Next Monday I start my new gig as the Lead Assistant Editor on a reality show. One that my mother loves and my boyfriend hates… so I guess that’s fair. I will be making more money (yay!) but working 10 more hours a week (boo!). That’s like more than an additional day of hours. And because the reality TV industry isn’t about the whole having unions things, my contract stipulates that OT doesn’t begin til after 50 hours.
Need to set aside time to write. Time in which I’m not allowed to, say, go online at all. This week would be good, since I’m losing 10 hours a week starting next week. The rough thing about 10 hour days is that that’s 2 meals you’ve got to do at work, which is difficult to do. At least on film sets, food is provided. 10 hours, plus an hour to get ready in the morning, an hour of commute, an hour of errands or cooking, 8 hours of sleep, leaves… 4 hours. No more 1 vs 100 on Xbox live for me.
Also, the online test to qualify for Jeopardy is happening this week:
East Coast: January 26th at 8pm ET
Central/Mountain: January 27th at 8pm CT/7pm MT
Pacific Coast: January 28th at 8pm PT
Also wik, Judge Vaughn Walker of the Prop 8 trial might be the funniest human being of all time.
Also also wik, I am debating posting the Opening Scene from my old Maleficent script. I would essentially just have to type it up, but I’m not sure there’s any interest and it’s fairly ridiculous. And no one seemed to be NEARLY EXCITED ENOUGH about the fact that Tim Burton wants to make a MALEFICENT movie. SERIOUSLY YOU GUYS.
Wi not trei a holiday in Sweeden this yer? See the loveli lakes. The wonderful telephone system. And mani interesting furry animals. Including the majestic moose. A moose once bit my sister… No realli! She was Karving her initials on the moose with the sharpened end of an interspace toothbrush given her by Svenge – her brother-in-law – an Oslo dentist and star of many Norwegian movies: “The Hot Hands of an Oslo Dentist”, “Fillings of Passion”, “The Huge Molars of Horst Nordfink”… Mynd you, moose bites Kan be pretti nasti…
To start this off, I am not a Figure Skating fan, in as much as I don’t follow figure skating, and I only like men figure skaters and the US seems to be mostly into it’s lady figure skaters. And then there’s this boy… man, I guess, he’s my age anyway. He apparently has a show that’s going to be airing in the near future — and he’s awesome. I mean, a figure skating program to Poker Face? Can you get gayer than that?
In other news, I think Project Runway majorly messed up by not giving the win to this dress:
I want it.
Would it be possible for the Supreme Court to declare Prop 8 unconstitutional because it allows some gays to be married but not others, while not actually ruling on the constitutionality of gay marriage in general?
So, I’ve been trying to figure out how I think SCOTUS breaks down for the Prop8 vote. I am going to be fairly optimistic based on the quality of the argument and Olson’s record with SCOTUS up to now. Argued over 50 cases in front of SCOTUS, has won 3/4ths of them, including the decision today that said Corporations have freedom of speech and therefore can spend as much as they want on politics. He’s clearly good at getting SCOTUS to expand rather than deny rights, no matter the public opinion.
Of course, there are 6 Catholics on the bench, and the Catholic Church, along with LDS, was responsible for most of the mobilization in support of Prop 8. Anyway, in my optimism, I think it’s even possible for a 6-3 decision declaring Prop 8 unconstitutional. Of course, 5-4 against is just as possible. No means declaring it unconstitutional, yes is saying prop 8 should stay.
And if anyone has any insight, feel free to post. These are mere conjectures based on what I can find on the interwebs.
Pros: He donated legal to Romer vs. Evans which demanded equal rights for gays in Colorado. Fairly constructionist approach to Constitution, which is how Olson is making his case.
Cons: Catholic, part of the conservative block (though he has broken with them before), really into states rights
Vote: Likely yes, but some foundation for a surprise no
Pros: Staked out the anti-sodomy laws position in the mid-80s as a dissenting opinion, which eventually became the majority position in 2003. Considered part of the liberal block. Not Catholic.
Cons: None that I can find, though there’s nothing suggesting he’s particularly Pro gay marriage either.
Vote: Probably No
Pros: Just the one, he’s a big fan of the Constitution and Olson is making a very very strong argument.
Cons: He hates gay people. He’s the leader of the conservative block. Catholic. And he really hates gay people.
Burn all gay people at the stake Definite Yes.
Pros: Kennedy has often taken a strong stance in favor of expanding Constitutional rights to cover sexual orientation. Though considered conservative, often a swing vote. References foreign law for precedence often.
Cons: Conservative more often than not. Catholic.
Vote: Likely No
Cons: Extremely conservative. Extremely into states rights. Performed a wedding for Rush Limbaugh. Even Scalia thinks he’s way too far to the right, “I am an originalist, but I am not a nut.” Super into religion, and thinks that religion should be allowed to be a lot more involved in public life. He also hates the gays.
Vote: Not just Yes, but a Yes to the RIGHT of Scalia
Pros: She is awesome and my favorite. (Also liberal, pro-choice, pro-gay)
Pros: Liberal. Refers to foreign law. Seems to like the gays.
Cons: None that I’m aware of.
Pros: Was against anti-sodomy laws well before the court, but also was a student.
Cons: Conservative. Known as “Scalito”, though definitely to the left of Scalia. Catholic.
Vote: Almost certain Yes… but maybe…
Pros: Some of the anti-Hispanic rhetoric exhibited by the yes on 8ers will probably not make her think highly of them. She lives in Greenwich village. Considered an ally, though little to support this.
Vote: Likely no, little to go on though.
4 extremely likely nos, 1 probable no
3 almost certain yeses, 1 most likely yes
Plaintiffs will call Dr William Tam who is a supporter of Prop 8. David Boies will examine.
Boies: The Netherlands legalized polygamy?
Tam: It shows the moral decay of a liberal country, in their views of sex
B: You say here that the Netherlands legalized polygamy and incest after legalizing same sex marriage?
B: Who told you that?
T: The internet
B: The internet?
B: Somewhere out in the internet, it says the Netherlands legalized polygamy and incest? Did you ever find something that said it was true?
B: So somewhere on the internet it says polygamy and incest were legalized after same sex marriage?
T: Maybe not incest
B: Wait, it says incest here
T: Not in this document
B: But it says that right here
T: No, it says that if a country is so liberal then there will be moral and social decay.
B: Sweden accepted same sex unions in 1994, traditional marriage is no longer valid.
B: But those are civil unions not marriage, and you support civil unions.
T: Well, I said I support domestic partnerships.
B: Two minutes ago you said you support civil unions.
T: Well, I don’t know the difference
B: What is the difference?
T: Seems closer to marriage, Domestic Partnership does.
B: Because of the name?
T: Well, yes.
B: But Domestic Partnerships are the same as marriage except for the name?
B: They are exactly the same as the marriage except for the word?
B: So you believe pedophilia and incest will happen?
T: If this is a civil right, why won’t these other groups ask for marriage for incest or pedophilia?
B: Right now, can people of any age or relationship become domestic partners? A man and a ten year old girl? A man and his sister?
B: Domestic partnerships are limited to people of a certain age and relationships?
T: Yes, that’s why I support it
B: So having domestic partnerships doesn’t mean incest and pedophilia?
T: Ah, I see your logic now.
B: Yes, do you see what I mean?
T Yes I do
B: But do you think if the name changes to marriage, then we will have all this incest and pedophilia? Just because we change the name from domestic partnership to marriage?
T: No, but children will fantasize who they will marry, about marrying a man or a woman. You may say I am a paranoid Chinese parent. However, if domestic partner is defined as it is now, then we can explain to children, yes: same sex partners want a life commitment and we have domestic partnerships for them. But if you mix up marriages for different kind of sexes, I have parents coming to me asking what shall I tell my children.
Boies: Are you finished?
B: You agree that just because you allow Gays and Lesbians to marry, you don’t have incest, right?
B: Or polygamy?
B: Is it also true that you recognize it is important to Gays and Lesbians that they be able to marry?
B: Just as your children benefit from you and your wife being married, as will children of same sex couples?
T (pause) No.
B: You don’t think children want their parents to be married?
T: Not sure what you are trying to get at
B: This: children of same sex couples want their parents to be married because the word means something.
B: But you recognize it’s important? And important to those children, right?
T: I guess so.
Does anyone have a copy of a Glee script? I promise it’s just for personal use… Please?
Not that I’ve been reading supreme court opinions or anything but Scalia’s dissenting opinion basically says that the decision in Lawrence V. Texas means that Same Sex Marriage should be legal. Excerpts below, bolding by me.
Justice O’Connor argues that the discrimination in this law which must be justified is not its discrimination with regard to the sex of the partner but its discrimination with regard to the sexual proclivity of the principal actor.
[…] This reasoning leaves on pretty shaky grounds state laws limiting marriage to opposite-sex couples. Justice O’Connor seeks to preserve them by the conclusory statement that “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is a legitimate state interest. Ante, at 7. But “preserving the traditional institution of marriage” is just a kinder way of describing the State’s moral disapproval of same-sex couples.
[…] One of the most revealing statements in today’s opinion is the Court’s grim warning that the criminalization of homosexual conduct is “an invitation to subject homosexual persons to discrimination both in the public and in the private spheres.”
[…] At the end of its opinion–after having laid waste the foundations of our rational-basis jurisprudence–the Court says that the present case “does not involve whether the government must give formal recognition to any relationship that homosexual persons seek to enter.” Ante, at 17. Do not believe it. More illuminating than this bald, unreasoned disclaimer is the progression of thought displayed by an earlier passage in the Court’s opinion, which notes the constitutional protections afforded to “personal decisions relating to marriage, procreation, contraception, family relationships, child rearing, and education,” and then declares that “[p]ersons in a homosexual relationship may seek autonomy for these purposes, just as heterosexual persons do.” Ante, at 13 (emphasis added). Today’s opinion dismantles the structure of constitutional law that has permitted a distinction to be made between heterosexual and homosexual unions, insofar as formal recognition in marriage is concerned. If moral disapprobation of homosexual conduct is “no legitimate state interest” for purposes of proscribing that conduct, ante, at 18; and if, as the Court coos (casting aside all pretense of neutrality), “[w]hen sexuality finds overt expression in intimate conduct with another person, the conduct can be but one element in a personal bond that is more enduring,” ante, at 6; what justification could there possibly be for denying the benefits of marriage to homosexual couples exercising “[t]he liberty protected by the Constitution,” ibid.? Surely not the encouragement of procreation, since the sterile and the elderly are allowed to marry. This case “does not involve” the issue of homosexual marriage only if one entertains the belief that principle and logic have nothing to do with the decisions of this Court. Many will hope that, as the Court comfortingly assures us, this is so.
Full horrifying opinion here, where he says he’s got nothing against the gays, he just thinks they’re going to hell.
I’m very excited that there’s a new season of PR starting tonight because last season sucked. Reasons this season will be better:
1. It’s in New York again. LA sucked.
2. Michael Kors and Nina Garcia are in like every episode.
3. It couldn’t be worse than the last season.
4. Heidi is preggers. This always makes it better for some reason.
5. The gays over at Project Rungay say it’s awesome and they’ve seen episode 1 already.
Quote I’m most looking forward to: “I’m sweating like a Baptist preacher!”
Reading the live blog of the Prop 8 trial: http://prop8trialtracker.com/ It’s fascinating, the arguments are incredibly well-crafted on the pro-gay marriage side. The judge is whip smart and seems to be really curious as to why the state is in the business of marriage in the first place. I’d always sort of been leaning that way, that religions should be in the business of ‘marriage’ and states in ‘civil unions’. They’re making some good arguments as to why the state does do ‘marriage’, I’m almost convinced, even.
God I want to be able to watch the trial. The most amazing argument from the trial is essentially a feminist argument. That the roles in marriage have been made gender neutral and equal, so what marriage is is going to be changed less by gay marriage than it was by equality of the sexes. I’ve always felt that gay rights were a natural extension of women’s rights.
Also following the NBC nonsense. Maybe the entire thing is an attempt to get free publicity and increase viewership. I’ll tell you, I’ve developed a healthy respect for that Conan O’Brien character. And not just because he picks apples with Mr. T.
My staff and I have worked unbelievably hard and we are very proud of our contribution to the legacy of The Tonight Show. But I cannot participate in what I honestly believe is its destruction.
Fair enough. Of course, he’s even better on the intro to his show last night, in which he ripped NBC a new one. My favorite line was “NBC announced that they expect to lose $200 million on the Winter Olympics next month. Is it just me or is that story hilarious?”
I wanted to have my rewrite of Bible Con and first draft of Dyke for a Day done by Thanksgiving. I also wanted to have a business plan for the former ready for my trip to SC at Christmas. You know, so I could sort of test the waters for raising the money there. So new deadline, Dec. 22. Except I’m working days, nights and weekends.
It would help if my health wasn’t undermining my energy and I was less easily distracted by QI, which is my new favorite thing in the universe.
In other news, I got my feedback from ScriptSavvy, and for the most part the notes are very good. If you really want decent notes on your script, I would send off to them long before I did to Zoetrope or any other script contest. My only complaint is that the notes have a tendency to talk down to the writer, as though they aren’t terribly bright and don’t know anything about screenwriting. I’m sure this comes from an attempt to guess what you can assume the author knows. They don’t appear to have a terribly high opinion.
I got a 48, which is about 5 points off an honorable mention score, and 7 off a win. I guess that means a strong rewrite could be a winner. One thing I really don’t like about the Nicholl is the complete lack of notes, even for the people who advance. That’s true of many contests, but it’s definitely a flaw in the Nicholl and a strength of ScriptSavvy.
Go to 47:55 of this YouTube video to be incredibly impressed by Senator Parker of NY.