MMA blog post asking the question: "How much do you spend each month to watch MMA?" What is the most modestly priced option for MMA fans? High speed internet access and mad Usenet skillz. The UFC's matchmaker, Joe Silva, relies on Youtube (and the like) to research prospects.
Go listen to a few Jordan Breen shows on ESPN affiliate Sherdog Radio. Take a look at the reaction Bloodyelbow,com had to Dana White's sexist, homophobic rant against Loretta Hunt. MMA is absolutely not for everyone but at its best its community represents a very real departure from many of the sexist, racist and conformist attitudes prevalent in older, more mainstream sports. There was enough push back from the MMA community on the California State Athletic Commission's recent ruling that the Carrano-Santos fight would be 2 minute rounds (rather than the typical 3 or 5 minute rounds) that the CSAC has since caved, allowing their upcoming title match to be the first female 5 round fight with 5 minutes per round. There's a ambient level of respect MMA fans have for anyone willing and able to complete at a pro level that is simply incomparable with the cultures surrounding other sports.
Two paraphrase Bill Hicks, we could have skipped the Desert Storm Distraction and replaced it with a "car bomb derby" and the NASCAR demographic would still have reached their collective climax.
What the hillbillies think about a thing don't mean nothing about that thing.
I will shut up now.
online personals says:
I totally agree with this article. you have just made me to save this post