Quote of the Day
Most of us miss out on life's big prizes. The Pulitzer. The Nobel. Oscars. Tonys. Emmys. But we're all eligible for life's small pleasures. A pat on the back. A kiss behind the ear. A four-pound bass. A full moon. An empty parking space. A crackling fire. A great meal. A glorious sunset. Hot soup. Cold beer.
Anonymous
Guest Satire: Andrew Klavan on the Culture: Progressives, Hypocrisy, and UBL
American Idol Follow-Up Post and The Voice
A week ago I wrote a segment on the decade-long popular American TV show American Idol. My remaining favorite, James Durbin, had been voted off. I voted Wednesday for Haley Reinhart, whom turned in her best performance of the season in Led Zeppelin's "What Is and What Should Never Be". Of course, she was voted off. I had speculated the two country singers 17-year-old Scotty McCreery and 16-year-old Lauren Alaina would split the country vote and the Durbin votes would go to Haley, and I was wrong. To be honest, I didn't care for Jimmy Iovine's (AI mentor) choice of a Stevie Nicks/Fleetwood Mac hit or the judges' selection of an Alanis Morissette tune: first, I didn't think the songs were best suited for her voice and style; second, I think Haley got more complex songs to sing and tougher judging. I would have picked songs from among, say, Bonnie Tyler, Taylor Dane, Tina Turner, Hall & Oates, or Bonnie Raitt. But that's why I don't get paid the big bucks... I also suggested there was an obvious relationship between Casey Abrams and Haley; in fact, host Ryan Seacrest explicitly hinted at it (and both people share similar music interests). Haley dismissed the rumors.
I think this season American Idol went from an unusually deep talent pool to the weakest finale in the 10-year history of American Idol. Now country music fans are notoriously loyal and they have treated AI alumni reasonably well in Carrie Underwood and (non-finalist) Kellie Pickler. But of a recent Billboard article on the American Idol top 24 from a year ago, four of the top 8 (in terms of airplay and track and album sales) alumni were not Idol winners. Last year's winner Lee DeWyze winning single release, a remake of U2's "Beautiful Day" didn't crack the top 20, his first post-Idol album barely cracked the top 20, and neither single release from the album made the Hot 100. Next week's finalists have nice vocal tone but are inexperienced and will need strong original material to sell well. Scotty's vocal performances (of some of my favorite country crossover hits) were, to my ears, boring and forgettable, and Lauren notably erred during a key change in "If I Die Young", which in my judgment should have disqualified her from the competition. I hate to predict ahead of the performances next week, but I believe that Scotty has been the more consistent performer.
The Voice, produced by reality show king Bill Burnett (e.g., Survivor), is an alternative concept on NBC where 4 music industry performers (Christina Aguilera, Adam Levine, Cee Lo Green, and Blake Shelton) from different genres blind-select 8 contestants for their teams. Unlike American Idol, there are no age limits, and many of the contestants have considerably more experience, e.g., Broadway, backup singers, former lead singers, years of performing in public, etc. The show is now in the middle of battle rounds, where the coaches pair off their contestants to sing duets and then one contestant is chosen by the coach (after feedback from other coaches on the performance). I've looked at other comparative analyses of the shows, which are mixed. I have disagreed with some of the coaches' decisions; speaking as a tenor, I think a couple of fine tenors were given tough parts to sing and delivered--but got thrown under the bus. At present, I don't know the viewer selection process will work--and we could see comparable problems. However, in my judgment, the caliber of talent getting through to the viewer selection stage seems higher.
Let me just make suggest to show producers: since these performances are being made available for download, why not look at sales as part of the selection process? After all, isn't the idea of the show to yield a star with the ability to sell tracks and albums? Yeah, I know--I'm a ruthless capitalist...
Harmon Killebrew's Funeral Today
From AP:
Hall of Famer Harmon Killebrew was remembered for his kindness and respect for all those he encountered in a moving funeral service on Friday. Several hundred, including past and present members of the Minnesota Twins, attended the service at a suburban north Phoenix church on a gorgeous sunny morning... Former teammate and fellow Hall of Famer Bert Blyleven had those in attendance stand and cheer Killebrew for an imagined home run No. 574 near the end of the service, and the crowd responded with a rousing effort.
This concludes my segment series on my childhood hero. Until the end of the baseball season, I'll find ways of remembering him in the blog--maybe it's some trivia or statistics, a photograph, or maybe it'll something as simple as the number on his uniform (#3).
Israel Kamakawiwo'ole's performance of the medley "Somewhere Over The Rainbow/What A Wonderful World" is best remembered as played in the background on the former network TV medical drama "ER" when principal doctor Mark Greene passes away.
Guest Editorial: Ted Olson/CATO Interview, "Marriage Is A Fundamental Right"
No, it's not. I did not realize that when I commented on the David Boies' podcast yesterday, CATO would be soon releasing a companion podcast from his co-counsel in Perry v Schwarzenegger. Incidentally I find it very interesting they cite the former California governor in the brief before the Supreme Court; Schwarzenegger and Brown both refused to defend Proposition 8, having opposed it.
I don't want to repeat my entire commentary yesterday, but there are a couple of points in the current podcast I want to address here. First, Olson is making an argument that Supreme Court has allegedly referenced marriage up to 14 times as a 'fundamental' right. I think this is an artifact for how the Supreme Court is trying to distinguish between essential elements of marriage, which I regard as a foundation for family, in particular, its heterosexual basis, and incidental individual characteristics, such as race, creed, size, etc. There is certainly a primary right to freely associate, and I've argued we can look at other forms of relevant relationships besides marriage, including civil unions/domestic partnerships, friendships, etc. Ted Olson is simply dead wrong here: he would be right if the state was to prohibit gay relationships or disallow partner access for hospital visits; however, certain relationships are not historically tied to institutions enabling a society's perpetuation, and I do not question a special, socially-sanctioned status to sustaining relationships.
Second, Ted Olson particularly notes that the judge scoffed at the conceptualization of procreation as a rationale for marriage, which directly challenges what I wrote yesterday. I feel no need to prove my point of view to Ted Olson or some activist gay judge (Vaughn Walker) establishing policy from the bench. But I felt that the described judge's questioning of the defense was sophistical. Loosely paraphrased, Olson notes that when the defense described procreation, Walker cut them off, derisively noting that he had just married a couple in their 80's, obviously unable to conceive children of their own, that many other couples are childless, etc. Yes, in fact, one or both partners can be sterile, and we also know that some 40% of children recently born in the US were conceived outside of marriage. You could make a similar type argument over the definition of a man; if the man has only one leg or is sterile, is he still a man? Of course. The fact of the matter is that most children are naturally conceived within the context of committed heterosexual relationships, i.e., marriage; no children are naturally conceived by gay couples.
There are multiple purposes for marriage, some of which reflect a person's culture (in other cultures, one may see arranged marriages or polygamous unions). Within most Western democracies, couples meet and marry on their own initiative, with a primary motivation of companionship and making a public, exclusive commitment to each other. One of the primary reasons for that public commitment is to signal a readiness to start one's family within a socially-acceptive context; there is still a social stigma for pregnancy outside of wedlock.
The fact of the matter, Judge Walker, there are other structural restrictions on marriage, including age and its exclusive nature. These reflect certain common norms; there are functional or general ethical reasons for these norms, e.g., to promote social stability. The idea that millennia-old structural criteria (like the heterosexual nature of marriage) are arbitrary and discriminatory is purely presentist hubris. This is an area where my conservative perspective clearly comes through: I am quite concerned about the unintended consequences of judicial meddling with traditional institutions.
Fukushima Nuclear Incident Update
NEI notes:
- weekly update: Work on nitrogen injection and other steps in process at reactor 1 started in reactors 2 and 3 respectively but were hampered by steam in reactor 2 and high radiation near a certain reactor 3 pipe. There is discussion about installing/building cooling systems for 4 of the spent fuel pools which may alleviate the humidity problem. Mitsubishi Heavy Industries has rolled out a couple of radiation-proof forklifts to assisting in debris removal. Some radiation spikes this week near seawater outlets although the overall trend seems steady and downward.
The Hiroshima Syndrome blogger reviews various data, noting the belief that fuel damage for reactor 2, probably comparable in nature to Three Mile Island, is significantly less than for reactors 1 and 3, the latter likely worse. He notes a possible instance of Hiroshima Syndrome in Japanese school administrators outside the 20-km evacuation refusing to let children play outside even though radiation levels are well within safety standards. Finally, he expounds on fear-mongering Physicians for Social Responsibility and Greenpeace are using dubious heuristics which are inconsistent with actual cancer rate data in relevant areas (e.g., Kerala region of Indiana).
IAEA notes:
- weekly update: There is discussion of what I've made reference to in other updates, that as water level confirmations for reactor 1 led TEPCO to believe fuel assemblies had been exposed more than expected early in the incident (and remained so because of misleading water levels) and a significant number of fuel pellets (and/or control rods) had melted to the bottom of the RPV. Continued coolant injections to RPV's, watering of the spent fuel pools, and dewatering of trenches and basements. Food/milk sampling continues; roughly 5.5% of samples, mostly from two prefectures, show cesium levels (not iodine levels) above safety standards.
Political Humor
This is a variation of an old joke widely republished across the Internet which I've modified for 'progressive' and 'conservative'; I haven't found an attributed original source, but I've seen comparable versions for gender (male/female) and political parties (Democrat/Republican).
In the hospital the relatives gathered in the waiting room, where a family member lay gravely ill. Finally, the doctor came in looking tired and somber.
"I'm afraid I'm the bearer of bad news, he said as he surveyed the worried faces. The only hope left for your loved one at this time is a brain transplant. It's an experimental procedure, very risky, but it is the only hope. Insurance will cover the procedure, but you will have to pay for the BRAIN."
The family members sat silent as they absorbed the news. After a time, someone asked, 'How much will a brain cost?'
The doctor quickly responded, "$5,000 for a progressive's brain; $200 for a conservative's brain."
The moment turned awkward. Some of the progressives actually had to 'try' to not smile, avoiding eye contact with the conservatives. A man unable to control his curiosity, finally blurted out the question everyone wanted to ask, "Why is the progressive's brain so much more than a conservative's brain?"
Before getting to the original punchline, I have to say when I read this joke for the first time, I already came up with a different punchline. My own original punchline is/was: "The law of supply and demand. It's so hard to find a progressive with a functional brain." [I've obviously been reading too many economics posts...] On to the original punchline:
The doctor smiled at the childish innocence and explained to the entire group, "It's just standard pricing procedure. We have to price the conservatives' brains a lot lower because they've been used."
Musical Interlude: My Favorite Groups
Chicago, "Colour My World". I have an extensive record collection, and I helped my middle sister program music for her wedding reception years ago. This song was one of my suggestions: one of the greatest love songs ever.
