Scoop

Well, my plans to go hear McCoy Tyner were foiled thanks to registration. So instead, I took a couple hours to listen to a presentation by a guy from my dad's church, who happens to be Director of Stadium Operations for the Twins. He talked about Target Field, yada, yada, yada. I must say, a lot of the stuff he talked about, I had already gleaned from their website, but there were some interesting tidbits.

I think the most interesting thing has to do with next year's uniforms. I asked him if the rumors were true that the Twins were undergoing a uniform switch for the new ballpark. He said that the general home uniforms won't have significant changes (see white home pinstripes), but the road ones will. No more road pinstripes!

If only I could have remembered to tell him to ditch the vests. I can't think of anything more insulting to play baseball in.

If you haven't noticed, blogging will be slim for a few weeks here. Finals are approaching in a little more than a week. So, that's the deal.

Album of the Week: Live in Cook County Jail

Do any of you folks have those days where it seems like nothing is going right? Maybe the weather is dreary, maybe your coffee tastes like shit, maybe you don't have any money. Or maybe (and this seems like the worst), some woman is breaking you down. Well folks, put down the bottle, for I have found a better elixir. My cure? Sit down in a comfy chair, put on B.B. King's "Live in Cook County Jail," and let the blues soak away your pain.

If we're referring to the "blues" as the distinct sub-genre of African-American music that sprung up alongside of jazz and r&b during the 20th century, I'm really not that knowledgeable. One random day I was in HPB, and I was thinking I needed to buy some blues to play whenever I felt blue. I really think this need stemmed back from a Garfield cartoon I read when I was eleven or so, when Garfield said he liked to listen to the blues on rainy Monday mornings. But that's neither here nor there, bottom line, I saw this album, thought it looked interesting, and picked it up. Plus, I had been wanting to get into B.B. King for a while, so it all worked out.

If I was making up a list of the Newer New Seven Wonders of the World, B.B. King's voice would have to be on the list. It is, in a word, amazing. Simultaneously capable of a rich melodic tone and a soul-shaking growl, it is something else to behold. I've heard very few vocalists who have such intense, intense emotion in every single syllable that they utter. Listening to King's singing is akin to sitting out on a hot summer night and listening to a thunderclap, in that it absolutely forces you to pay attention to everything he is saying.

King accompanies his great oak of a voice with some serious business on the guitar. Neither he nor his band is messing around, there is some major league playing going on here. Once again though, the emphasis is on the emotional impact of the guitar playing. With seeming effortlessness, King makes Lucille bark and squeal in ways you rarely hear a guitar speak. His staccato single note playing has such force to it, such vibrato. If you like quality guitar music, this is essential listening.

What ties the music together though, is the intangible element of King and his band playing before 2,000 of the Chicago area's toughest criminals. I mean, you talk about the blues, you can't get much more bluesy than being stuck in jail. In comparison, it makes most of my troubles seem trivial. As such, there's an element to this album which is simply indescribable. A lot of times where you sit back and just go "oh yeah..."

So yes, purchase this album. It's something else.

As an aside for you men, everything you'll ever need to know about women can be found on "Worry Worry." Basically, apologize a lot, tell her you love her, and swallow your pride. Even if you have to lie. Thanks, B.B.

Simple Pleasures

I've seen a lot of bad baseball in my 23 year life, namely pretty much everything from 1994-2000. And as many can attest, even daunting adversity does little to quell my general optimism. However, when I went to the ballgame on Wednesday and witnessed a 12-2 destruction of my beloved Twins, I have to admit, I was hard pressed to last to the end. It took a lot of willpower to sit and watch the product on the field. The night certainly didn't improve after the game either.

And of course, Thursday's second consecutive thrashing was no consolation.

So as I listened to the Twins game at work tonight, I was crestfallen when the Angels took an 8-3 lead in the seventh inning. I thought to myself, "man, this sucks."

I still have serious issues with this team. Mainly their lack of consistency, their knack for terrible at-bats and impatience at the plate, the abominable bullpen performance, and their sloppiness in the field thus far. But I'll tell you what, nothing raises spirits better than a grand slam that puts you ahead in the 8th. Doesn't hurt when it completes the cycle. I ran inside my house, and turned the TV on as fast as I could, hoping to see what Kubel did at the plate. By the time I got the TV on, they were showing replays of the grand slam, and I started jumping up and down. I'm pretty sure I scared my dog away. But sometimes, after a stressful couple of days, that's what you need to do.

Now Twins, please repeat tomorrow. I'll be sure to sit in an even-numbered seat this time.

Happy Easter

People want to know why church attendance is decreasing in America. My answer? Rocket birds, or lack thereof.

Happy Easter everyone.

Production

Last night's season opener did not end with the result I had hoped for. Kevin Slowey better be ready to bring it when I'm there tomorrow.

Today I gave my final oral argument, effectively completing Legal Research and Writing I. The judges gave me some pretty intense questions, but what do you expect when you're trying to argue that it's okay for an attorney to sleep through part of a trial? Needless to say, a few verbal hiccups aside, it was successful. There's something about wearing a suit and arguing a case that makes you feel very lawyer-y. It actually was kind of fun. Probably a good sign, since this is the sort of crap I'm going to be doing for the next 40 years.

In addition, today I actually applied for a legal job. It's exceedingly unlikely that I will get it, since they want you to start on July 1, and I'm going to be gone in London until early August, but my legal research professor thought I should apply. So I did. The job is for a law clerk position with Target (yes, that Target). I would work in their legal department, helping to write case memorandums, research legal issues, draft some simple documents. It would be a sweet gig if I could get it, but like I said, extremely unlikely.

Oral argument is done. I took my socks off, turned the radio on, and maybe I'll go to HPB to celebrate. Tomorrow, I'll go sit with all the drunks in the college section at the Metrodome, have my dollar hot dog and my Summit, and watch Kevin Slowey toss a perfect game while the Twins become the first team in major league history to hit nine consecutive home runs. Sexy times.

*Correction - Anything positive I said about the Metrodome in my previous post, aside from the Twins' on the field success, please disregard. After watching the game last night from general admission, I've come to the conclusion that it is an irredeemable shithole. 2010 can't come soon enough.

Opening Day

Well folks, Monday is one of the best days of the year in my book. That's right, it's Opening Day for the 2009 Major League Baseball season. And of course, I will be there at the Metrodome, watching my beloved Twins take on the Seattle Mariners.

Who wins the World Series you ask? That's easy. Twins win it in 7. And I only say 7 because when the Twins win, they win in dramatic fashion.

That's part of the beauty of opening day though. Ask 29 other baseball fans that question, and you get 29 separate answers. Hope my friends, hope. If Barack Obama was a day, he would be baseball's opening day.

Of course, for Minnesota fans, this year has a special poignancy, since it is the last season that the Twins will play in the Metrodome. For people like myself, the Dome is the only way we've ever known Twins baseball. Which really is a shame, because the Dome is an absolutely horrific venue for baseball. So many things are wrong about it, from the plastic roof to the plastic field to the plastic garbage bag that masquerades as a right field wall. Of course, it is a big homefield advantage, but I think the inherent dignity of outdoor baseball easily trumps that advantage.

As much as we Minnesotans love to hate the Dome, we also have to admit that it has its quirky charms. For instance, being blown out of the doors after the game. Or Bob Casey's "Nooooo Smoookking" address. And if you were a kid growing up in Minnesota in the 1990's with a pulse, you of course remember the "KIIRRBBEEEEEE PUCKETT!" Going along with that, who could ever forget Kirby in Game 6, or Jack Morris in Game 7? Like it or not, the Twins and the Dome are inextricably linked.

I'll be the first one to line up for tickets to Target Field. In fact, I'm literally foaming at the mouth to get into the new ballpark. Because it is beautiful. Not convinced? Check it. Even with that little issue of no retractable roof, it is going to be an absolute cathedral to Minnesota baseball. If I have to sit through a blizzard to watch the Twins capture the 2010 World Series, so be it. My mom bought me a fantastic new Twins jacket for that express purpose.

But as much as I look forward to next spring, it's only appropriate to look back with fondness at the past. Yes Metrodome, you are a terrible stadium. But in the meantime, you've done an alright job.

Play ball.

Iowa

Today, the Iowa Supreme Court declared that the state's current ban on same-sex marriage is unconstitutional, opening the way for gay couples in that state to marry. I, for one, welcome the Court's decision, and being a temporary Iowan for a good long while, feel a special twinge of pride at what I would consider a courageous decision.

However, I'm troubled by quotes such as the following by Iowa state representative Steve King

This is an unconstitutional ruling and another example of activist judges molding the Constitution to achieve their personal political ends. Iowa law says that marriage is between one man and one woman. If judges believe the Iowa legislature should grant same sex marriage, they should resign from their positions and run for office, not legislate from the bench.

Now it is the Iowa legislature’s responsibility to pass the Marriage Amendment to the Iowa Constitution, clarifying that marriage is between one man and one woman, to give the power that the Supreme Court has arrogated to itself back to the people of Iowa. Along with a constitutional amendment, the legislature must also enact marriage license residency requirements so that Iowa does not become the gay marriage Mecca due to the Supreme Court’s latest experiment in social engineering.

In my capacity as a budding constitutional lawyer/confused student, I've picked up a couple of things. First of all, this term "activist" puzzles me. To label someone "activist" is merely to say that you disagree with what they are saying. It's a meaningless term, wielded with incredible simplicity by opposing politicians, who do the public a disservice via their disingenuous linguistics.

Now, the Iowa court was interpreting their state constitution, which is most likely based on the federal constitution. I had an interesting exchange a while ago, where a conservative individual I knew asked me whether I interpreted the Constitution the "right way" or the "activist way." Apparently, the "right way" involves applying the plain meaning of the document as the founders would have intended it. And originalism is (surprisingly) still a somewhat accepted view of interpretation.

However, the most important case in American constitutional history, McCulloch v. Maryland, decided by Chief Justice John Marshall, makes the point that a constitution does not have the detail and complexity of a legal code. It is a document that is inherently meant to be interpreted. It is a document that the founders knew would act as a blueprint for ages to come. Accordingly, it would be foolish to impose upon 21st century America the socio-political mores of late 18th century America.

Another interesting aspect of the above quote is that Mr. King claims that the Court is attempting to mold the constitution to meet their own political agenda. Of course, he neglects to mention that the concept of marriage appears nowhere in the Iowa Constitution. The ban is a statutory scheme, enacted by the Legislature. One of the functions of the judiciary is to act as a check upon the passions of the people, represented through the Legislature. That is why Supreme Court justices are appointed for life terms, as the security of their tenure supposedly makes them immune from present passions in order to interpret the law fairly. The present ruling is not "legislating from the bench." It's fairly interpreting the law, as the Court should do.

There's so much unintelligent muck being thrown about by opponents of same-sex marriage, claiming that same-sex marriage will lead to the degeneration of the traditional family, the destruction of societal mores, etc. Apparently, the constitution is meant to protect against such moral degradation. However, you never hear opponents of same-sex marriage mention the importance of protecting the minority against a potential tyranny of the majority.

Let's consider the facts. By all accounts, gay couples in this country constitute a minority. If my memory serves me right, the Court's opinion said there were some 5,800 gay couples in Iowa, which is a state of several million. Those several million are for the most part, free to marry as they wish. Those 5,800 are not. Instead, they are hampered by a law expounding a traditionalist worldview that has been receding ever since the 1960's. Opponents of same-sex marriage wouldn't dare to say that the Supreme Court was incorrect when it struck down bans on marriages between different races. I think that is fascinating. Miscegenation laws long held sway in the American South. Similar to bans on same-sex marriage, they excluded a certain class of people from marriage based on an arbitrary distinction that came from traditional (racist) views. As attitudes changed in this country, the judiciary chose to reflect that change on a constitutional level by eliminating miscegenation statutes. My question to those opponents is, why is the present issue of same-sex marriage any different? Someone please explain it to me.

Using the favourite term of conservative commentators, to me, the more appropriate use of "activist" would be to refer to those who insist upon defining marriage between a man and a woman. This obsession that same-sex marriage poses some sort of threat to the rest of the country is a tired tactic of fear. When confronted by something they don't understand, instead of attempting to understand, the Right in this country has reacted by appealing to base motivations and fearmongering. It is very easy to demonize gay couples as heathens when you refuse to engage with them. It's very easy to convince folks that all gay people spend their days dancing rumba in mesh shirts when you don't show the reality of couples in committed relationships.

Now, I'm not gay, but I'm proud of this ruling. Why? Because it is relational to the American experience of attempting to create a more perfect union for the whole of our citizens. We suffered a long and dark night of slavery and segregation, which was tossed aside (still working on the rest of it though). We've made great strides in gender equalization. In my view, this is merely the next step. And as a person who has a few gay friends, I'm happy that they will enjoy the same rights that I do.

At least in Iowa.

Album of the Week: Sibelius Symphonies

I realize it has been a while since my last "Album of the Week" feature. Apologies. Frankly, I'm a bit stunned there hasn't been some sort of industry-wide collapse without the wisdom of my music picks guiding the fragile ears of America's record-buyers.

Record-buyers, not MP3-buyers. Remember that.

Anyways, I won't contend that this week's recommendation is anything but a cursory one. I was recently in a Half Price Books, and ran across a complete Sibelius symphonic cycle done by the Wiener Philharmoniker. Being in possession of a 50% coupon, I purchased it immediately for peanuts. And Tuesday, as I languished most of the afternoon away in a feeble attempt to understand the nature of Executive power under the Constitution, I literally listened to all seven symphonies.

Like I mentioned, I have only listened to these works through once, and not very closely at that. However, I'm fairly certain that even that cursory listening warrants a vehement thumbs up. This is exciting symphonic writing.

To add to my ineptitude this week, I'll admit I am very unfamiliar with Sibelius' work. My best knowledge comes from the stunning arrangement of "Finlandia" for trombone choir that I unfortunately had to play sophomore year. But I feel a kinship for Finland, for some odd reason. By default, maybe that means I feel a kinship for Sibelius. I think I knew this when against all my better judgment, I actually kind of liked that ridiculous trombone choir arrangement.

Bottom line, if you're sick of always listening to Mozart, Beethoven, Schubert symphonies, blah, blah, blah, check out Sibelius. He for sure has a distinctive style, and it is incredibly pleasing to the ear.

Maybe I'll write a better review once I actually know what the hell I'm talking about. But probably not.