The NYT has yet another article today on the GOP’s plan to end the right of the minority to filibuster judicial nominees.  I think they are right – the rules need to be changed to end filibusters and prevent “activist judges” from taking the bench.  I agree that the best way to do this is to change the Senate rules...to require a 3/4 supermajority for all confirmations to lifetime positions.  Most judges are confirmed with overwhelming support so this shouldn’t be a problem for candidates that are non-partisan and willing to put the law above their political beliefs.  We must restore the public’s faith in the integrity of the judicial branch and requiring a supermajority would help the public accept that judicial rulings are based on the Constitution and not a political party’s platform.  

I also think we should make the President fully accountable for his judicial nominations and the Senate fully accountable for their role in confirming the nominees so let’s go a step further:  The President can nominate anyone he wants for a position on a Federal court and the Senate is required to hold an up-or-down vote on the candidate within 30 days, with candidates receiving the votes of a 3/4 supermajority being confirmed.  No more killing candidates in the judicial committee, no more “home state” rules, no more games.

I think the Democrats should propose something like this because they’ll have a better chance keeping the filibuster if they do more than just try to hold their ground.  I think it will be easier to market a “End Judicial Activism Act” than convince people why they should keep a kind of odd procedural rule.  I also think it would help them create an environment where they can make the public more aware of Bush’s own “activist judges” and shame him for trying to nominate candidates with just enough votes to pass instead of candidates with mainstream beliefs.  I also think they would have ammo for people like DeLay who are trying to minimize the role of the judiciary and make it submit to their authority.  The GOP wants the public to think the bench is full of crazy activists so that the Legislative and Executive branches can do a power grab.  Make them defend whey they oppose a measure that would eliminate the very extremists they claim is the problem.

[NYT > Washington]

I got on the subway last night to go home from work and sat across from this fairly normal looking woman.  After the doors closed and the train left the station, she calmly took a handmade-looking little voodoo doll out of her purse along with a really sharp stick and started maniacally jabbing it into the voodoo doll!  It was so awesomely random.  I almost burst out laughing but then caught myself with the thought that she could probably claw my eyes out with her little stick.  

I got my Donnie Darko Director’s Cut DVD today and, like a little kid, had to watch it as soon as I opened it.   (To put this in perspective, I love movies but I’m a renter, not a buyer.  There have only been three movies that I have ever rushed out to buy, the other two being Fight Club and Hedwig and the Angry Inch.)  

[Spoiler Warning]

I’ve read a lot of the online FAQs and essays where people try to explain the movie and I agree with most of what people have to say.  I’ve never heard someone else with my take on the “Why is Donnie laughing at the end?” question, though, so I thought I’d put it out there.  

People tend to fall into two camps – they either believe that Donnie is laughing because he thinks the whole experience was a dream and he is relieved that it wasn’t real or they think that he is laughing because he has achieved enlightenment and is happy to die and go to a better place.  I don’t really care for these because the “Donnie thinks it was a dream” explanation means that Donnie just dies – his death is merely an accident that could have been prevented had he listened to his dreams.  I think that’s too meaningless after all that has happened to that point.  I like the second explanation better but I think the idea of him being happy and eager to die makes his death less of a sacrifice.  While it is no less noble, this seems somehow less heroic.

Here’s my idea – I think Donnie does achieve some level of enlightenment through his journey, but I think he is still afraid of death (and especially dying alone) at the end of the movie.  He knows that he has to die in order to save Gretchen and his family, however, and chooses to sacrifice himself out of love for them.  In those final moments he realizes that his choice comes down to one between Fear and Love.  And that’s why he’s laughing – he still thinks that Jim Cunningham and Kitty Farmer are fools and that the Fear-Love continuum is a bunch of crap but he has to laugh when he realizes the irony that the biggest decision in his life, the only one that really matters, boils down to a choice between Love and his biggest Fear.  

I think the Fear-Love theme in relation to his death is more pronounced in the Director’s Cut (the restored scenes put more focus on the improvement of the relationship between Donnie and his family) but I think it also works in the theatrical version (although it is limited more to just the relationship between Donnie and Gretchen).  I think this explanation, with its emphasis on sacrifice, makes more sense in the context of the rest of the movie than one based on randomness or spiritual transcendence.

Dave Eggers does a wonderful job capturing the internal conflict and soul-searching that results from finding out that someone completely lame also likes your favorite band. 

I find Bush’s claim that Social Security privatization would help African-Americans offensive enough because of how cavalierly that argument dismisses the health and lives of blacks in today’s society.  Now that Krugman has pointed out the implied assumption, I find it even more disgusting: 

[The] benefits of Social Security privatization, if any, won't materialize for many decades. By using blacks' low life expectancy as an argument for privatization, Mr. Bush is in effect taking it as a given that 40 or 50 years from now, large numbers of African-Americans will still be dying before their time.  

[NYT > Opinion]

I think David Sedaris put it best when he said "Comfort has its place, but it seems rude to visit another country dressed as if you've come to mow its lawns."  Or shovel them, in this case.

Looks like the subway isn’t going to take as long as they originally expected.  Just nine months or so instead of five years.  Still, this whole thing kind of creeps me out.  The big topic of conversation is “if a homeless guy can do this much damage, imagine what a terrorist could do” but what worries me right now is something simpler.  Because the trains are so few and far between, people are just packing onto them to the point where people can’t even move.  I’m talking to the point where the trains physically can’t take anymore passengers.  That frightens me – what if there was an emergency and people had to evacuate?  What would happen if there was a fire or, heck, even a blackout?  And I can’t help but think that makes the subway a more desirable terrorist target.  Not only would you do more damage with more people on the trains but the “if you see something, say something” rule can’t really apply when you’re smushed up against the people next to you.

And this is coming from someone who is very pro-mass transit and loves the NYC subway.  

(And don’t worry, Mom.  My 4 train isn’t getting hit with any of the spillover traffic – it’s practically empty.)

So true.  So very, very true. 

Man, that suuuucks.  So far, the speculation is that it was caused by a homeless guy who left a shopping cart full of wood near a power line.  It makes you think about how fragile the infrastructure is and what damage someone could do intentionally.  Apparently, things are so hosed with the signal system that MTA employees are directing the subways traffic-cop-with-a-whistle style.  

A subway fire that gutted an underground communications room has crippled two of New York City's busiest subway lines, the A and the C, and full service may not be restored for three to five years, officials announced today.

[NYT > Home Page]

 August issues his own “Ixnay on the My Way” on behalf of Johnny Carson:

[Please] accept my pre-emptive apology, America, on behalf of every lazy cartoonist in the country, for the obligatory cartoon of Carson entering the gates of Heaven with St. Peter saying "Here's Johnny!" that every single one of them are going to draw tomorrow.

[August J. Pollak - xoverboard.com]