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.

Wisconsin mysteries.

After the walk up to St. Mary of the Oaks, site of mysteries of the religious kind, we took a second, flatter path and encountered a different set of mysteries.

Why do men sit out on the ice and fish?



And why do they leave at midday?



What motivates the lone skier?



Why are these tree stumps red?



And why -- no, I couldn't take a picture of it! -- was there a a deer leg on the path when we retraced our steps? Interesting, I said, how the hoof is so perfectly neat and elegant, and the leg is gnawed off at the other end. Nina points out that the leg wasn't there when we walked the same way earlier, and my fascination with the leg is suddenly replaced by thoughts of the sort of animal that must have come by with that leg so recently.

The world is a frightening place:



Don't stare into the abyss too long!



UPDATE: Unfortunately, the photos for this post were saved at Mac.com — an Apple service I paid for and which Apple later made unavailable, before I figured out how to save the photos. I'd like to reconstruct this post, but I so far, I can't.

When criminal defense lawyers give Michael Jackson fashion advice.

So should Michael Jackson wear a conventional, conservative suit and tie as he goes to trial for child molestation? Criminal defense lawyers have their
standard fashion advice for criminal defendants:

"Particularly in a case of this type," said William B. Moffitt, a past president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, "what you don't want the jury thinking is, 'This guy is weird, and he's so weird he might have done this.' Would style play a role in that perception? Sure it can."

The trip back from weird is just too, too far for Michael Jackson. Michael Jackson in a gray suit would just be weird in a weird new way. And Michael Jackson's lifestyle, which will come out at trial, is terribly strange. He can't return from strange. His best hope, it seems to me, from my distant perspective, is to present himself as the strangest man in the world, a lost boy in a fantasy retreat, an asexual child, who surrrounded himself with children, whom he thought were his friends, but who had parents, who could see his money and succumbed to the temptation to bring him down. I have no idea what really happened, of course, and I loathe child molestation as much as the next person, but I would love for it to be true that Michael is innocent. For that to be true, given what we have heard so far, he must be a very weird person. So he really must continue to dress like the fantastical character he created for himself.

St. Mary of the Oaks.

We drive Silvio through the twisty Wisconsin back roads up to Indian Lake. The sign at the foot of the steep path to St. Mary of the Oaks:



There's a pale winter light shining through the trees:



The many birch trees remind me of my mother, who would exclaim over the beauty of even the most spindly suburban birches:



We see the chapel at the top of the hill:



We go through the gate:



Open the door:



The altar:



Someone has placed a small photograph of a boy in Mary's arms:



There are many notebooks on the altar. The last three entries are: "Dear Mary, Jesus, and God, Thank you for your continual blessings...,"Great Spirit, Thank you for my courage to accept who I am..," and "Allah Akbar."



There is a small side window.



We move on to the overlook:



The overlook:



Winterscape:

"Christ did not come down from the cross."

That is what Pope John Paul has said in response to those who have used his suffering as a reason why he should retire. The NYT
article contains this analysis:

Some insist that this final stage of John Paul's papacy has its own deep importance in his 26 eventful years on the throne of Peter, imbuing it with a spiritual dimension, which, they argue, cuts to the essence of Christianity.

"Christianity exists precisely to give significance to suffering," said Vittorio Messori, an Italian writer who spent time with John Paul during their collaboration on the pope's 1994 book "Crossing the Threshold of Hope."

The pope now "offers his suffering as a testament," Mr. Messori said, "and that is more useful than having a young leader. Not that this pope was not useful when he was young, and he does have some trouble administering the church. Certainly many things that he used to do, his collaborators have to do now."

"But at the same time," he added, "Christians don't have a strong god. They have a poor man attached to a cross."

It's not for me to say. This is a very profound matter. But what does it matter if the Pope can't carry out all his responsibilities and others have to cover for him? The difficulty is really that those who see him suffer feel a deep need to rescue him. But he has made his decision to do something he deems meaningful and important.

My other '08 Presidential pick.

Yesterday, I wrote about my preferred '08 Democratic candidate for President, Russ Feingold. (And check out my update there. I did not mean to make my recommendation seem lukewarm!) Today, let me say that for a Republican candidate, I want Condoleezza Rice. Have you noticed the change in her demeanor in the pictures from her current European trip? I have always liked her, but I think she is taking on a new energy and dynamism as Secretary of State. Look at this picture of her with Gerhard Schröder (from whom she extracted a pledge to do more to help Iraq).

Mr. Schröder, one of Europe's most implacable opponents of the Iraq invasion two years ago, appeared with Ms. Rice at a convivial news conference after an hourlong meeting here on Friday. He said he, like Mr. Bush, was ready to move beyond the debates of the past and work together on several matters, particularly the Israeli-Palestinian peace effort.

Do you have a problem with Rice saying that Iran's human rights record is "something to be loathed"? Here's Schröder on the subject:

In his comments on Friday, ... Mr. Schröder dismissed the idea that talk of bringing about democracy in Iran was unhealthy or damaging to negotiations with Iran on nuclear matters. "Not at all," he said with a laugh, when the question was raised at his news conference. "No, no, absolutely not."

The chancellor then said he had "listened to the president's address very eagerly" and "taken from it that his heart is very keenly with the democrats, irrespective of what country we're talking about."

"I couldn't agree more, actually," he said.

But he added carefully that there should be a discussion about what "tools" would be used to achieve reform in Iran.

A senior State Department official traveling with Ms. Rice, amplifying her comments further, said Mr. Bush and Ms. Rice had lately "made it more explicit that we support the aspirations of the Iranian people to control their government."

Another administration official suggested that Ms. Rice was trying to reassure Europe, warn Iran, establish her identity as different from her predecessor, Colin L. Powell, and not least, send a positive signal to the administration's conservative wing, whose members advocate at least raising the possibility of "regime change" over Iran.

"Sometimes a mixed message is the message you are trying to send," he said, noting that European anxieties needed to be assuaged at the same time that the Iranians needed to be told of American seriousness toward Iranian conduct.

Don't you have the feeling that Rice can do everything? Not to hero-worship or anything, but I would love to see Feingold and Rice as the candidates in '08: two truly strong, worthy candidates.

A new Wisconsin tourism slogan.

A new Wisconsin tourism slogan is, of course, a heads-up to jokesters everywhere. Dummocrats has a list of ten (like: "Come for the cheese and brats, stay for the world class UW heart clinic"). The best alternate Wisconsin tourism slogans tend to contain cheese, and perhaps nothing will ever top the 80s-era alternate tourism slogan: "Eat cheese or die."

So what's the new slogan? It's "Wisconsin -- Life's so good." Hopefully, people who hear the new tourism ads will get the message that "life's so good" here in Wisconsin, as opposed to: "Life's so good" but what's that got to do with Wisconsin? Or: "Life's so good" so I need to plan a nice trip out of Wisconsin.

"Radical Middle."

I appreciate being included on this list ("Great Radical Middle Political Blogs"). I just hope Kevin Drum enjoys being on the list with me. (Here's my description of my experience with Drum calling me a "wingnut.")

It's Friday night.

Ooh, I got riled up over that last post. You know, it's one thing when your opponents use boneheaded arguments and distortions, but quite another when people who are trying to support a truly earthshakingly important cause that you care very much about do the same. What is The Nation trying to do? I suspect it of wanting to preserve a hostile, crazed elite readership. Why win on some issue by making the eminently persuasive, powerful arguments that are right there begging to be made? What would we do after that? Why not make bad, divisive arguments that fire up our hardcore readers? Then, we can go on forever!

Well, now, I really must calm down. It's Friday night, the beginning of a lovely February weekend in Wisconsin. Time to mellow out and enjoy life. I can't control what The Nation does. I'm going to watch a little television, read and write, and think about a good route for a nice, long drive in my new sports car. Tomorrow, with camera in hand, I will seek out the twistiest backroads and come home with some nice photographs for you, dear readers. No college guys in gorilla and bunny suits seeking hugs from college girls. Some real Wisconsin photography!

The Nation, not helping the argument for separating Church and State.

There's an article called "Our Godless Constitution" in the current issue of The Nation. The author, Brooke Allen, sets out to expose a Bush Administration "whopper about America having been founded on Christian principles." If you're going to begin an article by accusing the President of being a big liar, it's probably a good idea to show a lot of fidelity to the truth, so let's see what we've got here. The article is largely a collection of decontextualized quotes of various founding fathers saying things that are antagonistic to religion. I'm not going to pick through this whole article, just point out one egregious distortion that jumped off the page at me. Allen writes:

James Madison ... spoke of the "almost fifteen centuries" during which Christianity had been on trial: "What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution."

Here is the real context of that quote, from James Madison's Memorial and Remonstrance against Religious Assessments, which is not an argument against religion but an argument against the government establishment of religion:

Because experience witnesseth that ecclesiastical establishments, instead of maintaining the purity and efficacy of Religion, have had a contrary operation. During almost fifteen centuries has the legal establishment of Christianity been on trial. What have been its fruits? More or less in all places, pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, in both, superstition, bigotry and persecution. Enquire of the Teachers of Christianity for the ages in which it appeared in its greatest lustre; those of every sect, point to the ages prior to its incorporation with Civil policy. Propose a restoration of this primitive State in which its Teachers depended on the voluntary rewards of their flocks, many of them predict its downfall. On which Side ought their testimony to have greatest weight, when for or when against their interest?

Madison was not denouncing Christianity, but government established Christianity. He's arguing for the separation of Church and State. It's not Christianity that produces "pride and indolence in the Clergy, ignorance and servility in the laity, [and] in both, superstition, bigotry, and persecution." It's the government's alliance with a single, chosen religion! The Nation has outrageously misrepresented Madison's quote, in this bizarre effort to expose Bush Administration's lies.

What is so pathetically sad about this effort is that there is no need to push away religious believers to justify the separation of Church and State. This article is harmful to its own cause, by making it seem as if one has to hate religion to support the separation of Church and State. Atheists and devout believers alike should want the same thing. Look at Madison's argument: he's saying Christianity had its "greatest lustre" back when it lacked the support of government. At the beginning of his Memorial, Madison premises his argument on religious values:

Because we hold it for a fundamental and undeniable truth, "that Religion or the duty which we owe to our Creator and the manner of discharging it, can be directed only by reason and conviction, not by force or violence." [Virginia Declaration of Rights, art. 16] The Religion then of every man must be left to the conviction and conscience of every man; and it is the right of every man to exercise it as these may dictate. This right is in its nature an unalienable right. It is unalienable, because the opinions of men, depending only on the evidence contemplated by their own minds cannot follow the dictates of other men: It is unalienable also, because what is here a right towards men, is a duty towards the Creator. It is the duty of every man to render to the Creator such homage and such only as he believes to be acceptable to him.

That is a religion-based argument against compelled religion, not a hate-spew against religion. Elsewhere in the Memorial, Madison argues that establishment isn't needed to support the Christianity, and in fact it is "a contradiction to the Christian Religion":

[E]very page of it disavows a dependence on the powers of this world: it is a contradiction to fact; for it is known that this Religion both existed and flourished, not only without the support of human laws, but in spite of every opposition from them, and not only during the period of miraculous aid, but long after it had been left to its own evidence and the ordinary care of Providence. Nay, it is a contradiction in terms; for a Religion not invented by human policy, must have pre-existed and been supported, before it was established by human policy. It is moreover to weaken in those who profess this Religion a pious confidence in its innate excellence and the patronage of its Author; and to foster in those who still reject it, a suspicion that its friends are too conscious of its fallacies to trust it to its own merits.

Madison's Memorial makes a brilliant appeal to religious people to see the importance of separating Church and State. Convincing religious people to want to see religion separated from the government remains one of the very most important efforts in the world today. The Nation is not helping!

UPDATE: Jim Lindgren at Volokh Conspiracy takes me to task for using the expression "separation of Church and State" instead of "disestablishment": "What Madison wanted in the 1780s was disestablishment of religion and equal liberty for different religions, not a 'wall of separation.'" Of course, I did not mention a wall, and I am only trying to read Madison's "Memorial" closely, not bring forward any more elaborate history. But I do I stand by my position that Madison's "Memorial" is a brilliant argument for the separation of Church and State. I am not attempting in this post engage over the subject of how extreme the separation ought to be, but I don't see the ground for objecting to the word "separation" simply because it may not be absolute. We refer to "separation of powers" when speaking of the three branches of government in constitutional law, even though the Constitution permits some interplay between the branches. Lindgren refers to recent historical work that attempts to tie modern day notions of separation to 19th century anti-Catholic bigotry. I'm in no position to refute that story -- I'll leave that work to historians. I'm only reading Madison's text and connecting it to the debate about religion and government that exists today. I won't hide the fact that I think the separation of religion and government is one of the most powerful and important ideas, both in the United States and in the world.

Get a hug from a bunny or a gorilla.

What's happening down on Library Mall in Madison, Wisconsin today?



"Show some interest in ASM and get a hug from a bunny or a gorilla."



Bunny notices the camera.



Girl shows some interest.



She chooses the bunny.



Aw. Gorilla needs a hug too.

I seem to be skewing Democratic this morning.

I wonder if any lefty bloggers will notice and give me some positive reinforcement and if my usual rightish linkers will do anything other than ignore me. No, those last two posts are not really a way to test out the thesis I bandied about here. It's just what I happened to notice this morning.

I think you ought to run for President.

Russ Feingold wants somebody to say "Hey, we think you ought to run for president."

The Wisconsin Democrat is known for staking out staunch liberal positions on some issues and for crossing party lines on others. But in the interview [with the Milwaukee Journal Sentinel], he suggested that the Democratic Party's prospects for victory in 2008 would have less to do with tacking to the left or to the center, what region its nominee comes from or whether the candidate is from inside or outside Washington than with choosing somebody who can "connect" with voters.

He mentioned President Bush, former President Bill Clinton and California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger as three politicians with different backgrounds and politics who shared that ability. He also acknowledged that the Democrats' past two nominees, Kerry and Al Gore, were perceived as lacking that touch.

"It's the person people can relate to, the person that makes them feel comfortable, seems to be sincere, maybe has some of the straight-type qualities of McCain," Feingold said.

"That's the kind of person I want to be our nominee. Whether or not I would ever fit that bill I think is a very open question," said the senator, although he said, "I hope that's my strength."

Saying Democrats have a tendency to "talk about wonky lists of issues instead of the real pain that families are feeling," Feingold cited the 1994 Republican Contract with America as an example of effective communication. "I didn't agree with them, but they had this nice direct way of talking about how the average person really feels about their government. And about common-sense solutions . . . It was a way of talking about things that made you feel that they had actually listened to people first."...

Do the Democrats have anyone better? I don't think so.

UPDATE: I don't mean that last question to imply that the Democrats are so bad, Feingold is the best. I really think Feingold is a great candidate. Anyone can consult the results of the last election and figure out that many people voted for Bush and for Feingold. So Feingold's argument quoted above really does make sense. Feingold might be more liberal than Kerry -- according to the usual way of totting up votes on various things -- but plenty of Wisconsin voters who rejected Kerry voted for Feingold. That includes me. Those of us here in Wisconsin have seen a lot of Feingold. I've watched him in a number of debates. He is an extremely strong and charismatic candidate. If I had to guess who is the smartest Senator, I'd guess Feingold. If I had to guess which member of Congress or Governor has the best plainly demonstrable record of good character and integrity, I would say Feingold. If I had to say which member of Congress or Governor would I be most willing to watch on television in debates and speeches and interviews over a long campaign season, it would be Feingold. In sum, Feingold is a great candidate.

Coffee and complaints about Social Security.

The first article I noticed on opening up the NYT this morning directly addresses what was the first thing I yelped about after listening to the President's State of the Union address. Here's what I said:

I did note that when Bush assured "older workers," that he defined "older workers" with an age break that just barely left me out.

I have a message for every American who is 55 or older: Do not let anyone mislead you. For you, the Social Security system will not change in any way.

For younger workers, the Social Security system has serious problems that will grow worse with time.

So that kind of rubbed me the wrong way. I'm one of the "younger workers"?

Let's see what the Times has:

"I'm not in the 65-year-old group which he says will keep the benefits and not in the 25 group that gets to invest all their money," said Mr. McEwen, a 50-year-old lawyer who was having coffee and reading a paperback in a Starbucks here on Thursday morning. "So I'm the most affected of all."...

Most of the people interviewed in a day's snapshot of middle-aged opinion - one morning, one city and the chance encounters of a reporter and photographer - said that politics, at least to a certain degree, colored their views. People who voted for Mr. Bush tended to be more optimistic about his plan, while people who did not generally took a dimmer view.

Oh, they just walked around looking for fiftyish people to get a reaction from. I guess I'll have to wait to hear analysis. But it sure was helpful to know some lawyer was having coffee and reading a paperback at Starbucks. Come on! I need information! What paperback was he reading? And he was just "having" "coffee"? Please! Was he sipping or gulping? Was it a latte or a cappucino?

I got some email yesterday from someone who supports Bush's plan and said he was disappointed to be just above the 55-years-old line. Supposedly, the new plan is so good that it's better to get in than to be cut out, even if you are far along in your earning years. I wrote back that I felt I was being forced to figure out a lot of new things just to keep my full benefit. My emailer insisted I'd be better off. My response:

Well, if it's better to be outside of the line than inside of the line, why have the line at all? So the geezers won't bitch?

Unfortunately, all I've been able to hear about the plan so far is that if you voted for Bush, the plan is good and if you voted against Bush, the plan is bad. Well, I voted for Bush, and though I have no idea if the plan is good, I am incapable of seeing the connection between the supposed financial crisis and the way the plan addresses it. All I hear is: there's a big crisis (or not) and here's this new way to structure benefits (which you might find appealing, whether there is a crisis or not).

But what I really need to know is what one guy at Starbucks has to say off the top of his head. And look, there's a guy over there. He looks about 50. Wonder what he thinks?

Getting to love satellite radio.

Driving around in my new sports car, I'm getting to love satellite radio. (I chose XM over Sirius.) I've always preferred radio in my car. When I first got a nice CD player in my car, in 1999, I thought I'd listen to it all the time. But the truth is, I'd listen to talk radio, whatever was on -- advice about pets (though I have no pets), tips about health (though I abhor fussing over ailments and dietary particularities) ... whatever. I like the feeling of being tuned in and connected.

So I love the satellite radio in my new car, with all the 170 or so channels. It's fun finding my way around. I set it to scan among the news channels or maybe the rock channels. I use the preset buttons to get to my early favorites: the "Decades" channel where it's always the 60s, "Deep Tracks" where it's always classic rock (today, I was driving on Mineral Point, listening to Led Zeppelin, thinking how strange it was that so much intense emotion was expended over a line like "We're gonna go walkin' in the park every day"), "Fred" (alternative music of the 70s and 80s), "Bluesville," and "Soul Street."

I'm going to gradually collect my favorites and dedicate my preset buttons, but today, I enjoyed clicking through the channels, happening upon what amused me. I don't normally care about country music but I liked "Hank's Place," the traditional cowboy-style channel, and "Bluegrass Junction," the bluegrass channel. And I see there's "The Village," where Bob Dylan resides in amongst the country offerings. I'll have to check that out. And I haven't begun to explore all the talk channels. Today, I happened upon a channel that played soundtracks from movies: they were playing dialogue from "The Great Escape."

How fun to see what's on the radio!

Rules are rules.

The legalistic argument did not win on "The Apprentice" tonight. Ah! How I wanted Michael to be fired. Here's the situation, in case you did not watch. Michael was given immunity last week because he was the team leader, and his team won. That meant he could not be fired this week. He then took advantage of his immunity to act like a jackass throughout this week's task. He took advantage of his immunity! How absolute is this immunity that is given to each week's team leader? Is the person with immunity allowed to behave so badly that he causes his team to lose? Ha, ha, I don't care. I can do whatever I want, and only you, not I, am at risk! There must be some end to this immunity!

In the boardroom, the lawyer, Erin, made an argument -- which I liked -- that there is a limit to immunity, that there are things you can do that forfeit immunity. Danny, the team leader, brought the immunized Michael into the Boardroom, exposing him to firing, on the theory that there is a point, as Erin the lawyer argued, when you have waived your immunity. But in the end, Trump said "rules are rules," and he wouldn't fire Michael, and Danny took the blow. I was disappointed. Immunity can't go on forever. And Danny was a strong and unique character. In the beginning of tonight's show, Danny was the one who cared for Verna, the woman on the verge of a nervous breakdown, and everyone else was hard-nosed and competitive. Danny impressed me, not that he didn't show a weakness now and then. He was the heart of the show, and now he's gone.

I liked the way Danny used the taxicab send-off segment to play on his guitar and sing a nice song about his experience. We all love Danny. I don't know who all these other people are, other than I can't stand Michael and I'm pulling for Erin, despite her folksinger hair, but Danny was really a cool guy, and we'll miss him.

UPDATE: Hey, Nina took my advice and simul-blogged, which is especially interesting because she'd never seen the show before: "Sixteen candidates are left. Who will be fired next? Oh. We only lose one tonight? Fifteen to go? To be resolved in fifteen weeks of shows? The Apprentice seems terribly long suddenly. Like a commitment to a semester of classes." Oh! Nina poops out early. I should have told her, you have to hang on for the Boardroom scene. It's all about the set up for the big Boardroom showdown! That, and the nice shots of NYC.

ANOTHER UPDATE: Rereading this Friday morning, I see I "corrected" something in the Nina quote that wasn't a mistake. I've de-miscorrected it. Apologies for Nina, who once observed that I don't blog in the evenings. That was back in the days when I was being more careful. Now, I'm willing to toss things up on the blog even when I'm kind of tired, which I was at 9 o'clock last night, having been up since 4 a.m.

Anyway, another thing about the show last night. As usual, the task was a big bore. Typical product placement garbage: develop an ad campaign for a new product by some company using the show as a big, long ad. At least, if you're going to subject us to product placement, make the competition different in some way. We've seen the ad campaign thing way too many times. Bizarrely, both teams used irritating huckster-y street promotion and giveaways to push the new product, which didn't make any sense, because the product was an upscaled Nescafé coffee that the company needed to associate with luxury and elegance and because the teams were not going to be judged on the number of coffees sold that afternoon, but on how well the company's message was conveyed. Both teams failed get the right message across, but the team that the Nescafé people judged the loser -- Magna -- at least tried to connect the product with something that has an upscale image (an iPod). The team that won -- Net Worth -- had an incredibly stupid and annoying cornball Americana Uncle Sam theme and just gave away money. Why did they win? My answer: because the show's producers knew it would be way more interesting to get the Magna people in the Boardroom this week, given the footage they had with Danny, Verna, and Michael.