what we did on our winter vacation

Spent three weeks watching five seasons of Lost, finishing just in time for the premiere of the sixth and final season next Tuesday. BRING IT ON.

Oh yeah—also spent a lot of time with family in Virginia; ate some really good BBQ in Memphis; made some Oreo truffles (hat tip: Rhettonica); read a couple of good books; sided with Coco; bought some fabric for a Dresden plate quilt that I will start but will surely never finish; reconsidered moving to Sweden upon hearing news of the Supreme Court's transformation of corporations into a real live boy.

Good times.

"a swine time to visit mexico"

I feel really bad for Mexico. How much more negative, unfair PR can that country take?

In the growing hysteria over the swine flu, I appreciated this excellent bit of perspective and advice from Michael Hogan, editor of the Vanity Fair website who also happens to be on vacation in Mexico City this week.

And my personal advice? Stay away from cable news. Here's the CDC's page on the outbreak, along with the World Health Organization's page.

on the return of prop 8

As I type, the California Supreme Court is hearing oral arguments on whether Prop 8 will stand. The main question at hand is whether Prop 8 amends or revises the state constitution—the difference being that an amendment is a small change or addition that can be placed on a ballot and approved by a simple majority of voters, while a revision is a more substantial alteration that must be approved by 2/3 of each house in the state legislature before going to the voters.

You could probably guess which conclusion each side wants the court to take. So far, various reports seem to indicate that the justices will uphold Prop 8, but at the same time, recognize existing same-sex marriages.

By posting this, I don't mean to set off another discussion on whether gay marriage is right or wrong. Here's my question: does it bother anyone else that this issue seems to suggest that any right can be taken away by any group through a simple majority on a ballot measure?

In the LA Times article on the current hearings, there was a passage describing an exchange between Ken Starr (scrub, rinse, repeat) and one of the justices on the court:

Asked by Corrigan if the people's power to amend the Constitution extended even to changes deemed "unwise," Starr said it did, and that it remained up to the people to decide what was or wasn't a wise amendment.

"It's not for another branch to say otherwise?" Corrigan asked.

"Absolutely," Starr told the justices.

So listen up, people: if you want to take away the rights of gay people or racial minorities or journalists or anyone else you don't agree with or simply don't like, have at it. The Constitution? Checks and balances? Whatev. Do what you will because your power is unlimited.

Tyranny of the majority was a common point of discussion among the framers of the Consitution. In 1788, James Madison wrote in a letter to Thomas Jefferson: "Wherever the real power in a government lies, there is the danger of oppression. In our Governments the real power lies in the majority of the Community, and the invasion of private rights is chiefly to be apprehended, not from acts of Government contrary to the sense of its constituents, but from acts in which the Government is the mere instrument of the major number of the Constituents." And here is Madison again, in Federalist #51: "It is of great importance in a republic not only to guard the society against the oppression of its rulers but to guard one part of the society against the injustice of the other part. If a majority be united by a common interest, the rights of the minority will be insecure."

I hope we can heed those pieces of warning and advice. Women's suffrage, interracial marriage, school integration—take your pick. It's scary to think where this country might be today if a majority of voters, with no checks on their zeal, were able to sacrifice the rights of others.

rock bottom?

Here's what the Republican Party has been up to since it lost the election.

Gave the RNC chairmanship to a guy who thinks that government creates work and not jobs.

Considered giving the RNC chairmanship to a guy who thought it would be funny to send committee members copies of a CD containing the song"Barack the Magic Negro" . . .

. . . and to another guy who just recently resigned his 12-year membership in a whites-only country club.

And now, they got Kenneth from 30 Rock to explain that the current government can't help us through this economic crisis by using as an example the failures of his own party after Hurricane Katrina (transcript here). Also, that the government shouldn't spend money on monitoring volcanoes (along with other measures to prevent natural disasters) or imaginary high speed rail projects from Las Vegas to Disneyland.

And Karl Rove thought he was creating a permanent Republican majority.

Monday randomness

First, some good stuff from the New York Times opinion page:

• Maureen Dowd turns her column over to Stephen Colbert
• Paul Krugman offers an explanation for the right-wing anti-Gore hysteria
• Thomas Friedman writes on how George W. Bush wasted his presidency

Came across this item in a Washington Times blog (via Pitchfork)—it looks like there's at least one Radiohead fan in the White House: deputy press secretary Tony Fratto, who said he plans to buy the new album. National Security Council spokesman Gordon Johndroe and deputy press secretary Scott Stanzel are at least aware the band exists (Stanzel called himself an "appreciator" of their music, while Johndroe is "90 percent sure" he has some Radiohead songs on his iPod...but definitely none from Hail to the Thief).

Then, there's press secretary Dana Perino: "I don't even know what that is . . . Is that a band?"

Seriously? The woman is 35 years old, which would've made her 21 when Pablo Honey came out in 1993. Meanwhile, I was an uncool 10-year-old whose limited exposure to music involved my parents' Beatles, Carpenters, and Beach Boys records, and even I had heard of Radiohead.

There's a new study out that says it's your fault if your kid's a picky eater. According to the NYT article, 78 percent is genetic and the other 22 percent is environmental.

Worst among the horror stories: parents who changed their vacation plans because they were afraid their 11-year old wouldn't like the food in Prague.

An editor at Bon Appétit magazine mentioned how his 3-year-old son will eat only "brown food," while his 6-year-old daughter is an "omnivore's dream child." It's interesting how it works that way. As a child, my favorite food was broccoli and I ate pretty much everything my parents put on my plate (although there was a month-long streak in first grade when I insisted on tuna salad sandwiches for lunch). My brother Daniel was the same way. And then came Timothy, who used to be the 3-year-old who would only eat brown food (and carbs and sugar) and is now the 15-year-old who will only eat brown food (and carbs and sugar) with the occasional lettuce leaf.

Finally—it seems like there have been a lot of pumpkin-related stories in the news (pumpkin chucking, growing giant pumpkins, 1,524-pound contest-winning pumpkin). Mmm, pumpkins. Pumpkin pie, pumpkin soup, pumpkin cookies, pumpkin bread...I'm like the Bubba Gump of pumpkins. Can't forget pumpkin carving, either. When I was in college, I carved Conan O'Brien's face on a pumpkin...only to get it stolen right off our front porch. How dirty is that?

Take that, Oprah.

It was announced today that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change and my hero, Al Gore, were jointly awarded the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize "for their efforts to build up and disseminate greater knowledge about man-made climate change, and to lay the foundations for the measures that are needed to counteract such change."

Gore said that he would donate his half of $1.5 million prize to the nonprofit Alliance for Climate Protection.

Read the full citation here.

But enough about me, let's talk about me

Although I think that all of the presidential candidates—Democratic or Republican—are narcissistic to some extent, I thought yesterday's Paul Krugman column in the NYT did a good job of analyzing the dangers of such a quality when combined with a lack of empathy (specifically, as displayed by Mitt Romney and Rudy "9/11" Giuliani).

Read the article here (TimesSelect subscribers only, unfortunately).

Confused by the series of tubes that is the Internets

Here's Romney trying to explain YouTube during a campaign stop in Iowa:

"YouTube is a website that allows kids to network with one another and make friends and contact each other," Romney explained. "YouTube looked to see if they had any convicted sex offenders on their web site. They had 29,000."

Uh, Mitt? I think that's actually MySpace. YouTube is that thing where people upload and share thousands of videos . . . you know, videos like the ones for that debate you're so opposed to participating in?

Please . . . step down now before your other circuits start to malfunction.

World's hottest chili

Came across an article in the New York Times today about India's beloved bhut jolokia, the world's hottest chili:

A chili's spiciness can be scientifically measured by calculating its content of capsaicin, the chemical that gives a pepper its bite, and counting its Scoville units.

And how hot is the bhut jolokia?

As a way of comparison: Classic Tabasco sauce ranges from 2,500 to 5,000 Scoville units. Your basic jalapeno pepper measures anywhere from 2,500 to 8,000. The previous record holder, the Red Savina habanero, was tested at up to 580,000 Scovilles.

The bhut jolokia crushed those contenders, testing at 1,001,304 Scoville units.

My nose is running just thinking about it. Also, who knew that there was a scale for the measure of a chili's spiciness? How great is that? Before, my spiciness threshold was probably at the level of a poblano. But thanks to TJ, it's now at least a serrano.

Kurtz takes a jab at Romney

Howard Kurtz's Media Notes is probably my favorite Washington Post column ever. Anyway, I just caught Howard's latest Media Backtalk discussion and there's a mention of Romney and the YouTube debate:

Alexandria, Va.: Do you believe Fox News -- namely Roger Ailes -- is encouraging GOP Presidential candidates to duck out of the CNN You Tube debate? If so, isn't that quite a hypocritical stance to take? I mean, if you can't face real questions on YouTube, how can you stand up to terrorists?

Howard Kurtz: I haven't seen any suggestion that Ailes has had anything to do with it; nor do I think the candidates would necessarily take his advice. CNN says the debate is in the process of being rescheduled, but it's pretty clear that some of the GOP contenders are wary of answering questions from YouTubers. Mitt Romney says presidential candidates shouldn't have to answer questions from a snowman. To which I say: Governor, how are you going to deal with Osama bin Laden if you can't deal with a snowman?

Oh, snap.

Mitt Romney lost the snowmen vote

We just got back from a long weekend in Fresno, so I missed out on some interesting news last week...namely, that Mitt Romney may or may not skip out on the GOP version of the CNN/YouTube debate:

Asked about the format, which featured video questions submitted by the public, Romney said "There is a degree of respectfulness that ought to be associated with the process for selecting a nominee. From what I've heard, that level of respectfulness was breached."

Romney took special exception to a question about global warming, posed by a snowman in one of the video questions. "I don't know that it makes sense to have people running for president answering questions posed from snowmen."

And:

"I think the presidency ought to be held at a higher level than having to answer questions from a snowman," he said in an interview yesterday.

Uh, maybe Romney should be the one holding the presidency at a higher level by not employing staffers who think they're Jason Bourne.

Seriously though, I think Romney blew it on this one. He apparently has no problem using YouTube as a medium to promote his campaign, but he does have a problem with participating in a YouTube debate? And it's funny how he talks about "respectfulness" while coming off as an arrogant jerk who's above answering questions from the American public. Hate to break it to you, Mitt, but the global warming question didn't really come from a snowman. And forget about the snowman, what about the lady with cancer who can't get decent health care? Or the father who lost a son in Iraq?

Looks like someone's trying to avoid the tough questions . . .

The final countdown

So Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows goes on sale at the stroke of midnight, and some people are completely losing it over the fact that some newspapers, including the New York Times, published a review of the book ahead of its release date.

In a Huffington Post entry titled "Harry Potter And The Fact That I Hate The New York Times," Rachel Sklar writes:

How on earth could you run a review of the last Harry Potter? To do so, you had to break an industry-wide embargo -- and not just any embargo, an embargo that is almost tantamount to a public trust at this point, given the worldwide hype about Harry Potter and the excitement and intense emotion generated by -- finally -- the end to this epic series. . . .

But, hey, you're the New York Times, boldly going etc. Why should you care about honoring a book that's been over a decade in the making just for the sake of getting a two-day jump on the competish?

Competish? What are you, TMZ?

The book reviews also drew the ire of J.K. Rowling herself:

I am staggered that some American newspapers have decided to publish purported spoilers in the form of reviews in complete disregard of the wishes of literally millions of readers, particularly children.

Honestly, I don't see what the big deal is. I mean, this isn't the Pentagon Papers we're talking about here. If you're a diehard Potter fan and are truly wary of spoilers, is it really that hard to turn the page or not click on the link? I read the NYT review—it doesn't give away any crucial plot points about Harry dying or anything. Instead, much of it seems to focus on the literary achievements of the book and the series as a whole (doesn't anybody care about anything besides what happens at the end?) It merely assured me that I should buy the book and that I'm in for a good read. If I were Rowling and her publishers, I'd be ecstatic that my book got such a great review from such a respected newspaper.

As for this embargo nonsense, BStu put it nicely over at Shakesville:

While someone violated an embargo, it wasn’t the New York Times or Baltimore Sun. The embargo here is specifically on retailers. A few obviously failed to uphold their part of that bargain and the publisher can take appropriate action against them for violating their contract.

Embargo has a very specific meaning in journalism, though, and neither the Times or the Sun violated an embargo. Basically, if the publishers had allowed those papers an advance copy of the book with the agreement that the review would not be printed until the book was released commercially, then the papers would have agreed to an embargo. As it stands, they were no party to such an agreement and bound by no ethical code to refrain from printing the review.

There you have it. Can everyone just relax now?

Nooo...

Another flashback to my childhood, but this time in a sad way.

Don Herbert, better known as Mr. Wizard to nerdy kids like me, has died at the age of 89.

I loved Mr. Wizard. I remember watching one episode in which he used mirrors to make the lower half of a kid's body invisible. It blew my seven-year-old mind.

Maybe I'll make some soap-powered paper boats in his honor.

Superior Court Judge Michael T. Sauer = my new hero.

I'm kind of ashamed to be getting so much enjoyment out of a story about Paris Hilton, but wow. The woman is 26 years old and she's crying and screaming for her mommy like she just got handed the death penalty.

I know, I know, this is exactly the kind of thing that's wrong with society—the media and everybody going nuts about some shallow, vapid celebrity—but is this not the greatest thing ever? Redemption for the the American justice system, at least? It brightened my day.

You're so special

So a coworker of mine was telling me how she's going to Tucson this weekend to attend one relative's high school graduation, and another relative's middle school graduation.

Wait a minute, I said. Did you just say middle school graduation?

The concept is foreign to me. Since when did leaving eighth grade count as some kind of amazing achievement? I mean, you don't even get to leave your parents' house like you do when you graduate from high school, or get to have your own place like you do when you graduate from college. You just get to move from one school building to another one across the street. No one should get a diploma for that.

Sure, it's great to encourage your kids and help them build confidence...but middle school graduation? It's things like this that contribute to the whole culture of praise, entitlement, and inflated self-worth that surrounds kids these days. They also deserve to eat peanut butter whenever they want and send text messages to their friends whenever they want. What's next? Here's a reward for getting out of bed in the morning?

It's like that cell phone commerical I hate—the one with the mom who has to dress up like a taco for a job she clearly despises so her lazy kids can keep on sending dozens of text messages every day? Don't worry, kids, instead of taking away your cell phones or asking you to contribute to the cell phone bill every month, we'll just sign up for this new plan that will add an extra $50 to an already hefty expense. Give me a break.

Adding insult to injury

As if inviting Dick Cheney to speak at commencement wasn't bad enough, BYU decides to give him an honorary doctorate for public service. What exactly is their idea of public service? Starting a bloody mess in Iraq on false pretenses and saying it's about fighting terrorism and spreading democracy and protecting Americans when it's really about oil? I'm horrified.

Reader's Forum Roundup

Oh, BYU Daily Universe opinions page, how could I have neglected you for so long? You're like a one-stop shop for all of my needs for ignorant, racist, sexist commentary. Here's a sampling from the April 16 and April 18 editions:

Richard Garn of Coldwater, MN, on the BYU anti-Cheney protests: Recently I had heard news accounts about BYU professors protesting the Vice President coming to BYU to give a commencement address. The school must come to grips with this situation. The school allowing this to happen and to make quiet a good and honorable person is unacceptable. The effort by the academic community across the country to quell free speech is unacceptable.

Ok, any efforts to take this guy seriously immediately disappeared when he called Cheney a "good and honorable person." And apparently, Cheney is the only person in this whole controversy who is entitled to free speech.

Jason Miller of Provo, UT, on Virginia Tech: The shootings of Monday were a terrible tragedy and unfortunately as long as universities like BYU continue to ban legal licensed citizens from carrying guns on their campuses these types of tragedies will continue to take place.

Of course, guns aren't the only thing at issue here, but if we lived in a society that made it harder for certain individuals to buy guns, isn't it obvious that average citizens wouldn't need to be armed?

David Blackmer of Draper, UT, on the recent suspensions of two BYU football players on breaking and entering charges: [Head coach Bronco Mendenhall] may have had a swift reaction, but I do not see any swift action (or any action at all for that matter) to clean up the team. . . . I think the problem is we are recruiting and pampering players who do not care about BYU values. . . . I don't even care if we lose a few games as long as I don't have to be afraid of some of the people walking around campus.

Why don't you just come out and say it: you think BYU should stop recruiting those scary-looking non-Mormon minority athletes and stick to the clean shaven, returned missionary variety. Because we all know that Bronco Mendenhall can tell exactly which of his potential recruits will be BYU honor code following, law abiding citizens just by looking at them.

Matthew Crandall of Twin Falls, ID, on girls who wear sweatshirts to class: I heartily disagree with the letter "Unrealistic expectation" (April 13). Shame on you for encouraging casualness and sloppiness. To all the girls who wear make up, high heels and who care about how they look, I say thank you. It is people like you who make this world a prettier place to live in.

Right, because the main reason girls attend class is to look pretty for people like you.

The ship just keeps on sinking

Right on the heels of the new Watergate scandal:

The Justice Department identified five Bush administration insiders as replacement U.S. attorneys almost a year before most of the prosecutors were fired, contrary to repeated claims that no such list had ever been drawn up, according to documents released today.

E-mails sent to the White House in January and May of 2006 by D. Kyle Sampson, then chief of staff to Attorney General Alberto R. Gonzales, list potential replacements for U.S. attorneys in San Diego, San Francisco, Grand Rapids, Mich., and Little Rock, Ark.

The replacements on the list were all high-level administration insiders, including two who have gone on to different U.S. attorney postings: Jeff Taylor, now chief prosecutor in the District, and Deborah Rhodes, now U.S. attorney in Alabama. The others were Rachel L. Brand, currently head of the Office of Legal Counsel, and Daniel Levin, a former senior Justice and White House official, the memos show.

Read the full article here.

This comes two weeks after Sampson, testifying under oath, told the Senate Judiciary Committee that he had no one in mind to replace any of the dismissed prosecutors.

Considering this administration's past record, I can't say that I was totally surprised.

So it goes.

I was scanning the headlines for something stupid and/or political to write about, when I discovered that Kurt Vonnegut died yesterday at the age of 84.

It makes me sad to think that we just lost someone who had so much moral vision.

What would James Dobson say?

Yesterday's global warming debate between Newt Gingrich and John Kerry took a bizzare turn:

Before Kerry got a word in, Gingrich conceded that global warming is real, that humans have contributed to it and that "we should address it very actively." Gingrich held up Kerry's new book, "This Moment on Earth," and called it "a very interesting read." He then added a personal note about saving vulnerable species from climate change. "My name, Newt, actually comes from the Danish Knut, and there's been a major crisis in Germany over a polar bear named Knut," he confided.

The warm and fuzzy Gingrich surprised Kerry, who jettisoned prepared remarks that accused the former speaker of "marching in lock step with the climate-change deniers." Instead, Kerry found himself saying: "I've always enjoyed every dialogue he and I have ever had." He added that "your statement is very, very important" and gushed: "I frankly appreciate the candor."

The debate ended. They shook hands. Kerry put an arm around Gingrich. Gingrich put an arm around Kerry. For a brief but terrifying moment, they appeared to be on the verge of a hug.

Alright, so Newt did offer a bit of a reality check when he proposed tax incentives as the answer to the warming problem. But seriously, cue the Twilight Zone theme. First Geraldo, and now Gingrich? Is someone trying to run for office somewhere?