January 6, 2012
by Ri
0 comments

Best Freshman Shows of 2011

2011 was an excellent year for television. Anyone who knows me, knows that I am huge television afficinado. Even I am not quite certain how I manage to watch the wide array of scripted shows that I do, but I somehow manage it. My taste in television tends to run to the serial, rather than episodic, and is exclusively scripted. I do not watch any reality television – from Jersey Shore to the Food Network.

So, without much fanfare, here are the shows that I have selected as the best shows of 2011.

The Killing

Set in Seattle, this show takes the “murder-a-week” crime procedural and spins it on its head. Featuring a dark and moody ambiance, it examines the murder of Rosie Larsen. Each episode corresponds roughly to a single day in the investigation. The show takes a highly serialized approach – honestly, its more of a long mini-series than a traditional episodic television show.

The main character, Sarah Linden, is a female detective in early early to mid thirties. She grew up in the foster care system and is engaged to be married and is planning a move, with her son, to Sonoma, California. The murder of Rosie Larsen begins to become an obsessive quest for this detective. Mireille Enos brings to life one of the more unique female characters on American television. She is supported by an extraordinary cast, especially by Michelle Forbes. Ms. Forbes is one of television’s best character actresses – her credits include science fiction favorites Star Trek: The Next Generation (Ensign Ro Laren) and Battlestar Galactica (Admiral Helena Cain) to the wife of psychologist Paul Weston (In Treatment) and mad Maenad Maryann Forester in True Blood. Both Ms. Enos and Ms. Forbes received Emmy nominations for Best Actress in an Drama and Best Support Actress in a Drama.

The writing is tense and tight. While the middle of the season does begin to follow a “red-herring” trope, the finale leaves the audience poised for more, instantly. The Killing will return to AMC sometime this spring.

American Horror Story

Normally I am not a fan of horror as a genre – I have a fairly vivid imagination, and horror often will keep me up at night. However, Ryan Murphy and Brad Falchuk have managed to create a gripping story that I felt compelled to watch. American Horror Story revolves around the Harmon family as they move from Boston to Los Angeles. The move is precipitated by wife Vivien discovering her husband, Ben, in bed with one of his female students. The Harmons move to Los Angeles, with their daughter Violet, in the hopes of starting fresh and putting the past behind them. Ben is portrayed by Dylan McDermott (The Firm, Dark Blue) and Vivien by Connie Britton (Friday Night Lights).

Of course, once they arrive, they find that the past is all they can cope with. The house, of course, is haunted by any past inhabitant who has died there – and there are quite a few. Each episode opens with the past murder of someone in the house – from the gay couple who lived in the house immediately prior to the Harmons to the doctor who built the house in the 1920s. The history of the house is complicated further by neighbor Constance (Jessica Lange), who used to live in the house, the deformed Larry (Denis O’Hare) who also lived in the house with his family before he burned them to death, housekeeper Moira (Frances Conroy/Alexandra Breckenridge) and Tate (Evan Peters), a troubled boy with whom Violet quickly becomes involved.

The storyline is highly serialized, and the story of the Harmons comes to a close with the first season. Season 2, which will air in 2012 on FX, will focus on an entirely different “American Horror Story.” While Dylan McDermott and Connie Britton will not return, executive producer Ryan Murphy hopes to bring some unidentified actors from the first season back. However, if these actors return, they will portray entirely different characters.

Downton Abbey

Downton Abbey is produced by ITV in Britain, and airs in the United States on PBS’s Masterpiece Classic. The first season technically debuted in 2010 in the UK, but I am able to include in in this list because it first aired in the United States in January of 2011. I did not discover the show (it was recommended to me by the lovely Anne Sullivan, by-the-by) until I was preparing to take the bar this summer. I was not able to stop watching it until I had reached the end of the first season. Season 2 aired in the UK starting in September, and will be carried here in the U.S. beginning on January 8th.

The show begins on the morning that news of the Titanic’s destruction reaches England. Earl Robert Grantham (Hugh Bonneville) receives the news to his dismay. His cousin, and sole male heir, was on the Titanic and went down with the ship. For this family, the loss is more poignant because Earl Grantham has three daughters, none of whom are eligible to inherit the estate or title because of their gender. The estate will pass to a distant relative, Mr. Matthew Crawley (Dan Stevens), who joins the cast in episode two with his mother Isobel (Penelope Wilton). The servants of the house are no less involved – led by the Butler, Mr. Carson (Jim Carter) and the housekeeper, Mrs. Hughes (Phyllis Logan), they conspire and gossip among themselves over matters great and small.

Downton is created by Julian Fellowes. If you have heard of Mr. Fellowes, you heard of him because he co-wrote Gosford Park, which was directed by Robert Altman. Gosford Park and Downton Abbey have quite a bit in common – they both focus on upstairs-downstairs drama set in British country houses. They also both share one of my favorite actresses, Dame Maggie Smith (Harry Potter). Where Gosford Park (while one of my favorite movies) was often difficult to follow because of the large cast and complex relationships that are quickly unloaded on the audience, Downton Abbey is far more accessible. Further, the longer format (the first season had 7 episodes, the 2nd had 8) allows Fellowes to track the characters over a sweeping period of history.

The first thing that strikes you about Downton Abbey is the cinematography, which is among the most superb in the business. The show is simply gorgeous. The other factors, from set design to costumes, all complement an amazing visual image. The acting is no less nuanced – led by veterans Maggie Smith and Hugh Bonneville, the cast is outstanding. Each character is loved all the more dearly because of their flaws. The show’s focus on the family shifts in season two, as World War I has broken out. However, the show manages to blend drama with comedy very effectively and is quite addicting.

Boss

Kelsey Grammer returns to television as the mayor of Chicago, Tom Kane. In the first moments of the pilot episode, Kane is informed that he has a degenerative neurological condition which will eventually render him a vegetable. This complicates his efforts to run Chicago, and the Democratic party of Illinois, with an iron fist. He meddles with the gubernatorial primary and navigates a complex relationship with his political wife, Meredith.

Boss is best viewed with a wide angle lens. The show boasts strong performances, and is delivered more as an art film than a traditional television show. The cinematography is at times reminiscent of a demented version of A Single Man (starring Colin Firth). This is definitely not a feel-good show, as there are few people to sincerely like. Kelsey Grammer does an excellent job of portraying the complex figure of Tom Kane, a man you both hate and admire. Boss was renewed for a second season before the first had finished airing. I would encourage people to stick through some of the slow first episodes, as the pacing really picks up towards the end of the first season and left me very much looking forward to the second season.

Given Boss‘ fairly weak ratings, I would not expect a third season unless the show wins a fairly large number of awards.

Once Upon A Time

Once Upon A Time is both a dark modern fairytale and lighthearted. The premise of the show is that after Snow White and Prime Charming are married, the Evil Queen swears revenge. She enacts a curse that casts every fairytale character of yore into the modern world – Maine, to be exact. They are all trapped in a smalltown, Storybrooke, Maine, where time stands still and they know not who they are. However, the great hope is Snow White and Prince Charming’s daughter – who was sent into the world to escape the curse’s effects. Emma (Jennifer Morrison, House) is a tough bail-bonds person who is tracked down by the son she gave up for adoption years ago. The son, a young boy named Henry (Jared S. Gilmore), has been adopted by the mayor of Storybrooke, who is, of course, the Evil Queen (Lana Parrilla).

The charm of Once Upon A Time is its interweaving of modern retellings of classic fairytales alongside a new story as Emma begins to learn about Storybrooke and its inhabitants and unwittingly starts to unwind the curse. The show, unlike any of the others on this list, airs on network television (ABC) and is quite family-friendly. While I would not critically acclaim it as much as the others, it is the closest thing to Pushing Daisies (R.I.P.) that we’ve had in quite some time.

Homeland

Homeland, to me, was the clear standout freshman show this year. Clare Danes (Stardust, Evening) stars as CIA analyst Carrie Mathison – a young, brilliant but unstable analyst who becomes obsessed with the idea that recently recovered Marine Nicholas Brody (Damian Lewis) has been turned into an al Qaeda operative. Brody was held captured while stationed in Iraq and tortured by al Qaeda for 8 years before he was recovered in an American raid of an al Qaeda compound. He is given a hero’s welcome back to the States, but finds the homecoming is more complex as he attempts to reconnect with his wife Jessica (Morena Baccarin) and kids, Dana (Morgan Saylor) and Chris (Jackson Pace).

Homeland is produced by the same people who brought us 24 – however, instead of focusing on gripping thriller suspense, Homeland is a more intellectual and psychological look at deeply scarred individuals. Danes’ Carrie is clearly unstable but brilliant and Lewis’s Brody is obviously recovering from the deeply scarring experience of his captivity, while trying to reintegrate to a dramatically changed life from the one he left behind 8 years ago. The show weaves a constant tension of whether the audience should or should not believe in Carrie’s quest to prove that Brody is a terrorist.

The plotline is gripping throughout – every episode is superbly written, plotted, and acted. While there are a handful of plot devices that are predictable, I could never have predicted where the show’s stunning finale led. Season 2, which will air in the Fall of 2012 on Showtime, promises to be excellent.

Rick Santorum Tackles Same-Sex Marriage

January 6, 2012 by Ri | 0 comments

Former Senator Rick Santorum appeared in front of the College Convention 2012. Mr. Santorum, an ardent social conservative, is well known for his opposition to same-sex marriage, as well as his opposition to the idea that privacy rights exist in the federal Constitution. During the pendency of Lawrence v. Texas (the 2003 case where the Supreme Court held that the states could not criminalize consensual sexual activity between two persons of the same sex) before the United States Supreme Court, Mr. Santorum voiced his support of Texas. He argued that same-sex sexual activity is akin to adultery, incest, and polygamy in its deleterious effects on family and public morality.

College Convention 2012 is a forum organized by New England College designed to encourage direct engagement between major candidates for President and high school and college students across the state of New Hampshire. Mr. Santorum appeared before the convention today and was asked several questions about his position on same-sex marriage. I want to first applaud Mr. Santorum’s decision to actually engage on the issue rather than attempt to side-step any conversation of his position on the matter. Young voters are far more supportive of equal marriage rights than older voters (http://features.pewforum.org/gay-marriage-attitudes/). It would have been very easy for Mr. Santorum to refuse to discuss the topic; however, he took the opportunity to engage young people.

However, the substance of Mr. Santorum’s discussion is quite problematic. At one point, he scolded the students for not using, in opinion, reason to discuss the merits of same-sex marriage. However, Mr. Santorum’s logic was quite questionable. He repeatedly compared same-sex marriage to polygamy by insisting that the students explain to him why there was a distinction between allowing two men to marry and allowing three or more men to join together in one marriage. Setting aside the possibility that polygamy is not the social ill that conservatives believe it is, there are any number of logical responses to Mr. Santorum.

First, the question of whether to allow same-sex marriage is uniquely distinct from the question of whether society should permit polygamy. The fundamental question about same-sex marriage is one of character – can a romantic, sexual union between two people of the same sex be characterized as a marriage? However, the question of polygamy is one of dimension - can more than two people have a marriage? Conflating these two questions does a great disservice both to gay and lesbian Americans and poly-amorous Americans.

Second, polygamy does not implicate anywhere near the same shifts in the societal definition of marriage as same-sex marriage. The law and mechanics of marriage would need to be changed little, if at all, by allowing two people of the same biological sex to marry. Inheritance law, property law, contract law – all of the peripheral areas of law that are affected by marriage definition would need not be altered at all. Most states have already altered their definitions of parenthood to be gender-neutral, anyway. The rapid evolution of artificial reproductive techniques has made that necessary. However, polygamy would require lawmakers to deeply examine the core mechanics of civil marriage in order to effect such a transformation of the institution.

For example – is a three-way marriage completely dissolved when one of of the marital partners chooses to withdraw from the marriage? Or are only the marital bonds between the withdrawing partner and the other partners dissolved, leaving intact the marital bond between the two non-withdrawing partners? Another important question is parentage determinations. If a child is conceived, biologically, between two of the partners of a marriage, are they the legal parents? Are all three marital partners the legal parents? Does a withdrawing marital partner owe child support for a child that is not biologically related to him or her, but the clear intent of the partners was that they engage in communal parenting?

These fundamental questions are precisely why we must separate these two debates. Neither debate is unworthy of this Republic. However, Mr. Santorum’s scolding of earnest young minds at the College Convention today was totally inappropriate for a national leader. These young people see, perhaps more clearly than Mr. Santorum, why Mr. Santorum’s questions were “irrelevant.”

August 24, 2011
by Ri
0 comments

Same-Sex Marriage Symposium: Comments on John Eastman’s “The Constitutionality of Traditional Marriage”

Dr. John C. Eastman is the Henry Salvatori Professor of Law & Community Service, and Founding Director, of the Center for Constitutional Jurisprudence. He also served as the Dean of the Chapman School of Law from June 2007 until January 2010, when he stepped down to pursue a bid for California Attorney General. He ran for Congress in 1990 as a Republican. He served as a law clerk to Justice Clarence Thomas, and for Judge J. Michael Luttig at the United States Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit. He has participated in the ongoing litigation around Proposition 8 in his capacity as the founding Director for Constitutional Jurisprudence.

Dr. Eastman makes a fairly cogent “defense of the constitutionality of traditional marriage.” His analysis focuses primarily on whether a right to same-sex marriage exists under the federal Constitution and whether limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples runs afoul of the Equal Protection Clause.

His analysis under the Due Process clause is rooted in the way the courts traditionally determine whether federal rights are “fundamental” or not. Under the 14th Amendment’s Due Process clause, the states may not infringe on our “fundamental rights.” Under the doctrine of substantive due process, this means more than just the enumerated rights in the Bill of Rights (which do not mention words like “privacy” or “marriage”). In order to find a right “fundamental,” the courts have said that it must be “deeply rooted in our Nation’s history or traditions.” In Loving v. Virginia, the Supreme Court definitively stated that “marriage” is a fundamental right. Dr. Eastman assumes, probably correctly, that the Court’s interpretation of that right was “marriage between one man and one woman.”

This is a central contention between supporters of equal marriage rights and those who oppose such rights. Generally, supporters of extending the definition of marriage will define the right carved out by Loving to be “the right to marry the person of your choice.” And this is quite logical – as the Loving case involved a black man and a white woman who sought to have their marriage recognized in the state of Virginia, which prohibited such marriages. At the time, since the issue of same-sex marriage was not on the political agenda, may well have been thought of as “the right to marry the person of one’s choosing.” On the other hand, of course, Dr. Eastman is quite correct when he points out that marriage has not been available to two individuals of the same sex, throughout history. How the Court resolves the question of what is involved in the right to marry may well be the ultimate question of the entire debate.

Dr. Eastman also argues that the current situation is constitutional under the Equal Protection Clause, because opposite-sex and same-sex couples are not similarly situated with respect to the law. Under this line of reasoning, any law which discriminated against gay people on matters not relevant to their sexual orientation – a law, for example, which prohibited gay people from using the same water fountains as heterosexuals – should be struck down. However, he argues that gay people are not similarly situated to marriage law because they “are not similarly situated with respect to at least one of the purposes of marriage, name, procreation.” Dr. Eastman is correct on this point. Dr. Eastman challenges Judge Walker’s contention that “procreation has never really been a purpose of marriage.” I think Dr. Eastman is correct, in this regard as well. Procreation certainly is a purpose of marriage.

However, when determining if individuals are similarly situated under the law, we should look only to the law itself. There is no state in the country which requires opposite-sex couples of be capable of having children in order to enter into marriage. Procreation is a side-effect of the policy of civil marriage. Since no legislature, however, requires procreation to enter into marriage, this cannot be considered a necessary “purpose” of marriage. Compare this to prohibitions against “green card” marriages. The general policy advanced by civil marriage is to promote marriages between romantically intimate and committed couples, because there are a host of important societal goods that come from such relationships. No particular one societal goal is so overriding that it can deny an entire class access to marriage. Therefore, gay couples and infertile opposite-sex couples are similarly situated under the law.

Dr. Eastman also raises the specter of Baker v. Nelson. This was a same-sex marriage case that the Court dismissed in 1972. The Court’s stated reason for dismissing the case was the “lack of a substantial federal question.” Due to procedural issues, this decision is established precedent – meaning that the federal courts generally should consider themselves bound by the case. However, this argument seems laughable. In 1972, gay rights were only beginning to be an issue some people even were aware of. Just because, forty years ago, the Supreme Court refused to hear a case (note that the Court never heard oral arguments or prepared a full opinion – this was a summary dismissal), that should not bind learned federal judges from beginning to allow these issues to percolate in the federal judiciary. I find any serious contention that same-sex marriage cases should be dismissed because of Baker v. Nelson to be intellectually disrespectful to the supporters of equal marriage rights. This issue is effectively one of first impression, and no federal court should be bound by Baker v. Nelson.

August 17, 2011
by Ri
0 comments

Same-Sex Marriage Symposium

The best blog in the world, when it comes to news and analysis of stuff happening at the Supreme Court, is SCOTUSblog. It’s run by a division of Goldstein, Howe & Russell, P.C. It was originally founded by Tom Goldstein, one of the most prominent members of the “Supreme Court Bar” (a colloquialism used to describe the elite lawyers who frequently argue before the Supreme Court), who also teaches Supreme Court litigation at Stanford and Harvard.

The blog does an excellent job of reporting on routine Supreme Court matters as well as handling special analysis of prominent legal issues. The blog analysis every single paid “cert” petition that the Court receives each year (they received approximately 8,300 cert petitions in 2009, approximately 1600 of which were paid). They provide analysis on the legal issues, and the likelihood that the Court will grant cert (hear the case). The Court generally hears, on average 80-150 cases per year (recently, much closer to the 80 than 150). The blog provides incredible coverage of each and every case – from the briefing stage, oral argument, and then a final analysis once the Court releases the final opinion.

The blog also, especially in the summer when the Court is not sitting, provides in-depth scholarly analysis of critical legal issues which have either hit the Court or may likely hit the Court in the upcoming years. The summer, the blog has run two major symposia. The first focused on whether the Court should accept the Obamacare challenges and the likely result. I have not followed super closely this symposium, reading a scattering of the articles posted by various legal minds. But I generally agree with the thought that the individual health-care mandate will be upheld by at least a 5-4 margin, but more likely a 6-3.

However, the Same-Sex Marriage symposium is under full swing over at that blog now. I encourage everyone to read the full posts. However, I will be posting my thoughts and reactions to each of the symposium’s articles here. The symposium participants are displayed below.

Kenji Yoshino, New York University School of Law.

Robin Wilson, Washington & Lee School of Law.

Ruthann Robson, City University of New York School of Law.

Brian Raum, Alliance Defense Fund.

Laurence Tribe, Harvard Law School.

Robert A. Levy, Cato Institute.

Pamela Karlan, Stanford Law School.

Andrew Koppelman, Northwestern University School of Law.

Charles Fried, Harvard Law School.

Maggie Gallagher, Institute for Marriage and Public Policy.

William Eskridge, Yale School of Law.

John Eastman, Chapman University School of Law.

William C. Duncan, Marriage Law Foundation.

David Cruz, University of Southern California, Gould School of Law.

Erwin Chemerinsky, University of California, Irvine School of Law.

Dale Carpenter, University of Minnesota Law School.

Thomas Berg, University of St. Thomas School of Law.

Bob Barr, Former United States Representative from Georgia, Principal Author of the "Defense of Marriage Act."

Carlos Ball, Rutgers University of Law.

August 16, 2011
by Ri
0 comments

Klaus & Pride

Apparently, the President of the Czech Republic, Vaclav Klaus, is not a fan of gay people. Same-sex marriage has been a very hot button topic in Central Europe over the last few years. The area has a substantially higher level of “religiosity” than most of the rest of Europe and accordingly has been slower to become accepting of same-sex relationships.

The rights of LGBT individuals in the region is a mixed bag. Every country in Central Europe has decriminalized homosexuality (most in the 60s and 70s, but Liechtenstein was the last to decriminalize in ’89). Further, almost every nation in the region provides “recognition” for LGBT relationships, but not one of them provides civil marriage. Hungary just added a constitutional amendment banning same-sex marriage, which will become effective in January of ’12. Every nation in the region prohibits same-sex couples from jointly adopting children, and only three permit single people from adopting (Czech Republic, Poland, and Switzerland). Only two countries, Poland and Croatia, allow gay people to donate blood.

So, it was pretty interesting when Klaus denounced homosexuality and attacked the Prague Pride festivities this year. While we might expect politicians in the Czech Republic to denounce homosexuality, that is actually not what happened. While the President was denouncing homosexuality, the other politicians in the country were denouncing him. Almost universally. I take this as a impressive step for a region that has a mixed history with its gay and lesbian citizens.

When I lived in Dublin, I had the opportunity to travel with some friends to Russia. However, the mayor of St. Petersburg had just authorized police brutality against a group of gay men in the city. At the moment, I can’t recall whether or not they were protesters or were gathering for a Pride event. The incident was enough to dissuade me from traveling to the region, since I could not count of having the protection of law enforcement.

I think that this incident is a fairly interesting metric of progress in Europe. I’ll write up another post analyzing a very similar shift that we’re seeing in Ireland, evidenced by Enda Kenny’s unprecedented denouncement of the Vatican over the child molestation scandal. In the meantime, take a look at the article that inspired this post here.

August 16, 2011
by Ri
0 comments

Chapter 2 Draft 1

August 15, 2011
by Ri
1 Comment

New Site Released

Welcome to the new and improves Sex & Daisies site! This site is in the process of a redevelopment. I’ve moved it over to WordPress, and my goal is to start more actively publishing posts on a wide variety of topics. Law, politics, and programming will be the principal things I’ll be posting on.

M	T	W	T	F	S	S
« Aug
						1
2	3	4	5	6	7	8
9	10	11	12	13	14	15
16	17	18	19	20	21	22
23	24	25	26	27	28	29
30	31