Friday, February 27, 2004

And the winner is...

Hi Kari:

I live a few miles from Hollywood and Highland which is where the Kodak Theatre hosts the Oscars. Local media is pretty much all-Oscars-all-the-time.

So ... here are my picks:
Best Supporting Actor -- Tim Robbins, MYSTIC RIVER
Best Supporting Actress -- Patricia Clarkson, PIECES OF APRIL
Best Actor -- Bill Murray, LOST IN TRANSLATION
Best Actress -- Naomi Watts, 21 GRAMS

What do you think?


UPDATE: I wasn't suprised that Zellwegger took the supporting actress nor Theron the actress Oscars. They were getting the most buzz but I thought an upset was possible. I was surprised that Bill Murray lost. As an LOTR fan, I was pleased to see them take 11 out of 11!

Thursday, February 26, 2004

The Passion of the Christ

Dear Kari:

I haven't seen the film yet. Have you? If you have, what do you think?

If we pretend (aspire?) to be a truly relevant arts and culture blog, we have to tackle the just released Mel Gibson film, The Passion of the Christ.

In this round-up of reviews, as of this writing, there were 67 positive reviews and 57 negative ones. Not surprising at all.

In my opinion, most reviews tend to fall into discussions of "it is too violent/not too violent as to obscure the message of Christianity" and "it is (or not) anti-Jewish." These two issues are valid concerns but after reading a half dozen or so reviews of that type, you pretty much have exhausted that line of analysis.

Here are three items on the internet that I thought gave some additional angles worth looking at.

For a perspective of the film in the context of other artistic efforts to portray the life of Christ, check this one out.

This item discusses why Jews and Christians react so differently to the film.

Finally, movies are afterall a business and here is one that takes look at the intersection of culture, religion and business.

I haven't seen the film yet. However, I will eventually see it and blog on it. But I thought I'd share some web links I've seen that might be of interest to you and our readers.

Be well,

Tuesday, February 24, 2004

What's Opera, Kari?

Hello Kari:

I'll get a blog post out of anything!

Anyway, perhaps you will have the answer or maybe one of our culturally-in-the-know readers will.

What is opera? What makes something opera? What makes something a musical?

I probably could spend hours looking on the internet for the answer but I limited myself to two web site visits.

From this web site I get this honest though not entirely helpful answer:
In most operas all the words are sung, but in some there is spoken dialogue. Some operas are primarily successions of arias connected by the declaimed type of speech-song known as recitative. In others the flow of dramatic action is not interrupted by any set piece such as an aria. Operas can be tragic or gay; superficial in meaning or deeply philosophical; witty and sophisticated in tone or restrained in passion. Musically an opera can be composed primarily of straightforward vocal melodies, with the orchestra playing the simplest kind of accompaniment, or it can be highly complex in melody and harmony, with the orchestra equal in importance to the voice. Really, then, there is no such thing as a "typical" opera.

Opera's success has been due to its composers; it has survived only because it has offered great music. The inventiveness of a long line of geniuses has continually refreshed the whole field of opera: Monteverdi, Lully, Handel, Alessandro Scarlatti, Gluck, Mozart, Rossini, Bellini, Weber, Meyerbeer, Wagner, Verdi, Mussorgsky, Strauss, Debussy, Puccini, Berg.
In this other web site there is an informative and delightful explaination of the famed Bugs Bunny and Elmer Fudd animated feature, "What's Opera, Doc?"

Anyway, what prompts my curiousity is that I'll be seeing Puccini's Madama Butterfly this Thursday. I'll be sure to get a blog post out of that too.

Be well,

Breaking News: Bush in favor of FMA

Hi Kari:

In the comments section to the previous post you said:
I also think the issue may become significant in the presidential election, and I'm curious to see whether any nuances are explored (because there are many). Given the emotional response on either side of the issue, somehow I doubt nuance will play much of a role at all.
There you have it, it is now definitely on the table.

I did a quick read of Ponnuru's article. He is having an ongoing debate with Volokh, Levy and Sullivan over whether a FMA can be drafted that still allows for some state latitude. Ponnuru seems to think it is possible while his debate partners doubt it.

It would appear from the President's statement that Bush believes it is possible.
Today I call upon the Congress to promptly pass, and to send to the states for ratification, an amendment to our Constitution defining and protecting marriage as a union of man and woman as husband and wife. The amendment should fully protect marriage, while leaving the state legislatures free to make their own choices in defining legal arrangements other than marriage.
Kari, you once worked on the Hill. Is it possible to deliever language that Bush seeks?


P.S. As a general rule, I'm skeptical about amending the Constitution and I'm not sure this is a good idea. However, Bush's statement (marriage should be protected and states should have latitude) is in line with my thinking. I look forward to hearing lawyer and legislative types debate the issue.

Saturday, February 21, 2004

When is it OK to disobey the law? When you think you can get away with it?

Dear Kari:

In regards to your question about when is it okay to disobey the law, I too found Volokh's view persuasive.

I enjoy Volokh and his buddies over at Volokh Conspiracy. Pretty much any legal matter that makes the news will be dissected over at their blog in an intelligent and exhaustive fashion.

On this occasion, he has good points as usual, but, in my opinion, his argument's effectiveness is derived more from political practicalities rather than ironclad principles. His argument seems to come down to this: a government official can disobey the law if he thinks he can get away with it.

I agree that generally government officials ought to obey the law, even when they rightly believe that the law is wrong; that is part of what we think of as the Rule of Law.
But part of American law is the principle that unconstitutional laws are not laws at all. This principle isn't always taken to its logical conclusion, but generally it is understood to be the principle.
His actions are, I suspect, partly calculated to create a test case that would lead the California Supreme Court to decide the matter.
I would have to agree with this analysis. Government officials should abide by the rule of law. But, he rightly points out, civil disobedience is often the first step in changing a law that needs to be changed.

I would like to ask Volokh if his criteria for disobeying the law would be different for private citizens versus government officials. Would he have a stricter standard for government officials? I would think so from the way he approaches it but that is an inference on my part.

Volokh then explained why San Francisco Mayor Newsom's actions are defensible.
The matter is different, I think, when (1) there's a clear precedent squarely rejecting the government official's constitutional position, or (2) a court order to the government official requiring the official to act in a certain way (and the official has not appealed the order). Here, I think the rule of law arguments do cut very much in favor of requiring the official to comply with the legal rules, even ones with which he disagrees. That's why I think Justice Moore was acting wrongly, especially when he defied a federal court order; both factors (1) and (2) were present in his case.

Neither (1) nor (2) are present as to gay marriages in California
I'm a molecular biologist not a lawyer.

But Volokh's argument seems to be: you can disobey a law if it is probable that you will not suffer any consequences (factor #2).

And factor #1 doesn't apply in this case because this is the first time to my knowledge the marriage laws are being challenged in so public and large scale a fashion. Thus, there isn't a precedent against Newsom's actions?

Going back to Volokh, more excerpts:
But I don't think that one ought to also fault Newsom for usurpation, or departure from the rule of law, so long as his position is a legally plausible interpretation of the state constitution.
Still, I do think the basic point remains: A government official is entitled to -- and sometimes possibly even obligated to -- refuse to comply with laws that he thinks are unconstitutional, when there's a serious argument that they're unconstitutional, when there's no clear precedent that says they're constitutional, and when there's no court order ordering him to comply with the laws. That's Mayor Newsom's situation, at least right now. Such challenges to existing laws are part of our rule-of-law tradition. But when a government official (especially a judge) refuses to follow pretty clearly binding precedent, and also flouts a court order, then I do think the rule of law is jeopardized.
Volokh's argument seems to rest on two things: (1) Newson is not likely to suffer any consequences for his actions and (2) the law may be changed in the near future.

However, is this a local phenomena? Is this unique to California? Or Massachusettes?

I would like to ask Volokh how he thinks this scenario would play out in another city in another state where the Gay community is not as influential.

What if Mayor in hypothetical SmallTown USA were to start granting marriage licenses to same-sex couples and the Governor of hypothetical SmallState were to issue fines on that mayor and direct her Attorney General to obtain and successfully gains a court injunction against SmallTown mayor?

Factors #1 and #2 would apply? Would Volokh call for that Mayor to back off?

Did I just make a State's Rights argument against the Federal Marriage Amendment?


P.S. My personal view on the subject of gay marriage is unambiguous: marriage is between a man and a woman. However, I recognize that my personal ethics derived from a religious foundation may not necessarily be the proper basis for secular law. I'm still formulating my thoughts on the subject from a public policy stand-point. Perhaps, we will spend some bandwidth on that some time soon.

P.P.S. I'll email Volokh. He gets tons of email as his blog is so well known so I'm not likely to get a response but it will be fun to try anyway and if he replies, I'll post an update.

UPDATE: The Govenator has asked his AG to take legal actions against San Francisco.

Wednesday, February 18, 2004

When is it OK to defy the law?

Hi-De-Ho Rene,

One of these days, my thoughts on the gay marriage debate will be cogent enough to grace this blog, but for now there’s an interesting side issue that’s intriguing me.

Monday, Instapundit mentioned comments from NRO's Rod Dreher, who pointed out the incongruity of people getting mad at Alabama Ex-Chief Justice Roy Moore for flaunting federal law (court order), when many of the same people are congratulating the San Francisco mayor for flaunting state law – and a state law that came about as a direct result of voter initiative, at that.

At first, I completely bought into the idea of apparent hypocrisy, but then I read Eugene Volokh, who makes a good case for how the facts of the situation make Mayor Newsom’s actions different. As you know, Volokh is a professor at UCLA Law School and a blogger in good libertarian/conservative standing. So now I'm less sure about the "good for the gander" argument.

I’d be interested in your take.


Monday, February 16, 2004

At least this will tick off Red Sox fans, which is nice

Hi-De-Ho Rene,

What’s the word on the LA streets about the Alex Rodriguez deal?

Out here in the Land of the Small Markets, the mumbling goes something like this: “Talk about the rich getting richer”; “As if we needed another reason to hate the Yankees”; and “This ruins my excitement over the Royals signing Benito Santiago.”

Yada yada yada.

I think the Yankees acquiring A-Rod is a waste of George Steinbrenner’s money, so I’m all for it.

In one sense, A-Rod is worth the quarter-of-a-billion dollars his 10-year contract included, certainly in a baseball universe where Chan Ho Park is worth $65 million for five years and Jason Kendall gets $60 million for six. He’s arguably the best player in baseball (it’s really just between him and Bonds, and Barry doesn’t play as critical a defensive position). And it’s also important to note that George is on the hook for “just” $112 million of A-Rod’s salary over the remaining seven years on his contract.

But is he worth even that much to the Yankees?

Presumably, other than playing mind games with the Red Sox, the reason the Yankees want Alex Rodriguez is to secure another World Series banner or two for Yankee Stadium and bump up future gate, merchandise, and broadcast revenue.

I’d argue that A-Rod was of more value to the Rangers than he’ll be to the Yankees, who have "more stars than there are in the heavens." The Rangers didn’t make a mistake in signing him. Their mistake was in blowing the rest of their money on much less productive players. Without A-Rod, they would have been much, much worse.

But back to the Bronx: Concentrating on the AL East pennant/World Series ring angle, how much marginal advantage does A-Rod provide the Bombers? This is a team, after all, that has been in the World Series six of the last eight years, winning it four times. It’s not as if they needed this deal to finally put them over the top.

For this season, they lost Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, but picked up Javier Vasquez and Kevin Brown. They added Gary Sheffield to an already-powerful outfield. They scored 877 runs last year, fourth most in all of baseball, without Sheffield and Rodriguez, and had the most wins, 101.

With A-Rod, they get a 118-RBI, 124-runs-scored producer, but lose Alfonso Soriano, who scored 114 runs and knocked in 91 of his own last year, despite being a free swinger in a ballpark more hostile to hitters, as Joe Posnanski points out. They lose a second baseman and gain a second shortstop – and part of what makes A-Rod so valuable is his position. At third base, he’s untested, but even if he’s great, he will be less great compared to other third basemen than he has been compared to other shortstops.

To boil it down and save some pixels, how’s this: Regardless of whether the Yankees win the World Series, A-Rod is overkill, because they could win without him, or with someone not quite as good. And if they don’t win with him? Let’s just say George would be much happier blowing money on a winner.


Sunday, February 15, 2004

LA Scene: Vasa, an LA Artist

(Eighth in a series of occasional posts on Los Angeles life)

Dear Kari:

One of our favorite topics is art. Neither of us make our living as artists. But we know artists and artistic types of people. And we occasionally buy art items. And we certainly have opinions we can foist of people via this blog space.

For this post, I'll share a recent visit to the studios of a practicing artist here in Los Angeles.

Vasa Mihich was born in Yugoslavia and he works with plastics. Sounds like The Graduate (1967) or something, eh? Well, interestingly enough, Vasa started to use plastics for his sculptures in 1967.

Today, Vasa teaches at UCLA and has a studio where his objects are manufactured and displayed for purchase. In addition to making modest quantities of small to medium sized objects for individual purchases, he does larger ones for corporate and institutional commissioned projects.

A handful of us went to visit his studio and one of us was equipped with a picture cell phone that captured the following two images.

The object on the left is several feet tall. The objects on the right are smaller ones and are likely to be found on office desktops or shelves of homes

What can be found at my apartment?

Why do I like them?

I think first and foremost I find the colors appealing. The combination of colors and the mix of clarity with color just give me a good feeling. Look at them at a different angle and the way the colors play changes. It is purely an emotional reaction below or above logical perception.

This kind of unconscious perception occurs in me when I listen to music. I have some friends (you for instance) who can react both emotionally to music and intellectually from knowledge about music. But for me, I know little about art and music in a technical sense but I do bring my analytical mind to bear anyway. When I look at art, a part of me does try to "analyze" it in a logical fashion but I find emotions quickly rise to the surface (I like it, I don't like it).

I think another aspect of these items that captivates me is simplicity. The simple shapes have an aesthetic appeal.

This page explains how the objects are fabricated. In our studio visit, we got to see some of the steps involved in making them.

In my mind, simplicity in objects and clothes often appeals to me. But simplicity in music often doesn't. I find minimalist music very hit or miss with me. But then again, sometimes a big painting with lots going on piques my interest. Or a complex bit of music like Stravinsky's Rite of Spring is a delight to me.

When you are browsing artsy shops, what kind gets you in the door? What kind gets your wallet out?


Vasa Studio
3025 Exposition Place
Los Angeles, CA 90018
(323) 290-3343

Friday, February 13, 2004

Happy Valentine's Day

Hi Kari,

I know my prior post was a "grumpy old man" post. Didn't want to end the week on that note.

So here are some flowers to decorate our blogspot!



P.S. Am I above shameless self-promotion? Nah, the flower pictures are from my Asia trip in 2001; to read more about it, click here.

Just venting

Hey Kari:

I'll be sure to have another item in accord with our new all-animal-all-the-time blog format at some point. 8-)

For today, a short rant.

You are probably familiar with the Beatles and their song Taxman. Here are some lyrics from that song:
Let me tell you how it will be
There's one for you, nineteen for me
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah, I'm the taxman

Should five per cent appear too small
Be thankful I don't take it all
Cos I'm the taxman, yeah I'm the taxman

If you drive a car, I'll tax the street
If you try to sit, I'll tax your seat
If you get too cold I'll tax the heat
If you take a walk, I'll tax your feet
As you know, my political inclinations are center-right with some libertarian influences sprinkled in. So as a general rule, I think taxation should be simpler and merely to raise revenue for essential services and less as tools of social engineering.

This post won't be a high-minded discussion on what the percentage of taxation should be relative to the GDP nor which types of taxation are most fair (income, sales, capitial gains, etc.). Though of course as the policy wonk of this blog, you are free to take a swing at it.

Instead, I simply ask, Kari, if you were mayor of Kariville, how much should parking tickets be? And in the scope of local government operations, how aggressive should this be relative to all the other problems a typical big city faces?

I live in Los Angeles where parking ticket enforcement is shall we say... vigorous. I have personally received a few tickets issued about 7-10 minutes past the stated time on the sign on the street. Cost of ticket: $45 or $65 depending on the location. I've gotten a ticket or two when my car was encroaching on the red zone. Cost of ticket: $45 or $65 again depending on location. It is only mid-February and I've "contributed" $130 to the city coffers this year.

Now, technically speaking, I am in violation of the law in each of the above cases so at that level I don't have too much right to complain. Yet, I get a little upset with the daily ritual of watching parking enforcement issue tickets on my street in the morning and in the evening. They slip those dreaded little things under the windshield wipers by the dozens. Imagine that going on all day throughout the city. I wonder how much revenue they raise doing this?

Anyway, just had to vent.

Take care and be well,

Wednesday, February 11, 2004

As the Pigeon Flies

Hi-De-Ho Rene,

At the risk of turning into an all-animals, all-the-time blog, I pass along this story. Did you see it?

The secret of carrier pigeons' uncanny ability to find their way home has been discovered by British scientists: The feathered navigators follow the roads just like we do.

This article describes the study in a little more detail, and includes some skeptical remarks from other pigeon observers. You be the judge.

Why does the thought of pigeons following landmarks seem so revolutionary, when we’ve been willing to accept their ability to navigate via the sun and magnetic fields, which seems much more remarkable? Following landmarks is a human technique, so maybe we equate it with intelligence.

In any case, it’s amazing what Global Positioning Systems allow us to do these days. The researchers used GPS to track the paths of the pigeons, who often took abrupt turns above intersections and even flew in curves around roundabouts. Maybe we can teach pigeons to use one of these:

Garmin International manufactures a wide variety of GPS equipment for aviation, marine, cartography, and recreational use, and is based in Olathe, Kansas. Someday I'm going to get one of their rec models and go on one of those GPS scavenger hunts/orienteering expeditions I've heard about. Until then, I'll just follow the pigeons.


Saturday, February 07, 2004

Did you know...?

Hi Kari:

Since you recently posted about the wonders of the domesticated dog, I thought in an exercise in tangential blogging, I'll share the following item.

About a month ago, being an info-hound, I was looking around for some obscure bit of information. While I was at it, I found this web page from the Library of Congress that answers why onions make you cry. From there I found out that zebras can't be domesticated as a general rule. Excerpts:

They are unpredictable and are known to attack people. To be domesticated, animals must meet certain criteria. For example, they must have a good disposition and should not panic under pressure. Zebras' unpredictable nature and tendency to attack preclude them from being good candidates for domestication.
From this page, I found out that zebras can be bred with horses resulting in a Zorse, or bred with a donkey yielding a Zonkey, or mixed with a pony producing a Zonie. I'm not kidding. See here.

Dogs --> Blog post about dogs by Kari --> Blog post by Rene --> Inquiring minds (or people bored silly) can read about onions and zebras and their hybrids.


Thursday, February 05, 2004

Two tin cans on a very long string

Dear Kari:

Thanks for the great post on your pooch!

When I first saw the post, it didn't have the photos and I was going to email you and say, I bet our readers are saying, don't just tell me, show me! And voila, I checked our blog again and saw the photos. Very nice.

And now for something completely different but tangentially connected by our fondness for science.

According to our tracker software, about 32% of our site visits are people searching with some combination of the following keywords: cans, can, string, and, two, long, very.

I wonder who these people are (please tell us who you are!)? I imagine them as moms and dads trying to find a project for their youngster involving "two tin cans on a very long string?" Or maybe they are web savvy kids looking for that project on their own?

In any case, being bloggers who love science and want to encourage its exploration, be sure to check this web site for the sought after "two tin cans on string" project. Also, while at it, be sure to book mark this site for more neat things to make and do. These web pages are maintained by the Exploratorium of San Francisco and is definitely a place to take the kids and the kid in you. When I lived in San Francisco, I visited that museum on my own and took kids there as a volunteer with Hands On San Francisco.

So to our dear "accidental" "two tin cans" search engine visitors: thanks for dropping by; hope you look around a bit and feel free to let us know you are here with a compliment, comment or complaint.

Be well,

P.S. Eventually this post will move down into the archives but I'll leave the key links up in the top of our template for our future visitors.

Wednesday, February 04, 2004

That's a Dog of a Different Color

Hi-De-Ho Rene,

So far, I’ve resisted various urges to let my contribution to this blog turn it into a dog blog, despite my pride and affection for my Bassetweiler, Dutch. I won’t give in this time either, so you are spared innumerable stories of Dutch’s intelligence, sensitivity, and all-around cuteness. (That also rules out slobber stories, which unfortunately are just as common.)

But, spurred on by PBS’s wonderful NOVA once again, I am thinking about how incredible it is that all dogs are members of one species.

Dutch, as alluded to above, is half Rottweiler, half Basset Hound, which is quite a trick if you think about it. Brent’s dog is a purebred Scottish Terrier. It’s amazing, isn’t it, that both the 60-pound Dutch and the 16-pound Tank, who get along famously but look like two different kinds of animals altogether, are distant cousins?

All dogs are descendents of the gray wolf, which, according to genetic data, they split from as long as 135,000 years ago. The earliest archeological evidence of dogs – not wolves – is about 12,000 years old. And Peter Tyson writes: “By 2000 B.C., dogs resembling the modern pharaoh hound are depicted on Egyptian tombs, implying that both domestication and diversification were well under way.”

There’s something about dogs that makes them especially malleable. With natural selection and breeds man-made for work and sport, there was already a rainbow of varieties when breeding for appearance became en vouge a little more than 100 years ago. Then the variety of distinct breeds exploded.

But is that why dogs have flourished while their ancestor, the gray wolf, flirts with extinction? Stephen Budiansky thinks the answer is simpler, albeit unromantic. He says dogs, both now and historically, exhibit behaviors that in any other species would have them deemed social parasites.

He writes: “Calling dogs parasites is fighting words, but what can I say? Dogs have got us exactly where they want us, and we, idiotic grins fixed to our faces, go along with it all....”

That seems a bit over-the-top, but there’s no doubt that dogs, whether wild or domesticated, live off the scrapings of man. Many dogs earn their keep, but most would have a hard time in the true wild, far from overturned trash cans, let alone food dishes. Even hunting dogs well-trained to flush out birds and retrieve game wouldn’t fare so well without their shotgun-armed human companions.

Still, we’d like to think our dogs are tough enough to survive on their own, maybe on a cross-country trek to find their families, just like Lassie or Milo and Otis. Dutch and my brother’s dog, another mutt-of-many-colors named Jacques, once caught and killed a pair of young possums, and Dutch apparently killed a squirrel during one of many high-speed chases around the back yard, but the thought of eating any of those things was apparently quite repellant to them. Instead, they left their trophy prey sprawled out on the back steps.

Have you ever had a dog? What breed was it, and how dependent was it on you? Or were you dependent on it? I'm glad Dutch is a mutt -- it's like he's a breed of his own. I also tend to think he earns his keep just by being so darn likeable.


Tuesday, February 03, 2004

Super Bowl Review

Hi Kari:

How was the game received in your part of America?

The game itself was quite something. I heard the 1st quarter punting contest on radio. We celebrated my nephew's birthday and did our share of watching The Two Towers on DVD. My nephew (12) and neice (9) are fans. But eventually, we tuned to the game and caught the dramatic fourth quarter.

My feeling is that even if Kasey didn't boot the kickoff out of bounds and the Pats had to start on their own 20, Brady and company would have found a way to get in field goal range and the end result would have been the same. What do you think?

Being in Los Angeles, I really didn't have a dog in this hunt though I rooted for the Panthers since they were the underdogs and indeed they did a great job. I figured if they could get over the initial nerves without turning it over or having big breakdowns defensively early in the game, they would be competitive and indeed were they ever.

On ESPN radio, the guys were saying prior to the game that Brady may one day achieve Montana like status as the cool QB under fire. Well, I think his performance has added another line into that resume.

How are people reacting to the other stuff?

I did not see the halftime show though I've seen replays of the umm, revealing moment?

Honestly, over the years, I have not watched the halftime show. My musical tastes just don't go there. Nonetheless, I find my conservative instincts clashing with my libertarian instincts about questions of public morality and the halftime show incident.

On one hand, I am leary of the heavy hand of government regulating various aspects of life. On the other hand, I feel there should be some modest standard of public decency.

It is one thing for consenting adults to decide they want to sit down and watch Sex in the City on HBO. There is obviously an audience for that kind of show and the libertarian in me says go ahead and make that show since you can make money off of it. As for me, I'm not watching because, one, I don't have cable and two, if I had cable I'd be watch in ESPN, Fox Sports, CNN/MSNBC/FoxNews, CSPAN, History and endless re-runs of Star Trek.

However, it is another thing when an event is watched by kids. The Super Bowl is broadcast on the public airwaves and is a de facto national family holiday.

Some are saying, they see that stuff all the time so what's the big deal?

Yes, stuff like that is around, do we want MORE of it?

It is one thing for people to freely go look for that kind of stuff, it is another to foist it on unsuspecting people.

So what is the answer?

Is the free market the best way?

In the future, parent's who love football and care about their kids shut off the TV for the halftime show and do something else for a while? Will that hit in the pocketbook of the advertisers and broadcasters be enough to modify their behavior?

Or is this an occasion for goverment regulation in the form of fines?