Random Thoughts

Consider:

1) Harriet Miers. She's held three different jobs in the past four years at the Bush White House. From White House Secretary (if she's a great lawyer, why be "White House Secretary" or appoint a great thinking mind to be secretary?) to, finally, her position for the past slightly-more-than-one-year as White House Counsel. From a Human Resources perspective, a prospective employee would be grilled, or ignored completely, if they had a resume that showed three positions in four years. Why? Because it generally shows either: an inability to hold a job; an inability to do the jobs held; or some character trait that keeps the person hopping around without settling into a career path. None of these makes for a good prospective employee. Nor does it speak well for Harriet Miers. Nor do the comments from other White House staffers who worked with her help -- since the lower-levels who have been interviewed on TV don't exactly paint a picture of a competent person.
2) The White House. They argue that Ms. Miers has great experience with the "higher-level issues" (Constitutional issues) since she's been the White House Counsel and had to deal with those issues. Note to the White House: one year in the position does not constitute enough experience to qualify ANYONE to be a Supreme Court Justice. You'll have to provide a lifetime of similar experience to rise to that level -- and Ms. Miers simply doesn't have the resume to support a conclusion that she's a great Constitutional thinker/scholar. Or, to rephrase: that one year is literally the only experience she'd had with Constitutional issues. Huh?
3) Democrats. Not much I can say positively about the Dems for the past decade or so, and many great Liberal thinkers like Daniel Patrick Moynihan whose passing I still mourn... but they're holding their fire on Ms. Miers, which is (for once) an excellent tactic. Letting the White House do their work for them is perfect for them -- every time the White House says that "her experience as White House Counsel is enough" (see #2), they only need to sit back and let the actual, thinking Republicans roar loudly for them.
4) Republicans. More power to the actual, consistent Republicans on the Harriet Miers nomination -- which does NOT include the White House. Republicans argued just a few weeks ago that the proper method for judging someone nominated to be Supreme Court Justice was to look at their history as a scholar and a thinker and judge from that history. Since Ms. Miers has no such history, the White House keeps throwing out other inanities that contradict everything Republicans have fought for.
5) White House idiocy. What was I referring to, at the end of #4? Take the following: "Ms. Miers was the first woman to be the head of the Texas Bar Association". Um, what does that have to do with being a Supreme Court Justice? Does it tell us something about her mental capacities, that she possesses the wisdom necessary? Does it tell us anything about her character, or how her mind works? Nope. Republicans have argued for decades that people should be judged on their individual MERITS -- right up to the point where the White House now specifically contradicts that Republican principle. And it contradicts it because it has nothing else to say, because Ms. Miers simply doesn't have the qualifications based on prior Republican standards. Again, the Dems don't need to do anything -- this White House is doing more than enough damage to Republican philosophy all by itself.
6) U.S. giving. We've given 'til it hurts, from one disaster to the next: hurricanes, hurricanes, floods, fires, and tsunamis. Now there's an earthquake in Pakistan, and I'm sorry, but the individuals in the U.S. are simply tapped out -- we've given and we've given and we've listened to the rest of the world criticising us for not giving enough (hypocrites they be, since the citizens of, say, England haven't exactly rushed out to give money in huge volumes (like we did) to help U.S. citizens struck by fires, floods, hurricanes #1 and #2, etc.). Sorry, folks. No money left.
7) Battlestar Galactica. The Reimagining. Somehow, the idiots who run this monstrosity took a family-friendly show and made it into the "who's sleeping with who" show, complete with rape. And let's not forget the utterly moronic portrayal of military personnel under stress. What a waste of great potential. Oh, and a special note to those who argue that the new show is a success and has "outdone" the original: the original had at its LOWEST point a 14 share and a 31 share at its highest. The new show's highest point? Right around a 3 share. It's average? Around 2.0. The last time I checked, the show that pulls in roughly 1/4 the rating of the other show ISN'T considered the successful one. Basic math.
8) Kolchak: The Night Stalker. Another truly superb show from the 70s. The reporter who, just by being the grumpy soul he was, kept happening upon the strange and unusual, if not supernatural. And what do the geniuses who run TV today do? Let's make it ultra-violent (the original managed to NOT show violence and yet be violent in nature -- something the suits today don't seem to understand can be very effective). Let's add an unnecessary female character in an equal role. Let's take it from a struggling news service to a mainstream, never-worry-about-money entity. Let's make Kolchak a brooding type, with a personal death in his background that had supernatural causes. Or, to rephrase: let's take literally EVERYTHING that was Kolchak: The Night Stalker and remove ALL OF IT. This remake is nothing more than a watered-down, violent X-Files -- completely unworthy of the name and the heritage. Suggestion to all: buy the newly-released DVD of the original series and enjoy a show that focused on characterisation instead of by-the-numbers-idiocy of modern TV.

Special note to Hollywood: just stop remaking old shows. You have no clue what made those shows special, and you keep, over and over again, demonstrating that fact with idiocy like the aforementioned shows. Just stop it. Get a clue, come up with original ideas. Then again, given that you can't seem to even reuse old ideas well...

That's it for the day. Have a good weekend, and the Citizen will return in full form on Monday.