Category: Washington, D.C.

Just in time for the “Julie and Julia” movie: PBS has been airing marathons of Julia Child reruns on tv and on-line.

ABA Journal’s cover article in the latest issue: “The 25 Greatest Legal TV Shows” — well, I’d quibble with some of their choices.

Some (most, really) on the list were shows that lasted only one or two seasons – not necessarily because they were bad tv shows but because their ratings weren’t very good (“Eli Stone” is an example (although much too recent a show to be on a Top 25 on anyone’s list, in my opinion, frankly); “Murder One” – completely surprised me, since it is barely remembered by most tv viewers – season 1 was a good season, though).

“The Defenders” always ends up on these kinds of legal tv lists, but I was surprised that ABA Journal neglected the obvious bit of trivia about the show: that the junior lawyer was played by Robert Reed, best known for his later role as Mike Brady of “The Brady Bunch.”

Thought it was nice they thought about Rumpole and “Night Court,” and hilarious for the “Harvey Birdman” pick; mildly impressed that they even remembered “JAG” as a legal show.

Not impressed that they included “Law & Order: Criminal Intent” and “Law & Order: SVU” (which I’m not even linking) – because as much as lawyers and judges like watching these two shows, both shows are much less about the lawyers than they are about law enforcement. Does L&O: CI even have an ADA on the series anymore?

I liked that they included a little article by Sam Waterston (ok, actually an excerpt of something he contributed to a book on law and tv), wherein he talks about that legal tv wonder, Jack McCoy, and observes how Jack McCoy as DA is getting his comeuppance (yeah, no doubt! He didn’t think his new gig would be so political, plus he has to deal with his own ADAs’ shenanigans – well, Michael Cutter is slightly crazier than McCoy ever was, I think).

Last, but not least: she’s now Justice Sotomayor:

I’m not nearly watching as much of the US Supreme Ct. confirmation hearings as I’d like. The Slate coverage/commentary has been pretty solid (ex., Emily Bazelon’s noting how Sotomayor goes into the context of her speeches – wherein she’s trying to motivate women and minority law students).

But from what I saw, I do wonder if the senators would ask some of these questions of a man (and how much all sides had to restrain themselves – Judge Sotomayor must have much patience not to roll her eyes at some of the patronizing attitude – like Bazelon, I would’ve have liked to have seen her attack right back at some of that attitude; some of the senators seemed patronizing (ok, maybe I shouldn’t be so presumptuous about Sen. Graham, but I do wonder if he’s never met a real bully – and judges can be bullies, just like anyone else, by virtue of they’re being human); maybe Slate’s Dahlia Lithwick‘s right – at least the anti-abortion protesters are consistent and up-front).

So, I guess it’s a good thing that Sotomayor handled herself real well, but I do wonder if these hearings could be less like plays.

I fell behind on this, but Bazelon’s interview with Justice Ginsburg was fascinating.

This Washington Post article about Sotomayor’s career development is fascinating about how mentoring can be very important.

Washington Post’s Eugene Robinson notes good points:

The only real suspense in the confirmation hearings for Supreme Court nominee Sonia Sotomayor is whether the Republican Party will persist in tying its fortunes to an anachronistic claim of white male exceptionalism and privilege.

Republicans’ outrage, both real and feigned, at Sotomayor’s musings about how her identity as a “wise Latina” might affect her judicial decisions is based on a flawed assumption: that whiteness and maleness are not themselves facets of a distinct identity. Being white and male is seen instead as a neutral condition, the natural order of things. Any “identity” — black, brown, female, gay, whatever — has to be judged against this supposedly “objective” standard. [….]

The whole point of Sotomayor’s much-maligned “wise Latina” speech was that everyone has a unique personal history — and that this history has to be acknowledged before it can be overcome. Denying the fact of identity makes us vulnerable to its most pernicious effects. This seems self-evident. I don’t see how a political party that refuses to accept this basic principle of diversity can hope to prosper, given that soon there will be no racial or ethnic majority in this country.

Yet the Republican Party line assumes a white male neutrality against which Sotomayor’s “difference” will be judged. [….]

There is, after all, a context in which these confirmation hearings take place: The nation continues to take major steps toward fulfilling the promise of its noblest ideals. Barack Obama is our first African American president. Sonia Sotomayor would be only the third woman, and the third member of a minority group, to serve on the nation’s highest court. Aside from these exceptions, the White House and the Supreme Court have been exclusively occupied by white men — who, come to think of it, are also members of a minority group, though they certainly haven’t seen themselves that way.

Judging from Monday’s hearing, some Republican senators are beginning to notice this minority status — and seem a bit touchy about it. Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.) was more temperate in his remarks than most of his colleagues, noting that Obama’s election victory ought to have consequences and hinting that he might vote to confirm Sotomayor. But when he brought up the “wise Latina” remark, as the GOP playbook apparently required, Graham said that “if I had said anything remotely like that, my career would have been over.”

That’s true. But if Latinas had run the world for the last millennium, Sotomayor’s career would be over, too. Pretending that the historical context doesn’t exist — pretending that white men haven’t enjoyed a privileged position in this society — doesn’t make that context go away.

Yes, justice is supposed to be blind. But for most of our nation’s history, it hasn’t been — and women and minorities are acutely aware of how our view of justice has evolved, or been forced to evolve. Women and minorities are also key Democratic Party constituencies, and if the Republican Party is going to be competitive, it can’t be seen as the party of white male grievance — especially in what is almost certainly a lost cause. Democrats, after all, have the votes to confirm Sotomayor.

“Unless you have a complete meltdown, you’re going to get confirmed,” Graham told the nominee. He was right — Republicans probably can’t damage her. They can only damage themselves.

Took awhile, but I finished reading “Great Transformation: The Beginning of Our Religious Traditions,” by Karen Armstrong (heavy duty reading on comparative religion analyses), in addition to Qiu Xiaolong’s “Red Mandarin Dress” (a Chief Inspector Chen Cao novel; interesting read; still wish Chief Inspector Chen had more of a personality).

Slate commentary on an anti-drug cartoon of my generation; what’s scary is that I remembered watching it during that late 1980’s/early 1990’s period – where the Muppet Babies, Alf, the Chipmunks etc., convince this idiot kid to Say No To Drugs. Upon review, yes, Slate, you’re right – it was a lame cartoon, but it was one of those rare opportunities to see so many characters in one place and at one time – and all acting very patronizing and pedantic… yes, even Alf.

Goodbye to Analog TV; Time with a photo gallery to honor ye olde television. I’m not entirely certain about digital tv, but here goes nothing.

Also, another end of an era: goodbye to the Virgin Megastore. Admittedly, I didn’t shop there very much, but I am concerned by the loss of a big retailer and the lack of commerce in a huge amount of real estate in the city.

Time Magazine poses the question of whether Facebook hurts the school reunion industry. I thought Facebook actually helped my college’s 10th year reunion; people came. It’s hard to tell if that will generate donations for Alma Mater or if the alumni office is really out of business because of Facebook, but that depends on what one thinks is the purpose of reunions and alumni offices, I think.

Hmm, so every time Time Magazine comments on Facebook, so does Newsweek? Well, at least Newsweek tries to remind people that Facebook is only a supplement to enhancing your friendships, not replace them.

Why am I a sucker for cop shows that get cancelled? I like “The Unusuals”; enjoyed watching the leftover episodes. It’s too bad that ABC won’t give it a shot.

The articles on Judge Sonia Sotomayor have been interesting, to say the least. Count on Tom Goldstein of Scotusblog to review all of the racial discrimination appellate cases that Judge Sotomayor sat in (Scotusblog is awfully known for being thorough) and finding that there’s no so-called bias in Sotomayor’s decision-making. Goldstein’s key conclusion: “The public debate ought to be about what the law should command in these kinds of difficult cases. Unsubstantiated charges of racism distract us from these questions and demeans our justice system.”

For a country that doesn’t quite like America, Iran apparently likes the English language, sort of – as the Slate Explainer explains.

Slate’s John Dickerson ponders on President Obama’s response to the Iran situation, which is still developing and with no certain answers regarding the elections (at least, not to people outside Iran, anyway). So, query: how do you respond to a still developing situation? Answer: Very carefully, whether the American people, or the world at large, likes it or not.

That is really fascinating: Obama’s the first president of a generation that grew up watching Sesame Street, not just a parent of kids who watched it? The first generation of Sesame Street watched 1960’s tv at its most diverse and optimistic (and oddly entertaining, in that 1960’s way; Obama was the first generation that grew up watching Star Trek too) – this all pretty much sums up Obama. This was an awesome article on Time.com, plus great accompanying video of Obama praising Sesame Street.

It must be a slow news day if we get excited over President Obama’s killing a fly; well, it was kind of impressive.