Frist = Hypocrite
From DC Inside Scoop, a blog with enough self-loathing to have actually read Frist's book from 1989.via Atrios

"And, although Frist writes frequently about the ethical issues surrounding transplants--for example, the question of when death begins--he approaches these issues in starkly scientific terms, with little patience for religious objections.

"Near the end of the book, for example, Frist suggests changing the legal definition of 'brain death' to include anencephalic babies, who are born with a fatal neurological disorder but show just the slightest hint of brain-stem activity. Such a change would make it possible to harvest their organs for transplant--something the Catholic Church and pro-life groups oppose. 'Three thousand anencephalic babies were born a year, enough to solve our demand many times over--but we never used them.'

It's probably too much to hope that the brain-dead media will actually hold him accountable for this switch.

The Onion headline
"EPA to Drop "E", "P" From Name."
(from Kos)

Episode 2
Anybody else catch Project Greenlight episode 2 tonight? I'm predicting they will fire the director and go back and get their second choice in the next couple of weeks. It's hard to see how this could ever work. It was painful to watch tonight.

Repeating Mistakes
Here we go again with the poll numbers. Democrats are taking comfort in the public's disagreement with Republican intervention in the Schiavo case. But as usual we Democrats are determined not to learn any of the political lessons we have been taught.

Republicans are dead wrong on this issue. Of course. And a clear majority believes that they are. But, it does not translate into political capital. Why? Because people also respect Republicans for standing on this principle. Sure, in a poll people will claim it is all about politics. But when was the last poll in which a cross-section of Americans did not take the opportunity to question the motives of Washington politicians? Americans like to say that Washington does everything for political gain. Public cynicism is the new black. But deep in the American psyche, people want to have a protector in charge. The fact that Republicans go too far in that role only enhances their status as ultimate protector, even if there are surface disagreements over details.

I'm not saying that we should adopt the Republican stance. They're completely wrong and disgustingly inhumane here. I am saying that any idea that this is a political winner for Democrats, just because a poll says the public disagrees with Republicans, is a misguided one. So long as the Republicans are perceived as standing on principle, and protecting the helpless, they will hold the trust of the American people, even if the majority disagrees with them in their application.

Republicans (must) know this. Democrats would do well to learn. And as usual when I'm feeling pessimistic, I hope I'm wrong.

CSI Pressure?
In the local paper today comes the news -- shocking to me -- that the defendant in a horrific rape/murder/arson case in a dorm room at Western Kentucky University was found not guilty. I have no idea what the evidence was. The jury may well have come to the right decision. At the time of the arrests it seemed pretty clear. One person pled guilty and implicated/testified about the other. But the jury found the case lacking because there was no physical evidence. Of course, the criminal made pretty sure of that by burning the poor woman. And like I said, maybe the prosecutors found the wrong guy; I suppose that happens far too often.

But I can't help but wonder if juries these days have raised the standards of proof beyond the reasonable, thanks to TV shows like CSI that depict insanely complex, yet always conclusively solvable, layers of evidence. On top of that are the inevitable plot twists that thrive on making the least likely into the reality, week after week. So when a defendant can construct a fantastical, bizarre defense, who's to say that's not reasonable? Given the turns of Law and Order cases? The LA Times considered the same issue with regard to the surprising Robert Blake acquittal.

Juror Cecilia Maldonado was among the majority of jurors who said she felt from the beginning that the state had not proven its case. She said she would have liked more of the kind of evidence she has seen in the cases on "CSI."

"I just expected so much more," she said, acknowledging that such television crime shows created "a higher expectation" for her.

In the days of Perry Mason, did juries have a higher expectation that witnesses would be exposed or swayed to confess by a piercing cross-examimation? What relationship does our love of an interesting trial story have on our collective assumptions about evidence and proof?

It is at least in part a good thing. How many more prisoners have to sit in jail for 30 years before a DNA test exonerates them? Maybe these new standards will keep innocent people from being convicted (or prosecuted in the first place), even if they send more violent criminals back out into the public in the process. But that standard comes at a heavy price - literally. Most prosecutors can't begin to afford, in money or time, the kind of crime lab technology championed on television these days (and some of that is probably made up anyway). What juries are saying is that anyone can be reasonably assumed to be lying about anything. Testimony beyond that of the physical evidence inspectors means nothing. Even the wildest explanation can be plausible. Only your unseen irrefutable trail can convict you. And I would think that crimes rarely provide such a neat trail.

MEDIA MONDAY
What have you been reading, listening to, watching?

Twist Endings
Slate's David Edelstein suggests the 20 most absurd twist endings. I agree with many. His readers added some others which he posted. My favorite: Passion of the Christ ("He's not really dead!") What twist endings aren't on the list but should be?

Star Wars III
Lucas now says it will be "a real tearjerker"... I don't want to have a bad attitude about it. Really, I don't. If you haven't seen the trailer, it is here. It made me hopeful. "Tearjerker" does not.

Is 12-tone music dead?
Kyle Gann considers the ongoing (lack of) usefulness in teaching twelve-tone composition to college students. I can identify. Much of what we teach music students borders (or jumps headfirst) into the realm of the useless. But I would give up a handful of archaic things (for you initiated few: like 4-part chorale writing, which consumed 80% of my theory classes as a student) before bypassing 12-tone approaches in my own theory sequence. Even its perceived uselessness can be an important tool toward understanding the mindset and aesthetic of mid-20th century classical music.

But as a composer I can also attest that 12-tone can be an instructional compositional outlook as well, as a gateway toward serialism, an approach which need not be taught so rigidly as it typically is. It takes a little flexibility and creativity, but teaching 12-tone as a relevant tool can indeed be done. And given its dominance over classical music so recently, I think skipping it is a mistake. For you non-musicians, it would be somewhat akin to skipping dadaist art in art classes just because the students find it too weird. That having been said, I am not arguing against more attention to relevance--my entire teaching style is built on it. I'm just saying it's up to us to demonstrate to them what is, or can be, relevant. Not the other way around.

We should start by listening to the music our students listen to (there are some entire theory courses today that could have been made up of exactly the same material in 1830. Last year, I had a colleague tell me he teaches his theory courses like they are history classes...ugh!). Not only does that make is easier to connect topics to relevance (how would most of today's music theory teachers even know what counts as relevant?), it builds credibility with our students when we have to convince them--in their present state of knowledge (ignorance)--of a connection that may not be intuitive; that is, when we have to teach. Still, the suggestion to teach plunderphonics is one I endorse, and teach myself. But why not privilege the techniques of the 1950s over those of the 1650s? Even when the relevance to today is not experienced on the surface.

Movie reviews I haven't read
I don't like to read reviews before I see films. Usually the preview gives away too much as it is, and reviewers give away even more. But here are NY Times reviews that oscarwatch says are positive assessments. Beyond that, I don't know what they say. If you don't share my hangup, you may want to read...
--Manhola Dargis on Millions (the preview has already convinced me to see it, barring a spate of reviews I hear are negative...)
--AO Scott on Woody Allen's Melinda and Melinda

King of Pop?
Article 19 favorite Jody Rosen, writing in the Nation, tries to remind us how Michael Jackson became famous in the first place--as a genius songwriter and unparalled singing talent. Chris Rock has a funny joke, told in the context of ridiculing Jackson's penchant for little-boy relationships (of some kind or the other): "Remember when we argued about who was better, Michael or Prince? Prince won." Rosen's doesn't address the comparison himself, but his heralding of Michael's musical career certainly calls that conclusion into question.

(T)he Jackson who emerged as a solo artist in the late 1970s was preternaturally sleek, charismatic and confident, a perfect superstar for the post-soul era. He was the first performer to assimilate disco, which had dominated the charts for a couple of years, into a wholly personal style, combining its sumptuous grooves with the songcraft and vocal expressiveness of classic soul. You can hear that style budding in "Shake Your Body (Down to the Ground)," the huge 1979 dance hit recorded with his brothers, and then bursting into flower on his solo breakthrough, Off the Wall (1979). The album was Jackson's first with producer Quincy Jones, and to many purists it's his best, an irresistible mix of suave soul, soft rock, pop and funk.

But it's Jackson's singing that propels Off the Wall. Here was the sound that would conquer the pop charts across the world: the limpid falsetto voice, strangely higher at age 21 than it was at 13, which could dip into a buttery midrange or explode into squeals, hiccups, grunts, "hee-hees" and other James Brown-on-helium exhortations.

His musical promise and undoubtable influence make it that much more sad--no, pathetic really--that his legacy will be forever equated with strangeness and perhaps even criminal behavior; pathetic both for the one who will be remembered, and the ones doing the remembering. Michael Jackson has become famous now only for being famous. The prequel to Courtney Love. His talent and his genius slayed by his own hand (the one with the glove I suppose), with a little help from this age of the voyeur we live in. Read the whole thing.

New CD Releases
Only three more long weeks until that new Mariah Carey comes out we've all been waiting for. I'll see you at Tower Records at Midnight. Until then, maybe the new Yo La Tengo (3-disk retrospective), or the new Beck next week will actually be worth picking up.

Weekend Box Office
1. The Ring Two (I liked the first alot--very spooky--but the second can't be any good. If you see it and I'm wrong, let me know.)
2. Robots
3. The Pacifier
4. Ice Princess
5. Hitch

You have to go down to # 11, The Upside of Anger, to find something that looks worth seeing (that I haven't already seen). And that has Kevin Costner in it.

Project Greenlight
The new season may be worth watching--I caught the first episode over the weekend. The interesting thing about this show concept is watching the process of making a movie, and rooting for a first-time director to jump-start a career. The failure is that it typically devolves into a clash between studio mentality/demands and artistic wishes, so it's less about the logistics of making a film and more about the logistics of marketing a film. Since the director is new, he has virtually no pull in this process, and rarely wins these battles. (A more interesting show may be to watch the process through with an established director...).

This season, this clash promises to be even greater. The director they chose, at Matt Damon's behest, was clearly the most talented but may be a nightmare to work with. He's a middle-aged eccentric loner recluse. His wishes are not so much career-related; he wants to make a good interesting film. He is exactly the kind of project this show was designed to promote--the talented and opportunity-less.

Either he will thwart the studio with his strangeness, or they will crush his fragile spirit. The first would be interesting to watch. The second, not so much.

Republican Senate votes for more abortions
The Senate voted down a bill 53-47 that would have helped cut down on unwanted pregnancy by promoting programs that provide education and greater access to prescription and emergency contraception. Over the weekend I heard a representative of Planned Parenthood speak about the bill, offered by Harry Reid and HIllary Clinton, and it makes so much good common sense that I find myself surprised that even this republican Senate could not support it.

And while I was concerned when I heard headlines a few months back that Senator Clinton was "softening" her stance on reproductive rights, I was encouraged--at that same meeting--to read her entire speech on the subject. It is fabulous and right on point. Check it out.

This decision, which is one of the most fundamental, difficult and soul searching decisions a woman and a family can make, is also one in which the government should have no role. I believe we can all recognize that abortion in many ways represents a sad, even tragic choice to many, many women. Often, it's a failure of our system of education, health care, and preventive services. It's often a result of family dynamics. This decision is a profound and complicated one; a difficult one, often the most difficult that a woman will ever make. The fact is that the best way to reduce the number of abortions is to reduce the number of unwanted pregnancies in the first place.

She went on to point out that most women spend a far greater percentage of their adult lives trying not to get pregnant than they do trying to conceive. This legislation would have made that effort simpler, more effective and more accessible. The consequences of keeping it more difficult is nothing less than a higher abortion rate. That is happening as well.

Where's the Outrage? [Three Updates]
UPDATE #3: Think Progress (via Kos) catches White House press secretary McClellan saying the exact opposite of the truth in response to a question about Bush's signing of the Texas Futile Care Law. Of course, we expect that kind of thing from the people that brought us the Clean Air and Healthy Forests initiatives. Should the Schiavo story continue, we can look forward to Bush himself contradicting his former self and misrepresenting the truth about the 1999 law.

UPDATE #2: Liberal Common Sense (via Talkleft)has a profile outline of the federal judge hearing the Schiavo case.

UPDATE #1: Kevin Drum has the poll numbers (not that I will ever trust those again) to show that Americans by large margins are not buying either the content or the motivations of Republicans intervening in the Schiavo case; and the Carpetbagger (via Drum) points out how the religious right has succeeded where war, devastation and national security threats have all failed: in getting President Bush to cut short a vacation. At least we know where his priorities are.

While republicans yell and spin their heads over the Schiavo case, and run roughshod over the separation of powers in the process, it is worth remembering that loved ones and care providers make difficult decisions every day about maintaining futile care and living with dignity.

That dignity is not commensurate with a persistent vegetative state, and certainly not with political power-brokers inserting and removing a feeding tube on national television. That's why George Bush as Governor signed into law the Texas Futile Care law. And because of that law, 6-month old Sam Hudson was taken off a ventilator over the objections of his parents last week.

I don't hear Tom Delay screeching about that though.

The only possible difference is vegetative state vs. terminal condition. Why the Republican congress and the right-to-life folks (who were supporters of the Texas law) have decided that there is a possibility Terry Schiavo will return and regain consciousness and health, despite all medical promise to the contrary, is beyond me. Parents and families grieve and even disagree through these horrible situations every day. There's no reason to drag this one through the press, and change federal law to try and "win." If states and state courts can't decide the definitions at the heart of these struggles, what can they do?

Delay is a world-class prick.

First Sighting Last Night
A Bredesen for President bumper sticker.

Although given the venom I heard directed toward him this morning at a breakfast of county Democrats, Phil may have to change parties--in name in addition to his spiritual transformation--to have any help.

This isn't the style I saw yesterday, but there are some Bredesen for Pres goodies here.

His second term had better be an improvement.

Go Big Blue! Part 2 (of 6?)
It's all about the defensive rebounding. Cincy's going to miss plenty of shots. Can KY keep them from gobbling up the offensive glass and putting back the easy ones?
Tipoff around 7:10 Central.

Chicks in the News: Guest Post by Deb

Don’s generous offer to allow guest posting on Fridays has resulted so far in three well written commentaries on meaningful issues: B Lewberry’s treatise on exercise and health, Kenny’s missive on racial profiling, and Doug's discussion of memory and legacy. All thoughtful, first-person accounts on issues that are poppin’ fresh from the headlines, and made us ponder our own behavior related to the topics.

I think this dangerous trend toward evocative posts on socially relevant issues that shape our very lives has to stop. I mean geez, it’s Friday. And I’m just the fluffhead to derail the trend and set an appropriate Friday tone with observations on Chicks in the News.

Here a chick: I wish there were some sort of medical device to measure degrees of hatred so I could know for certain if I hate Karen Hughes more than I hate other sanctimonious conservative women. Wolfowitz wasn’t the only toady to get his reward for loyal servitude this week with a prime appointment. Karen comes off the mommy track to grace the State Department as undersecretary for public diplomacy. Public diplomacy, even as we are so admired throughout the world. I loved the fake Hughes quote on Wonkette, and I edit for FCC standards: “We need to stab these mothercluckers in the eye with the generosity and compassion of the American people!" She looks like a gym teacher, but will surely win hearts and minds.

There a chick: Media Monday has not yet touched on one of the hottest TV shows dominated by chicks. I’m not talking about “Desperate Housewives,” please, I’m talking “The L Word” on Showtime. If all lesbians looked like these babes, you guys would probably be SOL as even straight girls would reconsider. Jennifer Beals looks awesome, her castmates are all gorgeous with fantastic wardrobes and hairstyles, and their relationships are as complicated and sexually charged as any hetero-based TV dramas. I know how you guys dig the girl-on-girl thing, if you’re not already Tivo-ing every episode, check it out.

Everywhere a chick chick: I hate to re-toot Showtime’s horn, but if you’ve liked “Curb Your Enthusiasm” I have to recommend “Fat Actress,” Kirstie Alley’s new Showtime reality comedy.

Yes, she’s gained some weight in the past few years and is trying to shed it – it happens to the best of us. But she’s still beautiful and more importantly funny, dealing with the topic of overweight, the last bastion of fair game discrimination and derision. I admire her attitude and courage to confront reality with humor, I’m so glad to be able to laugh at her on TV again, and I’m relieved to remember that most real women don’t look like Paris Hilton or Hillary Swank.

Share your favorite Chick story with us.

Bastards
Our State House passed the anti-gay marriage amendment to the Tennessee Constitution today by a whisker, 96-7. That's how many reasonable people there are in that circus. It will be on the ballot next year. Same-sex marriage is already against the law here, so I suppose I agree with Tennessean columnist Larry Daughtrey who speculated the legislature is aiming its efforts at those heady criminals who--though they wouldn't think of breaking a law--would never dare break a constitution.

Only 2 Nashville reps. were among the 7: Rob Briley and Janis Sontany.

This can't be good news for Harold Ford. But not unexpected.

Steroids
I think it's a good decision for congress to hold baseball's feet to the fire, though they're obviously about 10 years too late. But, really, of all the things there are to talk about, wall-to-wall live coverage of a congressional hearing on the dangers of steroid abuse? Listening to the wailing of committee members about the threat of setting a bad example for the children would make you think that every other high school locker is spilling over with needles, that football players, debate team members, and the marching band, are all sneaking off between classes to shoot up illegal testosterone.

I understand that steroid abuse can be a harbinger of severe depression and a variety of ill health, as well as being illegal. And I know that we should draw attention to what we can--the celebrity of pro athletes makes this spotlight possible. But don't you figure that other harmful, illegal things are higher on the list of destructive teenage activities? You wouldn't think so listening to TV and Capitol Hill today.

Can some of you in high school education comment on the stat I heard today that the CDC estimates 1 in 16 high schoolers have tried steroids? With half of high schoolers being female, so smarter than that, that means 1 in 8 males. Does that sound right to those of you on the ground?

I'm not saying there's anything wrong with talking about harmful stuff, and the bad examples set by adults. But it's strange to me how much attention this is getting, and how ominous the warnings suddenly are (to justify the attention, I suppose). We would do better convincing more young men that their life does not depend on--and that they have more to offer than--just a career in sports.

Go Big Blue
Tipoff at 11:20 central time.
Cats up by 8 halfway through the first half.
Cats up by 8 at halftime.
Cats up by 12 with 9 minutes to go.
Cats definitely gonna lose. Up by only 5 with 4 minutes to play.
Cats luck out. They wouldn't have beaten many teams today--looked awful.
(Is anything happening besides sports today? There are baseball players on my CSpan this morning.)

Derek Smalls Weighs In
Guest-blogging for Josh Marshall for a couple of days is none other than Harry Shearer. His first post already contains some probing insight and questions:

I’m amazed that a salient fact about Dan [Rather]’s last few years escaped notice during last week’s barrage of Rathermania and Ratherphobia. Namely, what other distinguished personage of such lengthy service in the public eye suddenly decides, in the last few years of his career, to change the side of his head on which he parts his hair? That, my friends, is plain weird. Sure, he changed the haircut, opting for the youthful short-and-semi-spiky look, and, after a lot of to-and-froing with the dye bottle, allowed himself to go gray, then white. But all that could have been consistent with the right-side part we’d come to know and....know. Somehow, Dan decided--and you’ll hear from the clips that these are decisions to which he gives long and thoughtful consideration--that all that was not enough, that the twilight of a long life on camera had to be marked with a migratory part. And nobody asked why. Until now.

You may want to keep a close eye on TPM through the end of the week.

Blake not guilty?
Has anyone paid attention to this one? Can you explain how this could happen? I was thinking it was a slam dunk, and didn't pay much attention. But what do I know - I thought OJ was guilty (Kobe too).

George Bush is on Crack (but we already knew that), Part 2 of a Series
His logic goes like this (to be performed as a dramatic reading):
1. Social Security will go broke - insolvent! insolvent! We must do something for the children!
2. Private accounts carved out of payroll taxes will do nothing for the solvency issue!
3. We must have private accounts carved out of payroll taxes, for the children!
4. I don't want to talk about solvency! Give me private accounts!
5. Democrats are irresponsible - they don't even have a plan!
6. I don't have a plan! It would be wrong of me if I did!
7. Social Security will go broke - insolvent! insolvent! We must do something for the children!

Repeat.

Lack of Communication
Italy is bolting the Iraq coalition? Their people are still against the war? Haven't they heard that through our collective efforts, democracy is spreading throughout the Middle East? Like wildfire? Maybe they don't get CNN out there. Success! Success!

A Smorgasbord of Shame
Check out notproud.com. An online service for public anonymous confessions of wrong-doing. Conveniently ordered by major sin group. I think I have an understanding that some unhealthy kind of voyeurism is at the heart of interest in reading such things (oh, do i). But what exactly is the motivation for posting such announcements?

It is a truly bizarre place. And, in case you're at work, you might not want to go read what's in the "lust" category. Come to think of it, you might not want to read that wherever you are.

Happy Ending: Media Monday Update
Thanks to assistance from Metallica drummer Lars Ulrich, who enlisted the intervention of their lawyer, Peter Paterno, Sony has agreed to drop the case against Beatallica. www.beatallica.org should be up and running again soon. This is a fantastic development in the name of creation and humor. Details and more links at boing boing.