Obama will displace Rodney Dangerfield...

... as the most famous person I've been able to watch in action from my office window. He will be here at the University of Wisconsin, Thursday at noon speaking on Bascom Mall, which is a lovely sloping lawn with academic buildings hemming in the space along the sides and a big old Abe Lincoln statue at the top. Smack in the middle of that space, back in the 1980s, Dangerfield directed himself in "Back to School."

Rush Limbaugh keeps mocking Obama for being too much of a professor.

And I agree with a lot of this mockery. So don't get me wrong: I like Rush Limbaugh. I listen all the time. But that means I catch some things that you may not notice. And I caught a couple of ironies in yesterday's show.

First, he's twice played this clip from the Rodney Dangerfield movie "Back to School":



And yesterday he says that it shows "an economics course with an Obama type professor, an arrogant, conceited snob who has no understanding of what really happens in the business world... who thinks he has all the answers."

So Obama doesn't know what goes on in the real world, and the evidence of what goes on in the real world is... a Hollywood movie. Irony #1.

Later, after this putdown of professors, he's talking with a caller about the subject of "the Big Lie" (a concept from Hitler's "Mein Kampf"):

RUSH: Well, see that's the nature of the Big Lie. You tell something --

CALLER: You're right.

RUSH: -- so audacious that nobody could possibly think they'd make it up.

CALLER: No. No. Well, Hitler used to do that. Goebbels was great for that, just tell a bigger lie and bigger lie --

RUSH: Hitler didn't need Goebbels. Hitler was the architect of all this stuff. Goebbels, he just implemented it all. He didn't need Bormann. He might have needed Rommel --

CALLER: -- started it all (crosstalk)

RUSH: -- and he might have needed Christoph Waltz, and Hitler might have needed Bormann.

CALLER: Yeah, that's right.

RUSH: But Goebbels made movies out there....

Rush and the caller are suddenly acting like a couple of know-it-all history professors. What the hell does Rush know about who Hitler needed? Irony #2.

"Edward and Caroline Kennedy Share Tight Family Tie."

NYT headline. My thoughts, in order:

1. Loosen it up!



2. Today's not the best day to be throwing your weight around trying to get a governor to fill a vacant Senate seat.

Censoring Sally Field?

Watch Sally Field accept her Emmy, and then read how Crooks and Liars transcribes her speech:

"Surely this [award] belongs to all the mothers of the world. May they be seen, may their work be valued and raised. Especially to the mothers who stand with an open heart and wait. Wait for their children to come home from danger, from harm’s way, and from war. I am proud to be one of those women. If mothers ruled the world, there would be no…."

The screen goes dark and we don't hear her say “…god-damned wars in the first place.”

I have a problem with that transcription. It leaves out a big gap where the audience is applauding and she's telling them to give her time to finish, then dithering about how she's forgotten memorized lines. The music comes up and she's obviously gone overtime. Then she gets out the last part.

Now, maybe she was cut off by Fox because she made that mild anti-war statement, but don't stack the deck. Don't doctor the quote.

It looks to me as though she was censored for saying "god-damned" and going way too long, but maybe she was censored for stating a political view the network disapproves of. I doubt it. For one thing, Fox only hurts itself by demonstrating bias, especially when it lashes out at a beloved actress. And those who support the war are used to statements like Field's and tend, I think, to see that as already expressive of a certain harmless naivety.

I'm thinking Field knew exactly what she was doing. She had her whole speech memorized, and I don't think she suddenly became flustered and couldn't get out her lines. She's very professional, and this was part of a professional routine. I suspect that she deliberately dragged out her speech so that Fox would need to cut her off and the claim of censorship could be made. Oooh! Evil Fox! Boycott them!

Nicely played, Sally. The wily old actress wins again.

Alito and the Family and Medical Leave Act -- Part 3.

Nathan Newman at TPM Café wants to make the case against Alito out of Chittister, the Family and Medical Leave Act case. Newman is a lawyer, in fact he went to Yale Law School, so presumably he knows something about how legal analysis is done and the way Supreme Court cases bind lower court judges. But maybe he doesn't mind using his aura of expertise to sell a specious argument to serve a political goal. I won't assume he actually understands the cases Alito had to deal with in deciding Chittister. They are difficult, and you have to take the trouble to read them. (I have spent a lot of time with them and claim expertise based on this law review article and 20 years teaching in the relevant field of law. I explain Alito's Chittister decision here. ) But why should Newman bother to understand the cases and to treat Alito fairly, when it's so easy and exciting to demagogue and to say that Alito is hostile to this important federal statutory benefit? What more do you need to know than that the statute is good and Alito did something against it?

To build the case against Alito, we do need to document all the ways thsat Alito opposes the rights of the accused, threatens abortion rights, and endangers workers rights.

But we need at least one decision that encapsulates what's wrong with Alito's view of the law, unites the maximum voters against him, and divides the potential opposition.

And that case is Chittister v. Department of Community and Economic Development, the decision where Alito ruled that the Family and Medical Leave Act did not apply to millions of state employees across the country.

False. The FMLA would still apply to state employees. (The decision only prevented suits by individual state employees for retrospective relief -- such as backpay.) But nice to see you admit that you're all about building a case against the man and finding something you can use.

This was a decision that was overturned by the Supreme Court, in a decision written by Chief Justice Rehnquist.

Well, Rehnquist decided a different case, Hibbs, but that's just a careless error. Still, thanks for showing how little you care about accuracy as you mount your attack.

There is little question that the Family and Medical Leave Act is one of the popular laws passed in recent decades -- a lifesaver for many mothers and fathers who want to stay home with a newborn or a sick family member without fear of being fired from their job for taking that time off.

Yes, the law is popular. Nice grasp of the role of courts and the Constitution. The law is popular, so you should strain to find a way to leave it alone. After all, Rehnquist found a way. Of course, Rehnquist did not have to take so much trouble to follow Supreme Court cases. But down with Alito for respecting the case law. Because he's a bad, bad man. He went against a popular law. He wants mommies and daddies fired!

Opposition to Alito's decision is a unifier-- it unites feminists, oganized labor, public employees, and soccer Moms. And by alienating working mothers especially, who depend on FMLA leave, Chittister has the potential to deeply divide the Republican base.

Yes, fire them up. Who really cares about law and the courts? This is all about organizing the opposition. People will get really mad when they hear that Alito wants to fire mommies and daddies!

Other issues that motivate progressive activists-- Casey for abortion rights activists, Alito's deeply disturbing anti-union attacks or his disdain for criminal defendants -- will motivate key groups, but the question is how to we make the danger of Alito on the Supreme Court clear enough to swing voters that their Senators fear the backlash.

Politically, the pressures on parents in balancing work and family is overwhelming. That Alito would attack a common sense law like the Family and Medical Leave Act in the name of "states rights" will seem to most such voters as pure rightwing ideology. And it can be painted as exactly the judicial activism, the "legislating from the bench" that Bush claimed his judges would not engage in.

Yes, regular folks won't get the concept that courts apply law. What matters is what we can make seem like "pure rightwing ideology." Those dopey soccer moms will totally fall for this one.

If we want to encapsulate what the "federalism revolution" means, what the "Constitution in Exile" means for average families, it is this: ordinary laws enacted by democratic majorities will randomly be struck down in the name of rightwing ideology.

Randomly! Those rightwingers are just crazy. They might see a law and just shoot it down -- absurdly attempting to interpret legal texts -- even when the law is popular. And, no, don't bother me now about the way liberals care about some parts of the Constitution and might sometimes want a court to strike down a popular statute.

It's worth thinking about why Renhquist, the original architect of the federalism legal revolution, decided to uphold the Family and Medical Leave Act when it came before the Supreme Court. A pretty fair analysis is that, aside from the legal arguments, Rehnquist recognized that a decision against the Family Leave law would create such a backlash that it might endanger the whole legal movement in the long term.

Yes, and shame on Rehnquist then, right? Or if the case law was so terrible, it was up to the Supreme Court to change it. There was nothing Alito as a lower court judge could do to change it. The fact that Rehnquist changed it in the Supreme Court in no way showed that Alito should have or even could have changed it in the court of appeals. There is no basis for criticizing him for what was ordinary faithfulness to established law. (Sound like a concept you might want to rely on some time?)

So raising the profile of Chittister should be a key strategy, to raise that spectre of a shift of the Court not just to the right of O'Connor but to the right of Renhquist and to raise pressure on those swing Senators.

Sure, go ahead. Great idea. Teach the world that the Court is nothing more than a political game and the judges who attempt to follow the law are just dangerous, arbitrary fanatics. No chance you might care about the rule of law some day. Screw it! We can win a political battle.

It isn't even funny that you really have virtually no chance of defeating the nominee. Your abject disrespect for law is thoroughly disgusting. But thanks for posting your embarrassing strategy on a blog and for not noticing that there are other bloggers out there who know the legal details that you are counting on the soccer moms not understand or care about at all.

UPDATE: Welcome Instapundit readers. For other parts to my ongoing effort to stop the Chittister demagogery: Part 1, 2, and (dealing with Kos) Part 4.

YET ANOTHER UPDATE: Patterico points out an extremely important point about Alito's Chittister case: it was not about leave to take care of a family member, but about sick leave. What is the sex discrimination problem to be remedied with respect to self-care? Hibbs was about taking care of family members, so there was a way to connect the FMLA to the stereotyping of women as the main caregivers. But when it's a matter of taking care of yourself, where's the rights violation to enforce? Patterico links to Bench Memos and this Tenth Circuit case. The bottom line is that Alito was even more scrupulously correct than I've been portraying him. And it's not even about families. Even single folks with no responsibilities for others get this benefit. It may be nice, but it's not about remedying violations of constitutional rights.

Hollywood comes to Madison.

I hear:

"The Last Kiss" starring Scrubs actor Zach Braff is scheduled to begin filming in Madison tomorrow....

"The Last Kiss" is about a group of 30-year-olds struggling with adulthood.

Zach Braff? Never heard of him. What the hell? I can't even remember what "Scrubs" is. Anyway... big excitement and road blockage. But Madison's a good choice for a place to be 30 and struggling with adulthood, isn't it?

UPDATE: More here:

Late Tuesday morning there's a whole lot of pacing on a Bascom Hill. Every time someone shouts "background!" people start moving in well- orchestrated lines around a couple that includes a blond woman in a long ivory jacket.

The woman in question is Blythe Danner, the Tony Award-winning stage actress also known for "Meet the Fockers." The man she's filming the scene with is Harold Ramis, of "Stripes" and "Ghostbusters" fame.

Hey, I looked out my window today and saw two weird park benches bolted onto the Bascom Hill walkway. That's got to be for the movie. I look forward to looking out my office window tomorrow and seeing Blythe Danner and Harold Ramis emoting in exactly the same spot where I looked out the same window twenty years ago and saw Rodney Dangerfield.

"They encircled me in a very menacing and hostile stance."

That's Pauline Park's description of the security guards who blocked the entry to the women's room at the Manhattan Mall and demanded to know "Are you a man or a woman?" Park, who was born male, answered "I identify as a woman." Park sued under an amendment to the New York City Human Rights Law, which, the NYT reports, "forbids discrimination based on sexual identity whether or not it differs from a person's biological sex." Park won a settlement against the security company requiring it to "adopt and enforce a policy allowing people to use bathrooms 'consistent with their gender identity.'"

If you think only those born female (or only those who currently lack male genitalia) should be in the women's room, have you already lost in New York City? Is bathroom selection now a matter of individual self-perception? The NYT has been quite sympathetic to the Transgender Legal Defense and Education Fund and to persons like Park who have had unpleasant experiences, but I am concerned about the progress of a movement, already well under way, that is making it unacceptable for women to object to men in women's room. I note that Park and the security company reached a settlement, so there was no judicial decision interpreting the New York City law to apply to bathrooms. Were the interests of the women, who can no longer rely on one mall's security guards to exclude men from the women's rooms, represented in this settlement? When the NYC law was amended, did the general public realize that it would be applied to bathrooms?

UPDATE: An emailer with a law enforcement background notes that posing as a woman can be a rapist's strategy. The security guards are being portrayed in the press as bigoted and cruel, but weren't they concerned about the safety of the women and girls in the restroom? How would you feel, if you were a father and had to send your young daughter into a women's room alone and saw what you thought was a man going in? I remember when the politically correct crowd was fired up about violence against women. Now, it seems that we are supposed to keep silent about that or else we'll look like bigots.

The same emailer connects this controversy to the Ward Churchill matter: do we accept the individual's self-identification with a racial or ethnic group or an Indian tribe? A person may have a motivation to identify with a group in order to obtain a particular job or status within a field, and we could be pressured to accept what people feel they really are. Prying into such matters seems offensive and intrusive, just like encircling a decent person who is only trying to go to the bathroom, but there are really problems of fraud and deceit, and there are people who are hurt.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Another emailer writes:

I remember back in the 70s when the NRA was going to be passed. Opponents were saying it meant no more gender-segregated public toilets. The proponents responded with the usual three things: vilification of their opponents as bigots, saying it was an illusory fear and of course it didn't mean that, and that if that happened it would be OK. I recall David Brudnoy, RIP, having cops on his radio show who were seriously alarmed by this. Women get attacked in public bathrooms all the time, and if the cops could not remove men who were in there they were stumped about what they were going to do. I remember one cop with a thick Boston accent saying "the whole thing is ludicrist." He was right. This would be a serious problem of safety for women. Another consideration. Every time the Left puts some abstract ideal of equality ahead of public safety, they suffer in the democratic process. As a Republican I welcome that, but not at the cost of women -- like my mother, my sister, my wife or my daughters -- being hurt, or even made to feel unsafe. If someone looks like a man and has a man's build, that person may just have to evacuate his/her bladder and bowels in the men's room. We all suffer some impositions for the sake of public safety.

Women get attacked in public bathrooms all the time. I know if I went into a women's room and thought someone in there was a man, I would leave. If I had a daughter, I would teach her to do the same thing. Before we change the law to accommodate the tiny number of people who have made personal choices about how they want to live and who feel uncomfortable or threatened going into a men's room, consider the huge number of women who are going to be disaccommodated and threatened and the significant number who will actually be attacked.

STILL MORE: A reader sends this link to an article sympathetic to the needs of transgendered persons and asks:

Who has a greater chance of being beat up or raped in a public bathroom; Transsexuals or "normal" women? I dare you to statistically prove that "normal" women are at greater danger and that therefore we should be protected at the cost of our transsexual sisters' freedom and rights.

I sent the emailer a personal reply, but the email address was rejected. Apparently, it's not a real email address. And here I was dared. Actually, I readily concede that a transsexual who looks like a man and uses a women's bathroom is in the greatest danger of getting beaten up, precisely because women feel extremely threatened by a man in the women's bathroom. Any person who looks like a man who goes in the women's bathroom has to know, unless he or she is in deep denial, that it is going to cause anxiety and fear. I cannot imagine wanting to disturb other people that way.

I understand that transgendered persons would like to educate people about their needs and think somehow this will cause women to settle down and accept male-looking persons in their bathrooms, but it won't, because the fear of actual male attackers will remain. It's not bigotry to retain this fear. It's basic self-defense.

No matter how sympathetic I might feel to transgendered persons, I would not be able to use a bathroom with a man in it. If I were driving on the interstate and stopped at a rest area and saw what looked like a man in the women's room, I'd rush back to my car, feeling quite upset, and drive to the next rest area, no matter how severe my physical needs were. I would seriously reassess my options: not traveling, restricting fluids, wearing an adult diaper, or carrying a weapon. I'll leave it to you to guess which one I'd pick.

So, let's see... you were talking about freedom.

Simulblogging the Screen Actors Guild Awards.

7:05 (Central Time): Glenn Close wins for TV Movie Actress, beating, among others, Charlize Theron, who looks really cool in slick black hair. Close gasps about how daunting it was to do a role made "iconic" by Katharine Hepburn (in "Lion in Winter"). In the tradition of Screen Actors Guild Awards, Close speaks in terms of acting as a field of labor. Close is wearing a yellow, spaghetti-strapped gown, and her upper chest glistens with sweat. You can see her freckles. I've always had freckles, so I'm always pleased to see the freckles shining through a beautiful person's makeup. In the preshow, I could see that Jamie Foxx has freckles.



7:10: Now, for the TV Movie Actor. Geoffrey Rush (and not the freckle-faced Jamie Foxx) wins. Rush fondles the little naked man that is the statuette and says he deludes himself into thinking that when he's naked he looks like that little guy.



7:18: Jamie Foxx is the next presenter, and the teleprompter malfunctions (or he does). He comically calls for a do-over, and screws up again, and has to comically call for another do-over. He introduces the clip from "Ray." I haven't seen the movie, but is it all about how he cheats on his wife? Who needs to see that? The next award is for movie supporting actress. Based on the clips, I'm for Laura Linney. Cate Blanchett wins, creating the second opportunity of the night to talk about Katharine Hepburn (the character she plays in "The Aviator"). She talks about freckles! She thanks the makeup artist who painted every freckle on her face. Katharine Hepburn was another freckle-face. Freckles! It's a night in celebration of freckles! Now, there's a cool tribute to stunt people and puppeteers and voiceover artists and extras and dancers. They count as actors too in the Guild's way of structuring things. "Extras," in this way of thinking about things, are called "background actors."



7:33: Male actor in a comedy TV series is the next award. I don't watch any of these shows, so I don't care. Tony Shaloub wins. Sandra Oh is one of the presenters of the next award, and I love the way she looks and her green dress. The award is for actress in a TV series, and here I do know one of the shows: "Sex and the City." So maybe I hope Sarah Jessica Parker wins. But what do I know? Teri Hatcher wins. Sandra Oh, by the way, is in "Sideways," which I haven't seen, because when I went to go see it, I crashed my car and didn't make it. Teri Hatcher is wearing a weird, breast-smooshing black dress. Like most of the actresses, she's wearing extra-long dangly earrings. Paul Giamatti comes out to introduce the clip of "Sideways," and he gets a ton of applause, presumably because he got passed over for the Oscar. Now: Ellen Degeneres, giving the comedy series ensemble award. I love the ensemble awards. She tells some jokes and is pretty cute. "Arrested Development" and "Desperate Housewives" look great in the clips. "Desperate Housewives" wins. The women are all sheathed in such tight dresses that they have trouble walking to the stage. The guy that makes the speech -- some producer or whatever -- uses the opportunity to denounce reality TV, which he's "ringing the death knell" of -- a cause dear to the people in the room.



7:52: Mel Gibson comes out and does a bad job of reading the teleprompter. He's giving a lifetime achievement award to James Garner. Shots of Garner in the audience show him giving what looks to me like the stinkeye to Gibson. "Such low level crap they're celebrating," I say as they show the Garner clip show. He just doesn't seem to be an important enough actor to be getting this treatment. To his credit, he doesn't seem at all egotistical. He talks of doing his best. And you have to admit, he was a very handsome man when he was young. Oh, this is going on WAY too long. We're eight minutes into this! Garner comes up and says he's "umbled" to receive an award. Now, we're eleven minutes into it. This is insane! He's touched deep in his heart. Can you believe it? He loves his wife! "Actors are very special people." Can't go wrong with that in this room, but you people are on television. Finally, after thirteen minutes, the segment is over. Unbelievable!



8:08: Melissa Gilbert, president of the Guild, comes out to say some general things. She's wearing a pink dress, inflated breasts, and what looks like a boa of giant black ashes slung over her shoulder. Next is Don Cheadle, introducing the "Hotel Rwanda" clip. Now: Kate Winslet -- a big favorite chez Althouse. She's wearing a tight light blue satin dress. The clips are for movie supporting actor. The clip for Thomas Hayden Church has him saying "asshole" totally unbleeped. (The show is on "E!") [CORRECTION: The show was on TNT.] Morgan Freeman wins. The crowd goes wild! Standing ovation! The actors love this guy. He sings the "Maverick" theme song, because, I guess, the tribute to James Garner just did not go on long enough. Freeman thanks everybody on the face of the earth. Laura Linney comes out in a horrible blackish dress. She introduces the memorial to dead actors segment. First: Ronald Reagan! Big cheer for Rodney Dangerfield. Also for Ossie Davie, who died a couple days ago. Also for Jerry Orbach, Ray Charles, Christopher Reeve, and Johnny Carson. Surprisingly not so much for the greatest actor who died this past year: Marlon Brando.



8:25: Actress in a TV drama. They all look great. Jennifer Garner -- who seems pretty surprised -- wins. She's got a cool silvery dress. The small-breasted women are looking especially good in their dresses tonight. I hope that will be the new style. I'm quite tired of the balloony look. Actor in a TV drama. A chair thrown through a window is featured more than the actor in one of the clips. The dead man, Jerry Orbach, wins. His wife accepts, and she runs up to the stage. "How bittersweet, but it's still sweet." Clint Eastwood comes out to introduce the clip of his own movie, "Million Dollar Baby," which he briefly forgets the name of. Glenn Close introduces the award for TV drama series ensemble. I only watch "Six Feet Under" and "The Sopranos." "CSI" wins, which bores me. But, again, what do I know? I don't watch that show. The clip looked dumb.



8:42: It's the beautiful Johnny Depp! He's introducing the best actress award. It's between Kate and Hilary. Depp is all in black: black suit, shirt, and tie. He must want Kate, who starred with him in "Finding Neverland." (Kate's nomination is for "Eternal Sunshine.") Hilary Swank wins. Depp darts away -- the man is so shy. I'm glad to see Swank win, because I think she doesn't get so many roles, which I think is, frankly, because she is not as good looking as the main actresses who get the roles she ought to get. When she's gotten a great script, she's been great. Her mom's there. She thanks everyone. Leonardo Dicaprio and Cate Blanchett come out to introduce the clip from "The Aviator." Charlize Theron is next -- sporting the excellent new tiny breasts look. She's a bit late coming out, and she runs to catch up. The award is best actor in a movie. The award goes to the gloriously freckle-faced Jamie Foxx.



8:58: Chris just emailed me this link, showing that Charlize Theron is making a movie about the landmark sexual harassment case, Jenson vs. Eveleth Mines. The final award is announced, for movie ensemble: it's "Sideways." Another chance to see Sandra Oh's fabulous green dress. She does the speech too. "This has been such a pure filmmaking experience." Ah, her green dress and my green car, the greenness of destiny! I like that they are having Oh speak, because she's the only one of the four actors who did not get singled out for any nominations. Tim Robbins romps out to say, "Good night, everybody!" And that's the show! End of post! It's been a great privilege, simulblogging for you this evening!



UPDATE: A next-day realization.

“I think we have done something wrong and God is punishing us."

There are very few statements like that in the news stories about the tsunami. Here is a story of a Hindu group in Michigan condemning the characterization of the wave as divine retribution. Many prefer to see God's hand in the way some survived, like the baby who floated on a mattress. The willingness to thank and not blame God is sometimes truly astounding:

"I was in the field as a referee. The waves suddenly came in and I was saved by God -- I got caught in the branches of a tree," said Mahmud Azaf, who lost his three children to the tsunami.

An Alabaman man who was on vacation in Phuket when the tsunami hit saw hundreds of dead bodies, but perceived the will of God in the fact he was able to save one child: "That must have been why God let me live this long."



Here is an opinion piece from a Christian minister (Roger Ray) that does a straightforward job of presenting the religious perspective:

There is an account in John's gospel about a time when Jesus and his disciples encountered a man who had been born blind. His disciples asked Jesus why this had happened; was it the man's sin or his parents? Jesus' answer stretches across the boundaries of religions: "Neither this man nor his parents sinned. He was born blind so that God's works might be revealed in him."



That is the only perspective on a crisis I ever want to have. God didn't send the earthquake or the tsunami. God didn't cause people to be killed or hundreds of thousands to be left in danger. But this crisis is an opportunity to demonstrate the works of God.



Hindus, Muslims, Catholics and Buddhists are the victims of this natural disaster but this isn't a Hindu, Muslim, Catholic or Buddhist crisis. Persons of all faiths have the opportunity to do a good thing and support one another's efforts.

Goodbye to Rodney Dangerfield.

Thanks for all the laughs for so many years. I remember looking out my office window and seeing you standing in the middle of Bascom Hill, surrounded by cast and crew and a hoard of onlookers as you filmed "Back to School." I remember when we first became aware of you back in the 60s, when you were on "The Tonight Show." We all imitated you and laughed. And you were pretty damned terrifying in "Natural Born Killers." Nice work!

Trivia about the Park Street pedestrian bridge. In the Rodney Dangerfield movie, Back to School, filmed here, the bridge is draped with a sign that says "Great Lakes University," the made-up name for the school in the movie. It was fun watching, from my office window, as Rodney and crew filmed a scene for this movie.