Freedom of the Press

While I don't pretend to understand the intricacies of constitutional law, there does seem to be something fishy about what happened Monday with the Supreme Court's decision not to revisit the ruling against the Time Magazine and NY Times reporters Matthew Cooper and Judith Miller, respectively, who refused to give up their sources.

By now everyone has heard the name Valerie Plame, the CIA undercover agent who was outed by Robert Novak on July 14, 2003 in an opinion article aimed at discrediting her husband, Joseph C. Wilson IV. And what did Valerie's husband do that was so bad? He criticized a Bush administration statement. And Mr. Novak, true to the nickname bestowed upon him by The Daily Show of "Douchebag", paid him back in spades for his unpatriotic opinions.

Judith Miller at the NY Times, never actually published an article that would have outed Valerie Plame. However, both she and Matthew Cooper face jail for their failure to release the names of the people in the administration who gave them the scoop. And interestingly enough, who is the one who got the most publicity out of the reveal, why Mr. Douchebag himself, yet he has never received the verdict that the other 2 reporters did.

It isn't hard to see how it would seem that Novak is getting special treatment in this matter.

Today Time announced that despite Cooper's request not to, they are going to release his notes in the hope that this will satisfy the special prosecutor and keep their reporter out of jail. The hope is that Miller's sentence will be affected as well. This is a sad day for journalistic integrity.

Sure it should be illegal for someone in the administration to endanger a field agent, however, what happens with the Press is no longer trusted to keep its sources? Had Mark Felt been outed as Deep Throat back in the 1970's maybe we'd expect less from the judicial system's protection of the Press's rights, but Deep Throat was allowed to remain a secret and no one went to jail for it.

And this preferential treatment that has been bestowed upon Novak is puzzling indeed. Perhaps the Administration sees this as a way of rewarding one of their low-key henchmen? Novak took out a criticizer of the Bush Administration and passes Go and get to use his get out of jail free card. In such a possibly hostile environment how is the public going to be able to trust the news they receive if it always has to agree with those in power?

Of course this could all just be some misunderstanding on my part and my desire to believe that there is indeed some sort of conspiracy theory thing going on. But on the surface, Novak, the special prosecutor on the case and the Supreme Court have some 'splaining to do.

Entourage or My Vacation by Marky Mark

After watching the first episode of HBO's comedy series Entourage when it first aired last year, I wasn't terribly interested. The show depicts the life of Vincent Chase, an up and coming hot actor in Hollywood and the hangers on that live with him and assist him with various and dubious duties. The whole series is based loosely on the experiences Mark Whalberg (I Heart Huckabees, Boogie Nights, Three Kings) had when he first hit it big. He and his friends from back home apparently all lived in one house and they lived well.

This was all mildly entertaining, but nothing about the show particularly grabbed me. The characters had potential, but the pilot just didn't scream "WATCH ME EVERY SUNDAY NIGHT!!"

And so I didn't.

Fast forward to next season and for some reason - boredom, ennui, or perhaps I was sick of rewatching Sex and the City - I decided to give Entourage another chance. And I'm pretty happy I did.

The first season does take a while to find it's feet, but once Vince has to negotiate doing an arthouse picture with his agent Ari Gold, a sublimely brilliant and scene-stealing turn by the underused Jeremy Piven, the show grew some balls. Vince's posse grew distinct personalities:
Eric, the quiet one of the bunch who essentially manages Vince and consistently learns the hard way how the industry works; Turtle is almost a Queens stereotype, but his utter cluelessness ends up being more charming than annoying and he comes through for Vince in the end; and finally Johnny Drama, Vince's half brother who at one time had a minor B career going in Hollywood, faded to obscurity and is trying to get back to the limelight on the merits of his brother. Drama's character has it's own sort of tongue-in-cheek humor, as he's played by Kevin Dillon, the less famous brother of Matt Dillon.

As the show has progressed it's not just about Vince and the gang buying things, banging women, and being cool - though that's still going on. Vince has to make some hard choices where his career is concerned, and a good portion of them are monetary. Ever wonder why a seemingly talented actor takes a lead role in a big, blustery action flick? This show solidifies the inklings you might have. As Eric, or as he's known "E", is now Vince's official manager, his relationship with Vince is slowly changing, proving to be the ground for some interesting confrontations. E's relationship with Ari is also mutating; whereas Ari still treats him like a moron, they are now on the same side in many respects, and work on shielding Vince from the realities of the biz.

Enough can't be said about Piven's performance. Ari Gold is a cutthroat agent who goes through assistant like socks, walking all over them and then tossing them. Despite all his ego and all his talk, he still ends up deferring to his wife who has him by the balls with a firm grip. Recently, Ari and his wife were shown in therapy, so perhaps the superagent will soon be cut free to frolic with the rest of the boys...but I hope not. His family is one of the few things that he allows to humanize him. Piven captures the boastful and egomanical aura of a top agent at a top agency perfectly.

Deadwood this show is not. Nor does it have the emotional heft of Sex and the City. However, for a spending a half hour every weekend at the Playboy Mansion, top LA clubs, and even Marlon Brando's old digs, the show delivers.

The Things People Say

Recently a friend decided to do me a favor and tell me that I have "issues".

First of all anyone who's known me for 10 minutes would agree with that statement, though I believe they are endearing issues, not the sort of issues that make you pray the person who has them would just fall into a manhole and die.

According to this so-called friend, my apparent low self-esteem has made me essentially misinterpret the way I believe my friends see me. Or to put it less delicately, because I think I'm crap, I believe so does everyone else and as such, I am not worthy of having friends.

Now this is an interesting situation to say the least. I am trying to believe that the friend who gave me these pearls of wisdom was doing so out of a desire to help with whatever they saw as a distinct flaw in me, rather than making these statements out of a desire to be a sonofabitch.

I'm trying - not there yet.

While for most of my life, it should come as no shocker, I have had staggeringly low esteem. At no point though, it has never lead me to believe that I am not worthy of having friends. Yes, I have the areas that I believe could use radical improvement and wouldn't do any boasting or bragging, on the whole I think I'm a pretty decent individual. Usually entertaining, occasionally intelligent, and under the right circumstances, I might even give a damn. All in all, not a terrible person to befriend.

A couple of pertinent questions have popped into my head since my friend thought it important to share this information:

1. Since neither I nor any of my other friends agree with this statement, I'm curious as to why exactly this specific friend chooses to believe this about me.
Personally, I think it's because this particular friend has a knack for bringing out whatever insecurities I might occasionally have and sees this as the whole of who I am. I have news for you bub, I got my problems, but I'm not that bad. I have my moments when I, like other people, question my relationships with my friends and sometime wonder about the nature and reasons for these connections. In the end, I try to accept these things at face value. I am pretty sure this doesn't qualify as an "issue". But I'm thinking that if you are someone who has done or said something to give me pause about our specific relationship, then yes, chances are you will probably think I'm like that struggling and insecure child overall.

2. And this is the more important question, does anyone, even a friend, have the right to make such random and harsh declarations about someone else?
And the answer...I don't know. This harkens back to my undecidedness about the true nature and intent of the statement. But then again, even if the friend meant it in the nicest, most helpful way possible, does that excuse it? What are the limits of our relationships? How truthful are we to be with the people in our lives? And how sure are we that the assumptions we make about them and sometimes even insist on, are true?

To all these questions, the answer is really that it depends.

Every relationship is case specific and probably has to be dealt with as such.

In this case, it's all still unclear. The "truth" is something this friend likes to keep veiled and that makes assessing the reality of any situation all the more difficult. Despite all intensions, we all make assumptions about the people we know. Sometimes we might ask for clarification, but in the end in order to interact on any level, we have to assume certain things. It's all a matter of the sort of assumptions that we make. As hard as it is to know ourselves, it's that much harder to know someone else and I think we'd all do better to keep that in mind.

Yeah, I'm still smarting a bit over the entire conversation (let's just say the matter was not dealt with in a sympathic fashion; the term "hit and run" kept popping up in my mind). But upon this person's insistence that they are "nice" and "mean well", along with their egotistical claims that their life's work is essentially to insult people till they think what is deemed correctly, I will say thank you for the consideration and while I respectfully disagree, I will reconsider the subject.

It's the least I can do.

I didn't sign up for this

At 3 pm on Friday, my boss decides that he wants me to go to a conference in NY this coming Thursday that he's known about for at least 3 months.

In a frantic rush, I book a flight and sign up for the conference.

However, the hotel becomes something else.

My boss assumed I would have friends to stay with. Problem with that is I no longer have any friends in NY. Of the 2 friends that are still there, 1 lives with her parents and the other has moved in with her fiance. Neither situation lends itself to a place for me.

It is now Monday afternoon and after a weekend of frantic websearches and phone calls, I still have no where to stay.
Part of the problem is the monetary restrictions my boss has placed one me; I am not allowed to spend more than $200 a night on the room.

In NY, as in LA, there are basically 3 classes of hotels:
1. Your four star, extravagant and stellar accommodations that are going to cost you a pretty penny but you'll be treated very very nicely and you'll never have to question the standards of the room you'll stay in.
2. The average 3 star hotels that can range from very nice to pretty good in terms of their accommodations and if booked in advance, can start at around $200 - very reasonable. However, if not booked in advance they tend to sell out or the prices skyrocket.
3. Your 2 and 1 star hotels. These are the crack dens of NY where you are more likely to find someone shooting up heroin than getting ready to go to the theatre. These hotels are usually not in the midst of the hustle and bustle and it is quite likely that you'll be afraid to find out what those stains on the sheets are.

Right now my choices are either spending an exorbitant amount of money for just a pretty OK room or taking my life and property into my own hands and staying at a 1 star hotel in the middle of craptown.

Because today and tomorrow are Shavout, a Jewish holiday wherein my boss doesn't pick up his phone or check his email, I am stuck waiting till tomorrow night to see if I can find a decent place to lay my head this coming Wednesday and Thursday nights.

I won't go so far as to sit here and whine about how unfair this all is (even though it so totally is!) but if my boss expects me to get on that plane Wednesday morning without having a place to go to when I land, he's got another thing coming.

My New BF

Ok, so I don't know this guy and yeah, this is just one of those obsessive crushes women of all ages get...but I am totally in love with this dude.

What can I say? I fall too easily for smart alecs who are just snarky enough without coming across like grade A assholes. (Though lord knows I've fallen for those assholes too.)

All it took was for Mr. Blagg to rant about those people who make suggestions at Whole Foods, and I was hooked.

Sigh, but like all the other crushes in my life, I will keep my feelings a secret and just admire him from afar, reading his blog religiously and mentally planning out all the groovy things I would say were I ever to meet him.

If that doesn't work...I've always got Jon Stewart.

Dogs Do Not Equal People

Without exception, animals aren't people.
They can have funny expressions, be forced to wear clothes, eat "people food" and even sound like they are talking.
But they are not, repeat NOT people.

People who treat their dogs and cats and fish and iguanas like they are human beings who possess the same mental and emotional capacities are just plain wrong.

These beings are animals. They will eat their own poop and anything else you put in front of them. Before man became obsessed with taming various animals out in the wild for his own personal amusement, every single creature that is now kept as a pet managed quite fine out on their own, without benefit of fancy pet food and expensive grooming.

As much as you love them and they depend on you, they aren't replacements for people. Acting like they are is part of a grand delusion and in the end, when your pet dies after the short life span it will inevitably have, mourning for it like it was a best friend, sibling or god forbid spouse, will make you look definitively crazy.

Love your pet but please don't pretend that they are human.
That's just crazy.

And another thing...

I hate people who feel that once they get married they need to update everyone in their life on every little thing that happens in some mass email.

Yes, I can understand the desire to keep friends and family informed, but seriously is that hard to just send everyone individual emails or better yet, to pick up a phone??

But mostly, I hate that these people think I care that they just bought a dog or just painted their downstairs bathroom and that this news is worthy of my attention and response. Good for you, you have a slobbering creature who will crap in your shoes and destroy your furniture. Enjoy. Just don't tell me about it.

Perhaps this is why I have no friends....?