The Mouth O' The Mule

Waiting for a Flick

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 17:30:00 +0000

My typographical error rendered the title to this post Waiting for a lick, whichI quite enjoyed.

Truth in advertising, etc.

I meant to begin Waiting for a Flick because, well, I am. And from a surprising source.

Joss Whedon is behind it, so my anticipation is mildly surprising. Whedon's work on Firefly entertains me, but his oeuvre does not rest near my wheelhouse.

Anyway, his black-and-white, set-in-LA Much Ado About Nothing is high on my list of gotta-sees.

I understand that he hasn't made any changes to the text -- which is a rarity in stagings of Shakespeare's work, much less in films.

But a film shot in 12 days by the director/producer/mastermind behind summer blockbusters is mildly interesting from the jump, and made more so by this line from a review in The Guardian:

In certain aspects this is Shakespeare as that black-and-white classic,

The Philadelphia Story.

Now who doesn't wanna see that?

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Wed, 19 Jun 2013 13:24:00 +0000

A Nice Lesson From the Court

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 18 Jun 2013 12:56:00 +0000

SO I yap about a lotta stuff (well, I used to yap about stuff, before entering moribund blog phase), and because I lack the discipline to actually write, my yapping is at best momentary pique.

Nothing changes here: it's yap all the way.

But I found yesterday's Supreme Court decision on an Arizona law very instructive. Not substantively, and only in passing as an instructive vehicle to understand what the Court usually does.

But instructive in how reporting has so grossly distorted our view of what the Supreme Court is usually doing or deciding.

Let me write two headlines, or imagine yourself hearing on your radio the following ledes:

(1)

The Supreme Court prohibited Arizona from requiring documentation of citizenship for voting in Congressional elections

vs

(2)

The Supreme Court held that Congress preempted Arizona's ability to require documentation of citizenship for voting in Congressional elections.

The distinction is small, but [methinks] meaningful.

Under that first headline, seven justices decided that . . . . something [the Constitution, presumably?] bars Arizona from requiring proof of citizenship in elections.

Under the second, seven justices decided that Congress had the power to restrict, and had in fact restricted, Arizona from requiring proof of citizenship.

Whether a state can or should require documentation of citizenship[ is a pretty controversial, heated issue: is it being used to prevent voter fraud, or to limit access to the ballot box? To let seven [well, five] people decide that, and try to tell you where the limitation is found in the Constitution or elsewhere, grants the Court a fuckuva lotta power.

But whether the federal government can establish rules for federal elections, or whether a federal law can trump a state law in Constitutionally permissible areas, are not controversial issues. They're settled and taken for granted. So in this case, letting two-hundert and something Congressmen (and fifty-something senators, and a president) decide that a federal form without additional docuimentation is good enough is a bit more representative.

And aggrieved folk who want to change the rule and require more documentation can vote for a U.S. representative who will try to change the law, and likewise can contribute to the campaigns of presidential candidates and senatorial candidates who favor requiring more documentation. As opposed to . . . what? Bitching about the Supreme Court, or trying to impeach a justice?

But I didn't hear the second headline read on NPR or elsewhere, and I didn't see the headline in any of the newspapers that I read. Which I lament -- it really ain't that hard to get it right.

And it might do a tiny bit o' good at maintaining whatever respect remains for the Court.

Now sometimes the justices will really just decide what they want and dress it up, or Congress will have punted and left it to the Court to decide what Congress intended. I don't mean to suggest that the Court isn't involved in setting policy, as lamentable as that may be. But it strikes me as really quite possible that Scalia or Kennedy or Roberts-- or even somebody else in the majority--might think that documentation of citizenship would be a really good idea. While also deciding that the Supremacy Clause in the Constitution gives the federal government the power to decide, and takes it away from the states when the federal government has spoken.

I'll go back in my hole now, and I'll get up a photo of some zebras cavorting, or some French actresses' tits, as soon as I can. . . .

Tigers and Wolves, Oh My! No. 2

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Sat, 15 Jun 2013 02:26:00 +0000

Tigers and Wolves, Oh My! No. 2

pretty please.

Turismo, No. 2

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 23:52:00 +0000

Turismo, No. 2

pretty please.

My Town

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Thu, 13 Jun 2013 14:27:00 +0000

My Town, No. 2

pretty please.

Where Are you, Jew?!?

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Wed, 12 Jun 2013 17:43:00 +0000

Around the Majors With MASN

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Sun, 09 Jun 2013 19:43:00 +0000

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Sat, 08 Jun 2013 14:42:00 +0000

Being out of the country, I have missed this sad news. My supposed paranoia now seems childishly innocent

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Fri, 07 Jun 2013 02:58:00 +0000

-from a portable device

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Thu, 06 Jun 2013 17:24:00 +0000

So, I'm working on a photographic mystery series. . . .

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Wed, 05 Jun 2013 16:41:00 +0000

The Thinning Mule

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 20:24:00 +0000

Day One ends

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:05:00 +0000

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 04 Jun 2013 04:04:00 +0000

Wings Over Capital Centre

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Thu, 30 May 2013 23:33:00 +0000

May 15, 1976

Edit Setlist

They drive me to activism

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Thu, 30 May 2013 12:35:00 +0000

Yeah; Christians are an oppressed minority in this country, so I get it.

But DeGraaf, a ministry director, told HuffPost that the reports he has seen lead him to believe that the Kansas Legislature needs to protect Christians in the military.

Why don't we protect everyone in the military. You know, from IEDs and other lethal things. . . .

PS I'm in love with Barbara Bollier !

For The Mythical Monkey, No.14

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 28 May 2013 01:58:00 +0000

I'm Not Ashamed of Any of My Porn, but I Hang My Head About Owning This. . . .

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 28 May 2013 00:54:00 +0000

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 21 May 2013 17:39:00 +0000

"accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive, and judiciary, in the same hands, . . . may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny." The Federalist No. 47, p. 324 (J. Cooke ed. 1961) (J. Madison).

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 21 May 2013 16:25:00 +0000

i write incomprehensible posts

mmmmmmmy parents must be so proud

When the red, red robin comes

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 21 May 2013 13:23:00 +0000

a long time ago, the Jestaplero gave me shit in the comments section about being patently imbalanced and unfair. The context? I was repeatedly describing former Senator Evan Bayh as the anti-Christ for not doing something, while not naming the ten other people who were not doing it worsely.

The Jestaplero was right that I wasn't being fair.

You see, I was more disappointed in the Bayh fellow, at the time, than some other fuckjheaded douchenozzles from whom I expected whatever loathsome behaviour I was decrying.

The same sorta thing is at work today, of course.

Some close friends are just amazed when they find the evidence of my enthusiastic support [in real life kinda support, not anonymous blog support] for my candidate from 2008, winner o' my vote, winner o' my heart, Barry Obama. Hawaiin, Kansan, scholar, wag, energizer. He'd made me a bumper-sticker, pin-on-the-lapel kinda supporter. Talked him up.

That support lasted through his inauguration, and even survived what I thought was a horrible miscalculation in pushing through "the Stimulus." I thought he'd fucked up, but I was still behind him.

Well, that ended kinda quickly.

Four years after I'd enthusiastically supported him, I was lambasting the guy. During the 2012 campaign, when a friend announced on Sep. 12 that Mitt ROmney had demonstrated that he was not qualified to be President [his comments on the Cairo riots and Benghazi were at fault], I responded that Barack Obama was not qualified to be president. At fault: his disregard for the Constitution in appointments, and in reversing himself on the limits of his power regarding certain illegal immigrants.

I apparently went easy on the guy, as he was much more hostile to the idea of limits on his power, and on time-honoured restraint and comity, than I had assumed.

Today I find him abhorrent for so many reasons.

A couple'a his defenders have continued to explain that the . . . misssteps. . . of DoJ and IRS/Treasury and State and CIA can't really be laid at his feet. Especially DoJ -- why, that's independent criminal prosecution.

Except it's not. As the Pres himself has explained, directing resources and establishing the focus of the executive-branch agencies is his job. One that he's proud of, if during an election he can enact a Dream Act that he'd earlier explained was beyond his power.

But some people tell me that I'm churlish for holding him to blame. Why how, they asked, could I hold accountable the same man who did a glorious job (the week before an election) rebuilding the New Jersey seashore singlehandedly.

My criticism of the guy was always accompanied by a nagging inquiry -- was I waving my abstract libertarian crap while not looking squarely at what the guy has to do in the real world. But I've kind of ended the internal debate. I think it's fair to view him as harshly as I have and do.

But I won't make those Nixon comparisons. Not me. I don't think this is the kind of presid

Everyone has heroes: his is James Dean

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Tue, 21 May 2013 12:55:00 +0000


(the) Razz, 2013 [Noone for Nicely]

A chill shot the hall as I began to sweat. . . .

used by permission

The Brownshirts are coming

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Mon, 20 May 2013 19:24:00 +0000

Wow. Holy fucking Christ.

Holy Jesus Fucking Christ.

A reporter in search of information who gives his source instructions about how to reach him is a co-conspirator, in the eyes of this Administration.

Nixon used the government to make life miserable for his enemies.

These guys are using it to silence reporters.

Now I have to get off my fat ass and actually compile the list. The list where Constitutional constraints are just too heavy a drag on the whiz-kid. And where time-honoured notions of the uneasy balance are being tipped.

noreply@blogger.com (mister muleboy) — Fri, 17 May 2013 11:03:00 +0000

I don't know the music of The Smiths