So my wife is going to see the Sex And The City movie tonight with a bunch of her girlfriends. Apparently women all across America are doing the same thing, and men all across America are breathing a collective sigh of relief that they aren’t being dragged down to the movie theater for Date Night, like they were for Pride and Prejudice.*

I’ve actually heard that there are some men out there who are planning on seeing it. Let me just say this: if you are (1) a dude, and (2) going to see Sex And The City, and (3) this decision is actually voluntary (ie., terrorists are not holding a gun to your head and/or you will not be getting sex from your spouse in exchange for your attendance) your manhood is hereby revoked. Please drop it off at the nearest ladies bathroom or scrapbook store. (You should also do this if you voted for David Archuletta at any point during the past season of American Idol.)

Ok, ok - I’ve never actually watched an episode of Sex And The City, but I don’t need to in order to know that it’s not exactly oriented towards the male mind. First of all, if guys had made a show for guys called Sex And The City, it would have been on much later at night and it would have been about strippers. And I would have gotten in trouble for knowing anything about it.

Some very basic research reveals that the show is, in fact, largely about shoes. And someone named Carrie, and her three friends, and all their dysfunctional relationships. They’re all really messed up, but they’re rich, glamorous, and sexy, too. So they’re just like normal middle-aged women, except for the rich, glamorous, and sexy part. Oh, and there’s this dude named Mr. Big. I think maybe he’s her pimp. I’m not sure. Not a single one of these characters has superpowers, carries a really big gun, or is a ninja, so why the hell anyone would want to watch the TV show, let alone the movie, is beyond me. Anyway, I just saved you ten bucks. You can thank me later.

* Ok, seriously, why couldn’t Pride and Prejudice have been a Girls Night Out instead of Chick Flick Date Night? I had to employ my trusty “beer belly” to get through it.

Dear Public Safety Professional,

If, in the course of performing your duties, you happen upon a briefcase marked “A-Bomb,” you do not need to lock down the block. Real bombs do not come in consumer-friendly, labeled packages.

Sincerely,

Common Sense

Link

The Constitution was intended to limit the Federal government power so that the State governments could, with a few exceptions, do whatever they wanted. Two hundred years later, thanks to the Supreme Court, the same Constitution is used to limit the State governments so that the Federal government can, with a few exceptions, do whatever it wants.

… that said, of course, I don’t think the answer to “what do we do about it now” is altogether clear. Perception is reality, and the vast majority of people perceive that the present Federalist order is the way things are supposed to be. Going back would require a revolution, and those tend to be very messy. We were unbelievably lucky the first time: I wouldn’t want to roll the dice again.

Fooled By Randomness, by Nassim, Nicholas, Taleb

Seriously.

The holiday music assault has begun. By December 26, I suspect all Christmas music will sucketh to my ears, but right now, but here’s the list so far of tunes I hope I never hear again:

1. That !@#% “Mr. Grinch” song. You know the one: really lame lyrics, sung by a dude with a really deep voice.

2. “Up On The Housetop,” as sung by the Jackson 5. How can the whole family be off-key and whiny?

3. “Felis Navidad,” as sung by Celine Dion. Actually, ANYTHING as sung by Celine Dion.

– Update –

#4. “Last Christmas,” sung by George Michael. (Thanks to danb for reminding me not to forget how much I hate this song.)

#5. When the !@#$ did “My Favorite Things” (Sound of Music?) become @%!!@#$ Christmas music? Cause this is the only time of the year when “KOSI 101 Light Rock” can get away with playing it?

My favorite sport is back, and this time the season started waaaaay early. Possibly bad (according to some) for democracy, but fun for me.

Not a sport, you say? Wrong! It has winners and losers, big salaries and bigger egos, players and fans. And, as with all sports, when the dust settles and the winner is declared, we can all hold hands and be friends again. Because regardless of who wins or who loses, it doesn’t change anything in real life. (Unless you have the misfortune of living in a foreign country our new president decides to invade. You should try to live here. Much safer. And very popular. You want to? Too bad! Nobody can come here without our permission! Unless you sneak across the border or something. But that never works.)

Presidential candidates are an interesting breed. They’re too intelligent and ambitious to be happy with a normal life, they’re too hungry for public attention to make it rich in business, and they’re not talented enough to make it on American Idol.

Well, I finished the book I mentioned in a previous post, Jurismania, by Paul F. Campos. The biggest flaw of the book is that the author, though trying very hard to write for a popular audience, constantly devolves into obtuse academic-speak whenever he gets down to the heart of an issue. Countless sentences are choked to death on fish bones like “incommensurability”. I still need to look that one up.

Still, once I’d brought my reading up to a 36th grade level, I found the book was very insightful, and very disturbing.

The author pointed out that unlike most other cultures, American culture is wrapped up in its system of government. Our system of government is to us what cheese, wine, and laziness are to the French. (Ok, I added laziness. Je suis tres desole.)

If I had to condense the entire book (not really possible) into a single idea, it would be this:

Americans cling to the illusion that rational thinking can produce correct answers to questions involving values. It’s not to say that Truth or Right Answers don’t actually exist, but that people cannot reach agreement (ie., consensus) on these things through rational thought and discussion.

Instead of accepting this, we hold on to the illusion that the Law, via the decisions of judges who interpret it, can provide answers and decisions that are superior, and more rational, than those made by other people or institutions. The effect of this is that our legal system is ridiculously complicated, time-consuming, and expensive, and worse, that its tentacles reach into every part of life.

I think this delusion is one of the reasons we, as a society, have allowed the Judicial branch of our government to take upon itself the authority to make moral decisions for our country, decisions which should be made by our elected representatives. It comforts us to think that there is a small, elite group of highly-educated, highly-moral people, who are above the corruption of politics, who can make these difficult decisions rationally and rightly. But there is nothing that makes judges, even Supreme Court judges, more capable of making these decisions. They are still human.

We are, case by case, ruling by ruling, returning to the rule of kings, and doing it with smiles on our faces.

Link

I’m a couple chapters into an excellent book by Paul F. Campos, a professor at CU Law School, called Jurismania. I highly recommend it, if for nothing else than his brutal slam on Boulder’s I’m-a-good-person-because-I-shop-at-Wild-Oats culture.

The basic point of the book (so far) is that our legal system is insane because our society has an unhealthy, quasi-religious, and obsessive belief in rationalism - the idea that there is an answer to every question which can be determined through rational thinking.

We love to hate politics, politicians, and lawyers, but he argues that it’s merely evidence of our inability or unwillingness to admit that the biggest, most divisive issues cannot be resolved through rational means.

Do I agree with him? Don’t know yet.

—– update —–

Now the book is getting interesting. He uses analogies from sports betting and stock market investing to suggest that, by the time a legal dispute reaches the formal legal system (in the US), it has already proven itself to be rationally and legally ambiguous. If a particular legal outcome was likely, the case would very probably have been settled out of court (in a civil dispute) , or plea bargained (in a criminal proceeding). In other words, by the time a case of some kind appears in court, its outcome is, by definition, probably beyond the reach of rational thinking.

Your reaction, dear reader, is probably something like, “So … what?” This reaction is normal, and in fact, means that you’re sane.

However, to crazy people like me who look at politics and government as sporting event worthy of a bag of corn chips and pound of guacamole, it’s a big deal. It means that a significant portion of the law-making process, something that’s supposed to be performed by our elected legislators, is actually performed by a bunch of judges robed yahoos.

At least I think that’s what he’s saying. It’s rather late.

—– update —– (encouraged by danb’s comment)

I haven’t gotten much farther. So far his most significant point is that in the noble pursuit creating a fair trial system, we’ve created a system that is too expensive, too confusing, too complicated, and too time consuming for all but the well-funded to take advantage of. Most ordinary people, and certainly the poor and disenfranchised who the system’s fairness is intended to protect, are forced to settle out of court or take a plea bargain. Only 5% of cases ever get a trial. Which is worse? A less-than-perfectly-fair trial? Or no trial at all?

This stuff is great. I should go to law school.

Our government: now protecting us from foreign, ex-hippy scientists. Phew. Now I can get some sleep.

Link

You can, however, bring them into the country if they are placed in one-ounce containers and sealed in a zip-lock bag.