TV Review: "Tommy Lee Goes to College"

While Tommy Lee is obviously the attraction of this show, the real stars thus far have to be the people and places of the University of Nebraska. Had this show been filmed anywhere else I probably would not be that into it. However, to the extent that Lincoln is my hometown and my father is a professor at UNL, I am completely and utterly entralled!---------------- It's just kind of cool to see familiar landmarks, and in an amelioration of some of the biggest pre-airing concerns, the people of Nebraska are not portrayed as country bumpkins. In fact I must say that the university faculty, staff and students all come off in an incredibly positive light. Indeed, as conveyed by the show, Nebraska gets much love.------------ In terms of the show itself, going to school is not necessarily the most exciting thing to observe. However, the editing/production keeps things entertaining and there are a fair number of humorous moments. The worst part is the annoying and seemingly miscast British-accented voice-over. Even if it's for less than a full degree, Tommy does seem to be challenging himself academically (very relatively speaking) and you know that for him getting up early in the morning for band practice had to require a major, if not herculean, effort.---- Notwithstanding that my perspective on this show is inherently skewed, I would definitely recommend it. (NBC, Tues. 9:00 p. m. EST)

Historical Note: The Most Important Day of the 20th Century

I knew that it was coming up, and today I really thought about the 60th Anniversary of Hiroshima, which took place on August 6, 1945. --------------------------------------- In quickly glancing at preliminary articles this evening re: the above, a lot of them seemed to focus on how this anniversary has become a focal point of anti-nuclear and peace groups. Beyond its acknowledged role in ending WW II, I am more interested in the broader, larger-scale effects of what happened that day and what it has come to represent. --------------- Other than representing the first use ever (of only two instances) of nuclear weapons in wartime, Hiroshima was the dawn of the nuclear age. Having grown up during the '80s Cold War period, plus being a history guy, there was a certain collective awareness of the risks of nuclear war during that time. Nowadays, the danger of a global superpower confrontation has subsided while the destructive capacities of terrorism and extremism have heated up. (a brief geo-political history of the last 20 years!) Nevertheless, we still live in the nuclear age. Thousands of Cold War nuclear weapons still exist, and, even if the probability is lower, the possibility of worldwide devastation still remains (credit goes to Dinger for the above thought; it was a slogan on a poster). --------------------------------------- Brief geo-political update: right now the threat is more regional, due to proliferation, and a lot of the mechanisms that were in place during the Cold War to prevent a crisis from escalating are simply not present in a lot of these situations. For example, compare U.S.-Soviet relations and what they knew about each other compared to U.S.-North Korea (no formal diplomatic relations, and NK is the most isolated country in the world). Also, India and Pakistan do not a lot of the crisis control/prevention technology and lines of communication that existed between the US-USSR. -------------------------------------------- I don't wish to extensively debate nuclear power in general or whether Truman's decision was right (despite plausible arguments to the contrary, ultimately it was). To me the anniversary of Hiroshima is a moment for reflection, to think about the massive, nearly incomprehensible power of nuclear weapons and the effect it has had on the Earth's future.

Current Events: Supreme Court Nomination

By virtue of my background, I am often asked about whatever high-profile court case is presently in the media spotlight. To the extent I know that such questions may arise (and not wanting to sound like an idiot), I have felt somewhat impelled to keep up with the happenings in these cases, whether it be Scott Peterson, Martha Stewart, Kobe Bryant or, however reluctantly, Michael Jackson. Thus I figure that I might as well share my opinion about the Supreme Court nominee John C. Roberts, Jr. -------------------------------------------------------------------------- Overlooking the fact that I am likely to be displeased w/any nominee from W, my first impression was "at least he didn't nominate a total nutball." As of now, we know he's conservative but that's about it. He's only been an appellate judge for 2 years, and the stuff he wrote while a government employee are not necessarily going to be fully reflective of his personal views. He certainly has the credentials, but the choice itself comes of as uninspiring and kind of a yawn.

Current Events: John Bolton nomin---I mean appoinment

The sheer abuse of authority and utter disregard by this administration for any view that deviates so much as .0001% continues virtually unabated. The recess appointment of John Bolton to UN Ambassador, without Senate approval (much less a recommendation from the Foreign Relations Committee) is an outrage, an affront to those who hold the deliberative process as a cornerstone of democracy and resent the arrogance of those who are indifferent to the legitimate concerns of others.

----------------------------------------------

According to the New York Times, this "was the first time since the United Nations' founding in 1945 that the United States has filled that appointment using a backdoor procedure called a recess appointment." NYT 8-1-05. It would take a publication no more sophisticated that the "Weekly Reader" to point out that this particular act (amongst many) is not exactly congruous with the Administration's goal of democracy promotion abroad.

---------------------------------------------

W attempted to justify this by claiming that "[t]his post is too important to leave vacant any longer, especially during a war and a vital debate about U.N. reform." If the post is so important, why did you nominate a guy who is patently an ideologue and who possesses some serious personality issues?

-----------------------------------------

At the rate things are going, W is going to make Warren Harding look like FDR.