Category Archives: General

Batman, Bagels, Sci-Fi

Posted on by

Today (meaning Saturday), Matt and I finally saw “Batman Begins.” Because the movie’s already been open a month and a half, we didn’t think we’d need to get there very far in advance. But the theater turned out to be crowded, although we luckily found the last pair of adjacent stadium-level seats at the end of the last row. I got to stretch out my right leg against a stairway pole. The movie was terrific, punctuated only by my occasional hacking coughs (which I tried to do only during loud moments) and nose-blowing. I was quite struck by Cillian Murphy, who played The Scarecrow, a.k.a. Jonathan Crane. I’d never seen him before (or at least I thought I hadn’t, until Matt pointed out that we’d actually seen him right before the movie started in a preview for “Red Eye”), and while there’s something very strange about his cheekbones, the man is, well, again, striking-looking. And he looks particularly good in the glasses.

Earlier today, I took my first trip to Murray’s Bagels. Matt, as a non-native New Yorker, had never been exposed to real bagels. He’s fond of Lender’s. Lender’s! My poor, sheltered boyfriend. So I went to Murray’s and got half a dozen bagels (two plain, two onion, two everything) plus another one for myself to eat as soon as I got home – a plain bagel with lox, cream cheese, tomato and onion. There’s nothing like a huge, hard-on-the-outside, soft-on-the-inside, real New York bagel. It was delicious. Matt was overwhelmed by how big the bagels were.

Last night neither of us were able to go to our usual Friday night gathering. Every week some of us get together to watch the Sci-Fi Channel’s Friday night lineup. But I was sick and Matt was wiped out, so we watched it at home. And I think a few other regulars were out of town. I only wish we’d all been together for last night’s “Stargate: Atlantis,” because there were two or three moments where we would have all had a hoot.

I must point out that I know very little about the “Stargate” franchise. I saw the original movie years ago, but I never saw an episode of “Stargate: SG1” (which has now been on for eight years) until last season, because Matt watches it and I caught a few episodes with him. “Stargate: Atlantis” is only a year old and I’ve caught most of it with Matt. I’ve not traditionally been a big TV sci-fi person; I watched “Star Trek: The Next Generation” with my dormmates back in college, and that’s about it, except for other occasional “Star Trek” spinoff episodes while other people were watching. Watching four shows in a row on a Friday night about bands of heroes travelling through space (and exploring rather Vancouver-like planets) is pretty fun, though. I really am a sci-fi geek at heart.

And now to bed, after which today will be yesterday and tomorrow will be today.

Roberts and Romer

Posted on by

I’m very intrigued by the news about Judge Roberts and Romer v. Evans. My initial cautious admiration had been turning into worriment in the last couple of weeks, with all the news about his cocky Reagan-era views, but this reassures me a bit. It doesn’t mean a whole lot – again, whom you represent or advise as a lawyer doesn’t necessarily say anything about your own views. But I can’t imagine that Antonin Scalia or Clarence Thomas would have volunteered, pro bono, to help out the gays.

On the other hand, the issue in Romer v. Evans was pretty egregious. It involved the following amendment to the Colorado constitution:

“Neither the State of Colorado, through any of its branches or departments, nor any of its agencies, political subdivisions, municipalities or school districts, shall enact, adopt or enforce any statute, regulation, ordinance or policy whereby homosexual, lesbian or bisexual orientation, conduct, practices or relationships shall constitute or otherwise be the basis of or entitle any person or class of persons to have or claim any minority status, quota preferences, protected status or claim of discrimination. This Section of the Constitution shall be in all respects self-executing.”

In short, the amendment (which passed) legalized all types of discrimination against gays and lesbians – in employment, in housing, in whatever. Opposition to that amendment wouldn’t necessarily translate to sympathy for gay marriage or other gay-rights issues. As Arthur Leonard says in the linked article above, “There is certainly a difference between striking down laws that impose second-class citizenship on a class of people and supporting more affirmative rights for such people, and I don’t think a judge’s position on one necessary predicts his position on the other.” (It could be argued, of course, that same-sex marriage bans impose second-class citizenship on a class of people, but I know what he’s getting at.)

So like everything else that has been uncovered thus far, it doesn’t say much about Roberts other than that he’s not a Scalia or Thomas. Well, it also says he might not be a Rehnquist.

But also, Roberts, at age 50, would be the youngest member of the current Court by seven years. (Thomas is 57.) Scalia will be 70 next year. While age does not predict attitude, someone born in 1955 will have grown up in a different cultural context than someone born in 1936. Judge Roberts was 14 at the time of the Stonewall riots, for instance. Not that that necessarily means anything, but it’s something to keep in mind.

Anyway, this whole thing is intriguing. I guess we’ll see what it means.