Scott Lemieux has an excellent article over at The American Prospect about yesterday’s ruling on Arizona’s SB 1070—the “Show me your Papers!” law. He spends most of the article talking about Scalia’s angry dissent. I don’t pay enough attention to the Supreme Court, but even I’ve noticed that Scalia has abandoned reason. Corey Robin has a whole chapter is The Reactionary Mind about how dangerous conservatism is in Scalia’s brilliant mind.
Lemieux explains that, shockingly, Scalia argues that Arizona is a sovereign with more or less equal rights to the Federal government. It is arguments like this that make the Court’s decision on the ACA so dangerous. Scalia has given up any pretense of even following his ridiculous “originalist” doctrine. As we saw in the hearing on the ACA, he brought up the conservative talk radio canard that if the government can force you to carry health insurance, it can force you to eat broccoli. Well, Scalia is still at it:
Amusingly, Scalia has just released a co-authored book criticizing many of his colleagues for not adhering to what he considers the only acceptable consideration that can go into legal reasoning—the text of the relevant document as it was construed at the time of its ratification. I had no idea that the original meaning of the Constitution and federal statutes could be best discerned by listening to The Michael Savage Show.
I often despair about the people I meet on the street. The fact that people like Scalia are in power (And of course people with his kind of personality are in power!) means we are lost—at least for the foreseeable future.
Nora Ephron, writer and director of many successful “chick flicks,” died from pneumonia earlier today. That’s sad, she was only 71. But I have never thought much of her work. She kind of epitomized professionalism without depth. I rather liked some of her films in that “watch them in bed while you doze off” way. And I was impressed that she made You’ve Got Mail work as well as it did.
I suppose she will always be remembered for When Harry Met Sally—a film that I think really doesn’t work. How can anyone get to the end of this film and think it is a happy ending? The two are bound to break up and if they are very lucky, their friendship will survive. Or they will get married and end up hating each other. Regardless, it is not a happy ending.
But there is this scene:
Personally, I’ve always hated women who make a lot of noise in bed. It makes me feel vaguely violated and pandered to. “You don’t have to shout, I’m right here! What’s the problem? You got somewhere to go?” I will allow that I wasn’t always so wise.
Rest in peace, Nora; your time on this earth was not wasted. Yes! Yes! Yes!
Wes Anderson has a film coming out called Moonrise Kingdom. This is not exactly big news:
What I find interesting is that this film looks good. I think that Anderson has a lot of talent, but the only film of his I’ve liked was The Royal Tenenbaums. I think there is something about his worldview that I just can’t relate to in any fundamental way. There is a kind of hatred for his characters that screams out. Somehow, in The Royal Tenenbaums it works, because all of the characters were so sad and disaffected. Still, Tenenbaums ought to be a great film, and it is not. I suspect that Anderson doesn’t have greatness in him. (This is not a slight; I wish I had his talent.)
Moonrise Kingdom could be another film worth spending some time with. Even at his worst, Anderson still produces films that are a good deal better than almost every other thing that comes to the multiplex.