Etymology buffs! Learn where the phrase “no strings attached” came from. Or so British tailors say, at any rate. Visit for the etymology, stay for the insight into tailoring.
Author: Bryant
We’re a step closer to the showdown on judicial filibusters. I kinda figured Harry Reid would force the issue.
The short version of what’s going on: you can prevent a vote from occurring in the Senate by filibustering it. It requires 60 votes to end a filibuster. Senator Frist is threatening to change the Senate rules in order to require only 50 votes to end a filibuster. However, changing Senate rules has always taken a 2/3rds majority vote. How’s Frist gonna get around that?
Well, he’s going to raise a point of order arguing that the filibuster is unconstitutional because it prevents the Senate’s Constitutional duty to advise and consent on judicial nominations. That point of order will go to the Senate’s presiding officer, who will be Cheney. Cheney will then say “You’re right,” and the vote to end the filibuster will take place.
However, Senate precedent says that Cheney can’t make the decision on constitutionality; rather, it should go to a Senate vote, which is itself subject to filibuster. And of course the Democrats would filibuster it. So Cheney has to break precedent and make a ruling. It’s fair to note that this does not break Senate rules, but Senate precedent is not unimportant either.
If you want the detailed look at this, start here and go on to this, this, this, this, this, and this. There are more posts in that series, but those are the ones that address Constitutional and Senate rules issues rather than arguing about the value of the filibuster itself and the meaning of “advise and consent.” Which are interesting questions, but not as relevant to this post.
The cardinals are spilling details on the conclave, although the article doesn’t get into the change in voting rules.
(Via TPM.)
I’ll have a formal Actual Play post at the 20’ by 20’ Room later, but right now I just want to say that Dogs in the Vineyard rocks hard. Whoa, but that’s a strong game with a beautiful clarity to it.
At first glance it maybe doesn’t look like the setting and the system are so tightly linked. But they are, maybe not so much in the details of place and time but certainly in the moral certainty aspect. The key aspect of the system is the ability to escalate: the ability to slap down a bunch more dice and say “I’m willing to go this far to make this thing happen.” That is reinforced by the moral correctness of the player characters and creates a very powerful dynamic at the table.
I had probably too many people — five is more than is recommended — but I wouldn’t have wanted to lose any of the PCs. There’s this nice touch in character generation where you don’t say “My character prioritizes skills over stats.” Instead, you say “My character had a complex upbringing,” and the prioritization of stats, skills, and relationships falls out from that. It encourages one to think about one’s background. My PCs were great. Also, you get to use the conflict skills during character generation, so you’re used to the system by the time it’s time to start thinking about shooting people.
“My father was a Dog, but he was also an alcoholic and I learned growing up that you fend for yourself or you go hungry.” “I’m an orphan, and I loved the Temple, and I’m wearing a coat that was made for someone else because I have no family to make a coat for me.” “I’m a sinner waiting to happen, because I want to be with another woman and I’m slipping over the line from ‘I do what is right’ to ‘It’s right because a Dog does it.’” “My mother was a Dog but I got lost as the youngest sister to six brothers, and I’m looking for people to stick up for.” “My father was a Dog, and of course I’m a Dog, and of course Dogs are better than others, and of course I’m going to be the best of them all.” See? Awesome PCs.
I’m head over heels with this system. I imagine that’ll fade but the immediate reaction is huge. Oh — here’s my town writeup, which is OK for players to look at if they’re curious. Wow, but it’s easy to run Dogs.
It hasn’t been posted on their calendar yet, but the Spring 2005 Brattle schedule is out. Highlights include:
- Willy Wonka & the Chocolate Factory and The Pink Panther, both with new 35 mm prints.
- Ong Bak one more time, if you missed it at the Kendall.
- A classic Westerns series, including Rio Bravo (Howard Hawks, John Wayne), The Searchers (more John Wayne), Shane (mmm, Alan Ladd), High Plains Drifter (Clint Eastwood directing and starring), Sergio Leone’s Once Upon A Time In The West, and The Quick & The Dead.
- The Asian Cinevisions Film Festival, which includes Joint Security Area this time around — it’s Park Chan-Wook’s first feature movie, which was followed by Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance and Oldboy. Neither of which I liked, but so many people I respect adore his work that I’m gonna keep delving into it until I figure it out. (Which means seeing Old Boy at the Kendall this weekend, I think.)
- A Hal Hartley mini-fest, just for Jeff. It includes Girl From Monday, his latest movie. Hartley’s latest, not Jeff’s.
- A Harold Lloyd festival, running a full week and showing 13 different Lloyd movies.
- All three James Dean movies.
That’ll keep me pretty busy.
I’m heartbroken. I wanted to watch Mrs. Chan and Mr. Chow forever, dancing back and forth in slow motion, captured in the timeless rhythm of Wong Kar Wai’s directing. Despite the titles which fix the story in Hong Kong: 1962 and Singapore: 1963 and Cambodia: 1966 — despite them, there’s no chronology to it. There are panes of glass layered one on top of another, and you peer through them murkily, making out the outline of a fruitless love affair.
They are always meeting. They are always falling in love. They are always losing one another. The echoes are endless. Maggie Cheung and Tony Leung are the iconic actors of the moment, and the Amah is played by Chin Tsi-ang, who was the first female martial arts film star in the 1930s. Mr. Ho — himself played by a matinee idol of the 50s — is having an affair, so as to echo the affair of the unseen spouses. There’s always a mirror, and when there isn’t a mirror, there’s a frame.
They interact through echoes. They cannot speak of love, so they echo the affair they’ve discovered their spouses are having. One almost thinks that the violation, when it occurs, is not that one of them speaks of love; it’s more that the mirror is broken. The dance could have continued forever if, always if.
I could write about it forever, too, but I’m heartbroken. In The Mood For Love, but it’s a very literal title: a mood is a long way away from fulfillment.
Eric Rudolph has made his statement. Read it carefully; understand what lies behind it. Look past the claim that he’s only upset about abortion. He asserts that he only kills government agents because they defend abortion; recognize that a few paragraphs later he’s talking about his plans to kill government agents investigating the bombing of a gay club. Take note of his hatred for the Olympics. Consider his xenophobia.
Most people who say things like “Practiced by consenting adults within the confines of their own private lives, homosexuality is not a threat to society” are not going to go out and bomb nightclubs. But that kind of language provides easy cover for the fanatics who do. Or, more commonly, for the fanatics who beat people up for wearing buttons with a pink triangle on them. Most people who say things like “The time will come for the men responsible for this to answer for their behavior” aren’t going to go out and plot a murder. However, that kind of language provides cover — and encouragement — for people who do want judges dead.
Rudolph has a point; most countries, including own own, do arise from revolution of one form or another. Sometimes it’s necessary. The proof of the pudding is in the causes for which the revolutionary fights.
Hallo, Eschaton readers! Thanks for dropping by, hope you find the carpets to your liking, and so on. I’m writing more about culture and film these days than I used to, because I’m fairly burned out on politics, but you’ll still find the occasional political post if you happen to stick around. Also: hope you like Asian cinema.
Hm. Back then, I was not so subtly making the point that Eric Rudolph was a terrorist and wondering why Fox News would forgive those who supported him. The point still holds. I’m pretty gratified to see CNN calling it like it is today:
Rudolph was a follower of the white supremacist Christian Identity movement, but investigators have never ascribed a motive for the attacks.
Deborah Rudolph, the suspect’s former sister-in-law, said she believes he was driven by an animus toward the government and minorities.
Fox News is at least running the accurate AP story. I’m pleased to see coverage of this on the front page of the major news web sites. Rudolph will be making a statement about his motivations at some point; I think that’s going to be the thing that really needs coverage, because it’s a window into the minds of our own domestic terrorists.
I’m trying out Brad Choate’s cool new anti-spam plugin. If you have trouble commenting or sending a trackback, please drop me a line. If you’re reading this on Livejournal, ignore it.
Damn it. No more Boston Legal this year. Sure, I can understand the decision, but I’m very sad about it.