heycecilia.com - blog - October 2004

heycecilia.com

the blog - October 2004

archives

February 2005
January 2005
December 2004
November 2004
October 2004
September 2004
August 2004
July 2004
June 2004
May 2004
April 2004
March 2004
February 2004
January 2004
December 2003

I Touched The Future
5 Days Until Election 2004 - Excuse Me While I Switch Horses
Two Of Most Interesting Things I've Heard This Week
Hey, Cards, Feel Free To, You Know, Win . . . Anytime Now
10 Days Until Election 2004 - Polls Are Stupid
Whew! Breathe Easier, Cardinals Fans
Who Do The Red Sox Think They Are?
14 Days Until Election 2004 - Give Your Brain A Break
I'm Feeling All Literary
20 Days to Election 2004 - Final Debate Drinking Game
A Fresh Coat Of Paint - Lovely And Cool
So Long, Superman
C-SPAN Still Rocks!
. . . Dred Scott? Ahhh, Relevance
Maybe I Should Just Move Back To Berkeley
The One Where Everyone Pretends It Matters
30 Days Until Election 2004 - C-SPAN Is My Favorite Channel
The Intolerable Cruelty of Kevin Hill
Vicki Liviakis Goes Down

E-mail me.

I Touched The Future
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 31, 2004 9:36 PM
Today I voted so I am watching the political hoopla and spin purely for sport not the false hope that I may actually be informed. My absentee ballot never arrived so I had to vote at the registrar today because there is no way I'm making it to my polling place on Tuesday.

It was an interesting experience, voting on a Sunday. I went to the Alameda County Courthouse in downtown Oakland where the most fantastically devious set-up was in play. The voting booths (electronic, thank you) and registrar windows were in the basement so when you walked into the courthouse, you didn't see the gazillion people standing in the very long line that spanned much of the length of the courthouse. By the time you got to the end, you pretty much felt like you had committed to the act. I actually felt quite good—an awful lot of people were willing to wait for half an hour or more to vote.

As a general strategy to make voting appealing, it was lousy though. If you don't think voting is that big a deal, you're not standing in a long line to do it, especially when the process itself will actually take only five to ten minutes, you don't really get any great memories or stories, and the only tangible thing you get is a sticker. Though, by the way, the sticker I got was pretty awesome. Not that old-fashioned "I Voted" dealie.

Some "highlights": The cutest couple was in front of me and had to borrow my pen. I almost forgot to vote for U.S. Senator because I was a little too enthusiastic after voting for President. Everyone at the registrar was nice and friendly, especially the big guy who kept going up and down the line telling us "You better have filled out your card. I'm not going to let you get to the window and waste everyone's time filling out your card at the window!"

The best moment: A mom, dad, and a little boy, probably five years old, were walking out at about the same time I was decided they didn't have enough time to wait to vote. The dad said, "I guess I'll take my chances on Tuesday." The mom said, "I'll vote before work on Tuesday." Then the little kid said, "I'll vote after school on Tuesday." Total "awww" moment. I hope he holds on to that for at least another thirteen years.

5 Days Until Election 2004 - Excuse Me While I Switch Horses
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2004 10:58 PM
In the last week, more than in all the years of my somewhat brief life, I have heard repeatedly, "Don't change horses in midstream" as a bit of wisdom on the importance of "re-electing" George Bush.* Beyond noting that seeking guidance or justification or even articulation from a cliché is just kind of silly, My mental retort is "Well, pardon me, but I'd much rather risk landing on my ass in the river than to ride my horse over a waterfall."

To extend the mangling, I'm quite convinced the current horse has blinders on; though not actually deaf, only hears at very particular frequencies; is rather misguided as to which direction is that of safety and which is almost certain disaster; and I don't think he's paying very much attention when I tug on the reins.

Done with that crummy idiom.** And hopefully on November 2, or sometime in the several weeks following, we'll find that we are done with our current president.

Again, I must point to Pamie for an insightful story about how some segments of our electorate aren't particularly informed, but are passionately, spectacularly opinionated. The comments are pretty good reading too.

I finally got around to reading Slate Votes, their roundup of how their contributors are voting. Kerry takes it easily, though more endorsements seem to come from choosing the least repulsive alternative. The cases for Bush are definitely worth reading too.

The biggest bummer? Dahlia Lithwick, who turns in a smart, well-informed, must-read opinion, can't vote-she's Canadian.

Other good ones (in part):

Paul Boutin, Technology Writer: Kerry
But while [Bush] claims to be a love-your-enemies Christian and a keep-the-government-off-my-back Republican, he and his administration have repeatedly led the country into actions that are neither what Jesus nor the Economist would do.

Daniel Drezner , Political Scientist and Contributor: Kerry
This is a foreign policy election for me, and I've never been less enthused about my choice of major party candidates-it's like being forced to decide whether The Matrix: Reloaded or The Matrix: Revolutions is the better movie.

Dana Stevens, Television Writer: Kerry
At first Kerry seemed like a default choice-I didn't see why he had emerged from the pack of Democratic hopefuls. But as the campaign's progressed, he's won me over. Like Al Gore, he comes off as a stiff, pompous policy wonk, but I actually kind of like that in a candidate-it shows that they actually like sitting down and thinking about all the boring stuff you need to know in order to run a country. Since when did the job of president stop requiring a résumé?

Other must reads: William Saletan, Seth Stevenson, and Robert Wright's entries.

The best, for me, was Timothy Noah's. Especially the point he makes at the end that really gets glossed over or ignored in most political dialogues:

As the economic journalist Daniel Altman has demonstrated, it is now the conscious (if unacknowledged) policy of the United States to eliminate taxes on capital and shift it onto labor. That enrages me.

Me too, Timothy. Me too.

*I did not vote for him in 2000-in case you couldn't tell.
**Not crummily derived, just crummily used. It's got a neat origin.

Two Of Most Interesting Things I've Heard This Week
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 28, 2004 8:28 PM
This morning on NPR a possibly drunk Red Sox fan remarked that it could only take a sweep and a lunar eclipse to break the curse. Glad that worked out so well for you, guy. But really, Boston finally winning was cool. Let's see what they can do next year.

On Sunday morning, after watching BC04's Wolves (related here and here) and KE04's Protect on This Week With George Stephanopoulos, Time Magazine's Michael Duffy wryly observed "We're going to have to elect a game warden before we elect a president." See, because their ads are stupid.

Hey, Cards, Feel Free To, You Know, Win . . . Anytime Now
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 24, 2004 10:13 PM
I'm just saying. Boston had four errors—three from Mueller alone, guys. Kinda laying it at your feet, you know? I know I confused things by occasionally cheering good plays by people like Johnny Damon and Pokey Reese (how can I not love Pokey?!). I've just spent the last few weeks cheering for them too. But I'm better now. I promise I'll only root for red birds, but no red sox from now on.

The Earthquakes don't demand this much of me.

øøø

Off topic, sort of, this is probably the funniest thing I've read in a long time about the state of professional sports today.

10 Days Until Election 2004 - Polls Are Stupid
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 23, 2004 5:44 PM
But somehow I am drawn to them. Especially since I discovered Slate's Election Scorecard. It's become particularly interesting in the last week as they've started posting state polls. Before they showed the national polls, which were divergent as heck, and now they are showing more detailed breakdown as the state numbers roll in. Those are the only ones that really matter. The lead has been changing a lot lately. Current Electoral Vote Predictor 2004 is another nice poll information clearinghouse, focusing on those pesky electoral votes.

Pamie's kinda amped.

Guess who this is

Go Fug Yourself wants you to vote. And not dress like Courtney Peldon. I'm not sure which is more important.

Whew! Breathe Easier, Cardinals Fans
Thursday, October 21, 2004 8:29 PM
Thanks for making my house a happy place tonight, Cardinals. I'm weirdly excited for the World Series this year. Haven't been for a few years. (Though a Cubs-BoSox series last year would have been awesome and easily watchable.) Anyway, I hope Tavarez didn't re-break his hand there though. Yay, Red Birds! See ya Saturday!

Who Do The Red Sox Think They Are?
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 20, 2004 9:17 PM
Pretty impressive, making history with that coming from 0-3 to win the ALCS over the Yankees. I was worried a few days ago that they were stealing the Cardinal's mojo, but things have looked up on that front. So half of my hoped lineup for this year is locked in. And, Johnny Damon, thanks for reminding us you don't actually suck, because you don't.

14 Days Until Election 2004 - Give Your Brain A Break
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 19, 2004 9:54 PM
Well, not exactly a break, but how about a test? Or rather, a quiz? A quiz where smart quizmasters figure out what kind of a person you are so you don't have to.

See, if you don't know who to vote for, you can answer questions at various sites and they'll tell you. Or some will tell you whether you're a conservative or a liberal or a red stater or a blue stater. I'm not really saying you should follow these, but I found them kind of illuminating. Well, more interesting than illuminating.

So very, very funny:

Oh, and by the way, if you live in California, and you're already registered to vote, you can apply for an absentee ballot until next Monday, October 26, at 5:00PM. Also if getting to polls still seems tough and the absentee application period is over in your state, you can probably vote early. That's right, YOU CAN VOTE EARLY! Get the information from your state and local registrar of voters. I can actually vote Saturday and Sunday before the election, which is convenient. Yay! Convenience.

I'm Feeling All Literary
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 14, 2004 10:38 PM
This week, Slate's taking a very interesting look at new fiction in their Close Reading series in the Book Blitz section this week. Especially interesting is Roll Call, which reveals that even though the opinions of writers about who they're voting for in the upcoming election aren't more important than anyone else's, boy do they express 'em better!

I read about Jessica Weiner in the September 17, 2004 Entertainment Weekly ["Chick Lit's Big Star", in#784, with Apple's mom on the cover]. Interest slightly piqued. But then yesterday, I discovered her fantastic blog, SnarkSpot [by way of pamie.com]. It's funny, well-written (duh!), and just so damn good.

McSweeney's (Dave Eggers et al.) is very cool. Check back frequently for Daily Reason to Dispatch Bush.

The National Book Foundation announced the National Book Award Finalists for this year, which include, of all things, the 9/11 Commission Report. Isn't that wacky? (Officially titled The 9/11 Commission Report: Final Report of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United States-Authorized Edition by The 9/11 Commission). Garrison Keillor's hosting the November 17 event and—even neater—Judy Blume's picking up the Medal for Distinguished Contribution to American Letters and delivering an address.

And apparently, it's National book Month, so read, figure out how much of a book nerd you really are, and if you're in the Bay Area, and not obscenely busy like myself, check out the tail end of Litquake.

20 Days Until Election 2004 - Final Debate Drinking Game
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 13, 2004 7:30 AM
While Wonkette's Debate Drinking Game is still pretty relevant, here's a vaguely domestic issues debate specific one:

Take One Drink If:
Anyone refers us to a website
Anyone refers us to a website address incorrectly
Anyone refers to events of the 1800s
Anyone says "September 11"
Anyone says "flip flop"
Anyone says they support science
Anyone tells a story about someone they met on the campaign trail

Take Two Drinks If:
Bush says "turning the corner"
Kerry says "W stands for wrong"
Bush reminds us that he "tried diplomacy"
Bush pointedly refers to the "internet"
Bush tells you "That's what liberals do"
Kerry outdatedly refers to "compassionate conservatives"

Take A Shot If:
Bush smirks
Kerry name drops John McCain
Bush mentions "OBGYNs"
Kerry mentions "OGBYNs"
Bush makes up a word
Anyone mentions Iraq
Anyone mentions al-Qaida or Osama Bin Laden

Drink It All Down If:
Bush refers to the "culture of life"
Bush refers to Kerry's Senate attendance record
Kerry reminds us how Catholic he is
Bush advocates environmentalist favorite coal
Kerry talks about the way other countries do things

A Fresh Coat Of Paint - Lovely And Cool
TUESDAY, OCTOBER 12, 2004 7:36 PM
Emily's site, Eastern Villager, has received quite the redesign and it's very spiffy. The picture on the front page is especially nice, kind of evoking an earlier, simpler, more peaceful time, you know, like when there wasn't an internet. Very lovely.

Also lovely, check out a great piece by the same, which appears in October's Bitch magazine-it's the one they've dubbed on their website "Open Letter-Gal pals sought for cosmo drinking and soul baring" and is officially titled "Dear Female Friendship Culture." Very cool.

So Long, Superman
MONDAY, OCTOBER 11, 2004 8:27 PM
This was pretty terrible news to hear this morning. More eloquent musings than I can provide can be found at Frolic and Detour. A couple other interesting pieces on Slate, SF Gate (on his impact on spinal cord research [via AP] and roles as hero [via AP]), and CNET News.com. (There's an amusing side discussion on CNET in the comments section on whether it's appropriate to acknowledge the existence of Superman IV.)

To say my little piece, Superman has always been one of my favorite movies, and Christopher Reeve was the main reason. Though I always felt a little bad, as if I was personally responsible for pigeonholing him into that character, making that role the only thing anyone thought of when they thought of him. It always seemed that like George Reeves, people were hesitant to see Reeve play anything but the man of steel and his deceptively unobtrusive alter ego, forcing him to be loved as people wanted to see him, but not always as he wanted to be seen. I cheered when Reeve showed up in something like Avonlea or Noises Off . . . , but it was still surprising, a jolt really, to see him outside of that cape or those glasses. Acknowledging his non-superhero talents, I'll freely admit that it was really cool for him to appear on Smallville as Dr. Virgil Swann, this reclusive, genius scientist who figured out and understood Clark's secret, perhaps more fully Clark himself, but was mindful enough to keep it safe. It was a knowing, brilliant way to embrace Reeve's position in the Superman legend without flights or tights, yet fully satisfy viewers, fans of the character, and admirers of the man, and hopefully Reeve as well.

C-SPAN Still Rocks!
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2004 5:09 PM
I'm trying to get out of the rut of only talking about the election and related issues, but it's the only game in town. Last night I watched part of the October 13, 1988 second and final debate between George H.W. Bush and Michael Dukakis in Los Angeles . There was a panel of CNN's Bernard Shaw and three badly dressed women-NBC's Andrea Mitchell (looking way better this morning on The Chris Matthews Show 16 years later), ABC's Ann Compton, and Newsweek's Margaret Warner. Okay, well, it's the 80s so I'm sure they were very stylish. Big hair, puffy and unflattering clothes. The bigger the shoulder pads, the better! Oh yeah. So stylish.

The thing that's kind of distressing about the debate was that a) George Bush junior and senior say a lot of the same things and b) nothing anyone promises actually gets done. Also, apparently Social Security and Medicare were even issues then! And Dukakis thinks "We can do better!" Crazy this broken record society we live in.

This, like the 1992 town hall debate, was also wacky because there was this crazy crowd participation element. Basically, they cheered for stuff they liked, laughed at stuff they found funny or preposterous, and booed stuff they didn't like. Bush actually asked for five extra seconds because he thought one boo moment was a little too loud.

Also, I didn't remember what an angry time it was. I was in elementary school so it was easy for me to miss. But there were questions about how sick the American public was about the campaigns going negative and the people in the audience clearly had no respect for the people they disagreed with.

One thing I have to point out: Dukakis talked about homeless people. Homeless people? Nobody talks about homeless people! I thought it was great and based on that alone, I kinda probably woulda voted for the guy.

Although I missed the infamous moment where he was all technical and unfeeling answering that whole question about what he would do if his wife was raped and murdered. Would "Fire her Secret Service agent" have been a good answer? It was the first question! I don't know if that makes Bernard Shaw awesome or kind of a jerk. In either case, wow.

I actually remember my class that year had a mock election and Dukakis wiped the floor with Bush. As I talked with two other girls in the bathroom after the vote we all agreed that Bush would be bad because he only approved of abortions in cases of rape, incest, and to save the life of the mother. Far too narrow for our grammar school minds.

I'm going to get major nerd points here, but it'd be pretty cool to just watch a marathon of every televised debate interspersed with a little history of the winner's presidency, including successes and failures, just to see how things evolved.

Best revelation: Bush the Elder was a flip-flopper!

. . . Dred Scott? Ahhh, Relevance
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 9, 2004 1:09 PM
Yesterday's debate was a little odd to watch. I'm not sure I've been as annoyed by George Bush's mannerisms, what with head nods, the winking, the grimacing, the looks of shocked confusion (which if real were unsettling because nothing new was said and if not then it was pathetic pandering), and the desire to greatly interrupt people and not wait one's turn. John Kerry's "respect" of people's "feelings" was quite awkward.

As William Saletan noted Kerry could have done better and really didn't pounce when easy opportunities to do so were presented. I don't think either did himself a lot of favors. It wasn't as painful as 2000's town hall debate, but I was a little irritated that I could predict a number of answers and pick apart so many inaccuracies.

For fun I kept popping into Wonkette's hilarious real time coverage. I have to say that the moment that really popped out was that Dred Scott reference that a) made no sense, b) was unnecessarily esoteric, and c) was just stupid.

Another example would be the Dred Scott case, which is where judges, years ago, said that the Constitution allowed slavery because of personal property rights.

That's a personal opinion. That's not what the Constitution says. The Constitution of the United States says we're all -- you know, it doesn't say that. It doesn't speak to the equality of America.

And so, I would pick people that would be strict constructionists. We've got plenty of lawmakers in Washington, D.C. Legislators make law; judges interpret the Constitution.

And I suspect one of us will have a pick at the end of next year -- the next four years. And that's the kind of judge I'm going to put on there. No litmus test except for how they interpret the Constitution.

And how they interpret the Constitution must be how he would interpret the Constitution which is, I'm sure, untainted by his personal opinions. Whatever. That slavery was wrong and property rights shouldn't apply to take away rights as human beings is a pretty non-controversial in this country, in this day and age. And I'm pretty sure no one John Kerry could appoint would (like the Taney Court) endorse a position as terrible as that underlying Dred Scott. Activist judges are judges who don't agree with you and strict constructions are judges who agree with you. But of all the examples of activist opinions, his number two example was from 1857? (The Ninth Circuit's 2002 Pledge of Allegiance decision being first.) Way to spot a runaway trend there.

UPDATE: Frolic and Detour's got some fancy opinions on this too. And Bloggystyle had "a semi-official transcript of some remarks and observations." Best part:

You may not agree with him, but Bush was a lot clearer and consise on abortion. And he's not giving anybody counseling. Or federal money. You're on your own, sluts.

SUNDAY, OCTOBER 10, 2004 5:46 PM

Maybe I Should Just Move Back To Berkeley
THURSDAY, OCTOBER 7, 2004 9:10 PM
I guess I'm getting stupider or my brain's just slowing down a bit here. I was walking in Berkeley this morning and I see this house:

And I'm thinking, 'I don't get it. What are they banning? What are they against?' And these two junior high girls were walking in front of me and then one of them said, "No Bush, ha ha" real sarcastically. And the other one said "Shut up" with a tone that said 'It's so obvious.' I was thinking, 'I'm really off my game that I didn't get that, but two eleven year olds did. I totally would have picked up on it if I was still in a Berkeley state of mind.' Maybe I need more sleep.

The One Where Everyone Pretends It Matters
WEDNESDAY, OCTOBER 6, 2004 8:56 PM
I guess I was remiss in my debate drinking game duties with yesterday's vice presidential encounter, but hopefully all who were seeking such entertainment found it. Wonkette had a lovely veep drinking game that you may have stumbled upon. To be fair, I don't think the "game" part was really a necessary justification for the "drinking" part this time around.

Wonkette's blow by blow is probably the only recap you need. The whole thing really was an explosion of talking points and questionable facts tenuously tethered to a vaguely related question. I'll have to admit the one that really threw me was the complete refusal to actually answer Gwen Ifill's question about AIDS in America and not elsewhere in the world. Both Cheney and Edwards' answers smacked of "well, I don't actually know about that, but I got a lot to say about AIDS in Africa and other non-American places like Russia." She was so irked with their lack of relevant answers that she didn't give them any follow-up opportunity. At least we know one demographic neither campaign cares about.

Kausfiles notes Cheney was winning on the radio and losing on TV—it's 1960 all over again! But kf thinks it was a draw, which is kind of how I'm leaning.

The debate was not particularly illuminating and neither was terribly more effective than the other. Visually it was no picnic. Cheney kept covering his mike and muting the response and talking into his chin and Edwards at times was trying to hard to be appealing. There was something weirdly patronizing and unsettling about the way Cheney kept calling Ifill by her first name, especially given that she had to call him Mr. Vice President.

Oh, and William Saletan, whose election coverage I find fascinating, thinks Edwards kicked ass. May I also suggest the excellent "The Global Test: It's called reality"; the kind of depressing "Out of the Question: Is Bush's biggest mistake too awful to admit?"; and the sadly hilarious "Catastrophic Success: The worse Iraq gets, the more we must be winning"?

30 Days Until Election 2004 - C-SPAN Is My Favorite Channel
SUNDAY, OCTOBER 3, 2004 10:39 PM
Yesterday, I watched the Town Hall Debate from October 15, 1992 with George H.W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and H. Ross Perot. It was . . . fascinating. It was the first town hall format in the history of presidential debates. Clinton pointed out at the end that it was his idea and talk about playing to your strengths. I'm watching thinking a) he's twelve years old! and b) he's just insanely appealing and really made me miss having someone like that running. Mark Morford was so right when he said the problem with Kerry is that he isn't Clinton and Democrats kinda wish he was. (He notes we ought to let that one go.)

I can see why Clinton won, how Ross Perot got 19% of the vote, and, well, why Bush lost. He kept looking at his watch like he had somewhere else to be and he didn't seem to know how to talk to normal people. This was like on The Apprentice when the women talked to their restaurant patrons like they were running a joint for people who were kind of slow. Just because you wouldn't hang out with them doesn't mean you can't talk to them like they're equal human beings. In his defense on the watch thing, Perot kept going over his time and Bush was noticing it. Clinton would walk up close to the questioner and really make a connection and make whatever he promoted sound wholly rational. Perot, well, he pretty much would have said the same things if he was talking to an orange. It was dynamic and crazy and I'm not sure it made sense, but it sure sounded good.

The audience was sassy and pissed. They asked follow-up questions and totally called the candidates on not actually answering what they were asked. Well, mostly they were calling Bush on it.

The really weird part was that the candidates were all wearing variations of the same dark tie with red diagonal stripes of different widths. Actually what was eerie was that they were talking about the same stuff that we are now: Iraq; too many Americans without health insurance; the impending insolvency of Medicare, Social Security, and Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; the estate tax; the rising debt; the middle class tax burden; etc.-and that's so sad. Oh, and Bush mentioned that gynecologists were afraid to deliver babies because of the malpractice risks.

I also watched the October 17, 2000 town hall style debate between George W. Bush and Al Gore and it was nuts. It was boring and hardly the same freewheeling open experience the '92 debate. No one was allowed to talk back. Nice to really button down the format and keep things under control. I like Al Gore, but golly, all I kept thinking was "Say it simpler or just shut up." Oh, and Bush mentioned that gynecologists were afraid to deliver babies because of the malpractice risks.

I saw a bit of the Dick Cheney-Joe Lieberman vice presidential debate, but, my, that was the definition of dull. I don't have such low expectations for Tuesday's vice presidential debate between Cheney and John Edwards. It's totally going to be like seeing some weird father-son lecture/unsettling argument. But to the extent I can, I'll watch. I'll probably cringe, but I'll watch.

Register to vote if you still can or look into absentee ballots if you think you can't make it to the polls on Election Day.

The Intolerable Cruelty of Kevin Hill
SATURDAY, OCTOBER 2, 2004 10:32 PM
I want to like Kevin Hill. I do. I thought the show was funny and surprisingly devoid of filler, but that might be because first episodes have to be about rapid exposition. I liked that 50 things happened and half of them were life altering. I felt like it was a filling television experience.

But, and you know there had to be a "but," the show killed me on the law. Killed me. It was Intolerable Cruelty all over again. In case you missed it, that was a Coen brothers film starring George Clooney, Catherine Zeta-Jones, and Cedric the Entertainer. Not even my undying love for the Coen boys or the fact that every time Cedric was onscreen yelling "I'm gonna nail your ass! I'm gonna nail your ass!" I nearly died laughing could overcome the pain caused by watching the realities of community property law shoved aside for the glamour of common community property misunderstanding. I'm sure the Coens knew better. I'm sure everyone involved knew better, but you can't hang the plot of your movie on a fundamentally flawed premise. That is, the second you marry some rich person in a community property state, you get half their money. That's what people often think getting half of your stuff means and it seems awfully unfair. Well, yeah, it's so unfair that it's not the way it works. It works like this. I couldn't contain my freaking out watching them make the movie interesting by getting the law as wrong as possible. (I'll admit knowing the real way makes me sensitive to this, but it was too much.)

Okay, so how does this pertain to Kevin Hill? Well, in the show, they made mistakes that you don't have to be a lawyer to find fishy. The case in the premiere included a case where a star athlete being sued by a woman who alleged he sexually assaulted her. No relation to Kobe , I'm sure, just like next week Gina Gershon's turn as a boozy, addicted rock star who might lose her kid bears only a coincidental resemblance to Courtney Love. Anyway, Kevin's firm that unceremoniously lightened his workload for him, causing him to abruptly quit (and Kevin's sure prone to these fits of abrupt action), represented the guy. His new gynocentric firm (made up of three women attorneys and designed to let the single mom head attorney have time to raise her kid) represents the victim. The problem-um, wouldn't his old firm and the athlete complain that because Kevin knows all about their side of the case and would be able to share all this confidential information with the other party? Never came up.

The second issue was that at the trial Kevin tried to bring up some woman that the athlete had apparently previously sexually assaulted, except there was no police report, just a medical report and her story. The opposing counsel was only in a huff because he thought Kevin's trying to call her as a surprise witness. Unless the state has some crazy rules, in a civil case you can't use prior bad acts to prove conduct, that is, you can't say that, well, he did it to this other girl once so he also totally did it this time. "Prior acts of sexual misconduct may be used against a criminal defendant charged with a sexual offense" but "[c]haracter evidence is never admissible in a civil case except in cases of malicious prosecution, libel and slander since reputation is relevant to the cause of action" (as html). So maybe, that's what the defense lawyers should have been mad about? Maybe the lesson was Kevin's old firm really, really sucked. I guess when I think about it that way, I can like the show. I'll just have to see how it goes next week.

Random other issues: It was weird that Kevin seemed to have been hired on the spot by the new firm though he hadn't bothered to research it because he knew nothing about them. O . . . kaaaay. And the redhead lawyer who acts all spazy and then comes in like a shark is weird. She seemed less a great negotiator than good at baseless ultimatums, which works, but I didn't really get that. And the block woman has no personality yet except that she doesn't like Kevin, which I guess is a personality. The most interesting thing of all: Two Homicide refugees in Michael Michelle and Jon Seda. Though mentally I associate Michelle more with ER and Seda with, forgive me, Selena.

Vicki Liviakis Goes Down
FRIDAY, OCTOBER 1, 2004 8:52 PM
So I didn't realize y'all liked drinkin' so much. It seems that nearly 300 people seeking a presidential debate drinking game stumbled upon this site in the last week. I don't talk about site statistics or what brings people here because a) it's usually quite a pathetic discussion and b) I think it's a bit unseemly to talk about them. It's a bit obnoxious to pimp one's stats. But when you get nearly as many hits in one day (yesterday) as you have in the last six months, well, it's worth at least half a mention. It was a good day. People found what they were looking for and I got a good laugh.

The only loser? Vicki Liviakis, finally dethroned as the number one search term that would get you to this site, coming in at, um, 13, in the last six months. Because of this.

The other lesson of the night: John Kerry would be so much more awesome if he was always limited to 120, 90, or 60 second talking increments. He was persuasive and succinct and articulate and it was great.

comments? e-mail me.