Why I'm not voting for Toomey in November

I am really upset about the current state of the Supreme Court. Justice Scalia died unexpectedly in February. One month later, President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland, an experienced jurist with impeccable credentials. Nearly three months have gone by, and the U.S. Senate has not started the confirmation process. Meanwhile, the high court has deadlocked on several 4-4 decisions.

I am fired up about this because I am a scholar of the Constitution. I used to teach Constitutional law. I believe the Constitution is a living, breathing document, and is deliberately brief, broad and open to interpretation. Also, my senior seminar in college was about the confirmation of Supreme Court justices, so I have thoroughly analyzed this process.

I wrote a letter to Pat Toomey, one of Pennsylvania's senators. Although he met with Judge Garland, he is one of the senators who flatly refuses to begin the confirmation process, because it, according to Toomey and other GOP senators, "doesn't traditionally take place during an election year."

Here is the letter I wrote to Toomey, which outlines my arguments for confirming Judge Garland:

Dear Senator Toomey:

First of all, thank you for your service to the great state of Pennsylvania. I do appreciate your efforts to cut taxes and cooperate with your colleagues in the Democratic Party in an attempt to strengthen background checks for firearms.

The reason I am writing today is because of Judge Merrick Garland, President Obama’s nominee to the Supreme Court.

Justice Scalia, although I personally did not agree with many of his decisions or beliefs, was a highly skilled and qualified jurist with an impeccable knowledge of the Constitution and the laws of our country. His unexpected death was not only tragic, but also a major setback to the Court.

According to the Constitution, it is the President’s duty to nominate justices to the Supreme Court, with the advice and consent of the Senate. President Obama has nominated Judge Garland, who, by all accounts, is an experienced judge who, like Justice Scalia, has a great deal of knowledge and respect for the Constitution and the laws of our country.

I believe the founding fathers did leave some room for interpretation throughout the Constitution. However, I believe the “advice and consent” clause in Article II states that the process of appointing Supreme Court nominees should happen with due diligence. President Obama nominated Judge Garland about a month after Justice Scalia’s death.

Unfortunately, unlike the president, you and your colleagues in the Senate have not performed your function as defined by the Constitution. Two months have gone by, and confirmation hearings have not been scheduled for Judge Garland. As a matter of fact, you and several other Republicans in the Senate refuse to even consider a confirmation hearing for Judge Garland, unless he is nominated by President Obama’s successor after the presidential election. Meanwhile, several important cases are passing through the Supreme Court as deadlocked 4-4 decisions.

I did read the editorial you wrote for The Patriot News describing your position. I appreciate that you took the time to speak with Judge Garland. However, I believe many of your arguments are flawed. First of all, you say: “...I believe it is sensible to allow the American people to participate in the choice of Justice Scalia's successor less than seven months from now.”

First of all, the American people have participated in the choice of Justice Scalia’s successor. The American people voted for President Obama in 2008 and 2012 knowing one of his functions as president is to fill vacancies on the Supreme Court as they arise. Furthermore, according to polls, the majority of voters believe that Judge Garland be granted a fair hearing.

You, along with Senator McConnell, Senator Grassley, and many other Republicans in the Senate, are deliberately delaying this process as a political ploy to not only deliberately thwart the President one last time before he leaves office, but also assume a Republican will win the presidency in November and nominate a different judge, especially because your colleagues mentioned that you would consider Judge Garland after the election.

You also mention the political ramifications of Judge Garland sitting on the Court, such as his tendency to side with the EPA, which could hurt our state’s energy production.

It is for this reason that you should allow this process to proceed, and give Judge Garland a chance to speak in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee. If you don’t like what he has to say and don’t think he is qualified to sit on the Court, it is the duty of you and your Senate colleagues to reject his nomination. It has been done before with Judge Robert Bork and others. Harriet Miers withdrew her name after senators began to doubt her qualifications.

All I ask is that you perform your constitutional duty and consider Judge Garland’s nomination. I will support the decision of the Senate, whether he is approved or denied.

I will promise that you will earn my vote in November if you and your colleagues in the Senate begin the confirmation process for Judge Garland. I only have one vote, but I think this will be a very close election, and every single vote counts. Again, I will support your decision regardless of the outcome. I normally do not vote Republican. I did not vote for you in 2010, and until now, I was not planning to vote for you in this upcoming election. However, nothing is more important to me as an American than leaders who support, uphold and respect the Constitution. It is vital that the Supreme Court be made whole again, and, as a fellow proud Pennsylvanian, I am counting on you and your Senate colleagues to do exactly that.

Sincerely,

Colin Tucker

I sent this letter about two weeks ago. I received a response a couple of days ago. Although I think he sent this response to many different people who addressed concerns about the same issue, the email was addressed to me and signed. Considering he serves the entire state of Pennsylvania and its 13 million people, I genuinely appreciate the quick response. What I didn't appreciate were the contents of the response, which gave the same tired GOP arguments, and addressed none of my counterarguments. I will copy his response here, and rip it apart paragraph by paragraph.

Dear Colin,

Thank you for contacting me about the Supreme Court. I appreciate hearing from you.

As you know, Supreme Court Justice Antonin Scalia passed away on February 13, 2016, and President Obama nominated Judge Merrick Garland about a month later to fill this vacancy on our nation's highest court. There has been much discussion about how the nomination process for this vacancy should be addressed, and I value your input and wanted to take the opportunity to respond.

OK, so far, so good.

 

I have long believed that objective qualifications, character, and adherence to the rule of law matter more than ideology in evaluating judicial nominees. Accordingly, during my five years in the Senate, I have worked across the aisle with Senator Bob Casey and the Obama White House to fill 16 vacancies on the federal bench in Pennsylvania-14 on district courts and 2 on the court of appeals. Only 2 other states-California and New York-have had more vacancies filled during this time. I also have voted to confirm over 100 of President Obama's judicial nominees, and I supported the confirmation of Justice Sonia Sotomayor to the Supreme Court.

He deserves a cookie!

The current vacancy on the Supreme Court, however, presents an unusual situation. In the final year of a presidency, it is extremely rare for vacancies that arise on the Supreme Court to be filled. In fact, the last time such a vacancy was filled was 1932. The vacancy created by Justice Scalia's passing is especially sensitive because it will fundamentally affect the balance of the Supreme Court for a generation or more.

Dead wrong. Justice Anthony Kennedy was confirmed in February 1988, an election year. Granted, this was after the Senate rejected Robert Bork's confirmation for obvious reasons, and Douglas Ginsburg withdrew his nomination because he was a pothead. Also, doesn't any Supreme Court vacancy fundamentally affect the balance of the Court for a generation or more?

Given that we are already well into the presidential election process and that the Supreme Court appointment is for a lifetime, it makes sense to give the American people a more direct say in this critical decision. I believe that the next court appointment should be made after the upcoming elections by the next president.

First of all, as I mentioned in my letter, the American people did have a say. They elected President Obama in 2008 and 2012 knowing that one of his duties as president was to nominate Supreme Court justices. Also, the Constitution is deliberately set up so that people do not directly choose the members of the Judicial Branch. Unlike the President and Congress, I believe the Founding Fathers viewed the justices as being "above" politics, and should therefore not be chosen in a conventional political process. I think the judicial election process in Pennsylvania and other states is fraught with problems, and exemplifies why voters shouldn't elect judges.

On March 12, 2016, I also met with Judge Garland for over an hour. He came across as a pleasant man with impressive legal training and experience, but areas of Judge Garland's record give me pause and our discussion did not assuage these concerns.

Okay, but should this prevent you from even beginning the confirmation process? (see more below)

Under our Constitution's system of checks and balances, federal courts play an essential role in limiting executive abuses of power and stopping unlawful overregulation that is harming Pennsylvania's economy and killing jobs. But Judge Garland's record raises serious doubts that he would serve as an adequate, independent legal check on the administration and its regulators.

For instance, Judge Garland has ruled on dozens of cases involving challenges to new Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) regulations, and he has sided with the agency over 90% of the time. One of the handful of times the nominee ruled against the EPA, he ruled that it was not regulating enough.

I tried to discuss with Judge Garland his views on executive authority, but he was often unresponsive-unwilling to discuss one of his own decisions, and refusing to opine on historic Supreme Court precedents.

So you don't like the guy. This is exactly why we have the confirmation process. If you don't think he is qualified to be a justice, go through the confirmation process and vote against his confirmation!

I also raised with Judge Garland his approach to terrorist detainee cases. He authored an opinion that resulted in the release of 17 Guantanamo Bay prisoners who were part of a group of violent Islamist extremists the State Department had designated as terrorists. They were captured after fleeing an Afghanistan training camp funded by al Qaeda and the Taliban. As a result of Garland's decision, the detainees were ordered released into the United States. Fortunately, another panel of judges on the D.C. Circuit halted this, and the detainees were instead released into other countries.

In sum, while Judge Garland is highly credentialed, areas of his legal thinking deeply concern me, particularly his excessive deference to overreaching agency regulations and his approach to the War on Terror. These concerns, in addition to my preference for giving the American people a voice in November about the long-term balance of the Court, lead me to oppose his nomination at this time.

Again, if you are so concerned about the long-term balance of the court, vote against his confirmation. Judge Garland seems intelligent and experienced. He deserves the change to go before the Judiciary Committee and have his nomination considered. Also, the American people have spoken, and the majority of them, more than 60 percent, say that confirmation hearings for Judge Garland should take place before the election (NBC News poll). Finally, even Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg says the frequent 4-4 deadlocks have prevented many important rulings, and said, “Eight, as you know, is not a good number for a multi-member court." (The Washington Post)

Thank you again for your correspondence. Please do not hesitate to contact me in the future if I can be of assistance.

Sincerely,
 

Pat Toomey
U.S. Senator, Pennsylvania

Again, I am grateful that Sen. Toomey took the time to respond to me. I am not responding to him because it is obvious his mind is made up. Unless the GOP senators are somehow compelled to start the confirmation process before the election, he has lost my vote. 

This is bad for Republicans, because this election cycle, several Republican senators, including Toomey, face a tough fight in November. There is a possibilty that the Democrats could regain the majority in the Senate.  

The arguments the GOP is putting forward are flawed at best, particularly the "election year" nonsense. The real reason is because Scalia was a conservative justice, and Obama's nominee will be quite a bit more liberal, shifting the ideology of the court. (yes, I know in a perfect world, judges don't make political decisions.) This is a political situation, though. When Justice Scalia was alive, there were a lot of 5-4 decisions. Many senators are afraid that if Garland is a confirmed, there will be a lot of 5-4 decisions going to the "left" instead of the "right," and there are supposedly many crucial decisions in the pipeline on LGBT rights and the environment, which Sen. Toomey addressed in the response. Also, because of Judge Garland's experience and track record, the GOP senators believe he will be confirmed, and therefore want to delay this process.

They are betting on a Republican becoming president, and appointing a more conservative judge next year. Keep in mind that if this does take place, Donald Trump will be our president. That is downright scary.

Also, this is done out of revenge. GOP senators have locked horns with Obama for 8 years.  They are miffed at him for making 32 recess appointments (appointments of senior federal officials while the Senate is not working). Keep in mind that Ronald Reagan made 240 recess appointments over the course of his two terms. They don't like Obamacare. They don't like the fact that he issued an executive order, which doesn't require a vote from Congress, to prevent illegal immigrants from getting deported. Granted, the GOP has a valid argument against some of these policies/actions, but to block the comfirmation of a Supreme Court Justice out of revenge, and the need to screw Obama over one last time is childish and unproductive.

Finally, I give Judge Garland credit for handling this like the professional who he is. Instead of complaining, he is continuing to make an effort to meet senators from both parties, and develop a rapport with them.

The bottom line: The senators need to fulfill their constitutional duty and begin confirmation hearings for Judge Merrick Garland. I don't care if his confirmation is approved or denied, as long as they allow the confirmation process to continue.

The state of Trek

After seeing the "trailer" (basically a bunch of groovy images of space and the logo) for the new Star Trek series in January, I thought I would share my $0.02.

First of all, next year, for the first time since 2005, Star Trek is returning to the small screen. This is where Star Trek began 50 years ago, and this is where it belongs. TV was a bit oversaturated with Trek when "Enterprise" made its final voyage, but 11 years have passed. I am ready, and I think the fans are ready.

So far things look good. The series will air on CBS All Access, the network's streaming video service which requires a monthly subscription fee of $7 or so. I wouldn't put it past the greedy bastards at Viacom to hike the price before the series starts in January.

I was also encouraged to hear that Bryan Fuller (Hannibal) is the showrunner and excited to hear that Nicholas Meyer, one of the best writers and creative voices in the history of the franchise, is on the writing team.

Also, the bar is set low, because anything, and I mean anything, has to be better than Enterprise.

The rumor mill is also saying the new series will be an anthology show of sorts, with a new setting and storyline each season. This is also a great idea, because it keeps things fresh. On the other hand, it could be a liability because you don't get to know the characters as well, and the show will lack the iconic characters like Spock, Data and Picard.

I was brainstorming the possibilities of an anthology show... Although they should probably start with a conventional starship setting like TOS or Voyager, the possibilities are endless. They could set an entire season at Starfleet Academy. They could have an entire season aboard a Klingon or Romulan ship. They could have a buddy sitcom starring Data and Geordi. Okay, forget about that last one.

First of all, what I do know is the special effects will be top-notch. DS9, Voyager and Enterprise all had movie-caliber special effects, and that was more than a decade ago.

The bottom line: If CBS expects Trek fans to pay for this, the quality has to be there from day one.

Trekkers are one of the most demanding fan bases in pop-culture history, as demonstrated by the backlash against the "Star Trek: Beyond" trailer which came out earlier this year. The second trailer looked a little better, but I still have my reservations about whether this will be true Trek, or just another special effects-laden light show.

Anyway, I digress. Although TNG developed into one of the best shows on television, "Encounter At Farpoint," the series'  first episode, was hokey, poorly paced, kind of cheesy, and the acting was inconsistent. TNG didn't hit its stride until the third season and very well might have been cancelled if it was on a major network instead of syndication. Enterprise was doomed from the beginning, thanks in part to that cringe-inducing theme song (no link, find it yourself, if you dare). Since they need to knock one out of the park on the first episode if they expect people to pay to watch this show, here is a list of do's and don'ts for this new series, with some lessons learned from Trek series past.

Do:

• Have a theme song played by an orchestra. I am again referring to Enterprise. Begin with the nine-note fanfare so everyone knows this is Star Trek.
• Because this is not on a network, have shorter seasons (13-16 episodes) and use serialized storytelling. Hitting the reset button at the end of every episode won't fly anymore.
• With shorter seasons, avoid filler episodes, and "alien of the week" episodes.
• Hire good actors. They don't necessarily need to be well-known, just experienced. See Stewart, Patrick.
• Bring back familiar characters sparingly to provide a sense of continuity.
• Use humor when it's appropriate so the show doesn't get too serious, but don't overdo it. Use the episodes featuring Q as an example.

Don't:

• Have a ship's counselor. Ever. That was the 1980s thing to do when TNG started, and it should stay in the 1980s.
• Overuse the holodeck to the point where it becomes a crutch for the writers.
• Hire an actor for no reason other than the fact that he/she is attractive, even though he/she can't act his/her way out of a paper bag. See Blalock, Jolene.
• Feature any Ferengi in an episode unless you have a really good reason to do so.
• Portray Vulcans as emotionless robots. See Russ, Tim. Vulcans may suppress their emotions, but do have them. Spock often displayed emotion in subtle ways, like the famous eyebrow raise. 
• Gratuitously use sex and violence for no reason other than to make the show more "edgy." Yes, I'm looking at you again, Enterprise.
• Hire Rick Berman to do anything. The farther away he stays from this, the better.

Update: Showrunner Bryan Fuller says the show will run for 13 episodes, and it will be like a 13-chapter novel. In other words, no episodic storytelling. He hinted at multiple crews. These are all good things. Also, I will have to see this one to believe it, but rumors are circulating that Nathan Fillion ended his commitment to "Castle" so he could be on this show.

Now, on to the ship itself, which was unveiled. As the article says, it looks an awful lot like the Ralph McQuarrie concept drawing. Also, I think it looks like a Federation ship mated with a Klingon Battlecruiser. Could this ship be a Federation-Klingon collaboration if they are allies post Star Trek VI? Who knows? Finally, this ship isn't as sleek as those on the newer series like the Enterprise-D, the Voyager and the Defiant. Although Fuller denies it, I am guessing from the design and the ship's registry number (NCC-1031) that this show takes place sometime between Star Trek VI and The Next Generation, a span of about 80 years. Of course, the fans are moaning and groaning about the ship, because that is what they like to do.

I saw Deadpool, finally.

Since I am a parent of two young children, and the closest movie theater is about a 30-minute drive, my most recent trips to the movies have been to see children's fare like "Inside Out" and "Minions." (Although we did sneak in some time to see "Star Wars: The Remix" and "Mockingjay: We made two padded-out movies out of one book").

Still, most of the movies I really want to see end up being on demand or on Netflix. I rented Deadpool on demand.

I had a good feeling coming into this, because it was marketed well, and looked like it would be a lot of fun. Audiences agreed, because it made a whopping $750-plus million internationally. It was the highest grossing R-Rated movie ever, and surpassed many other superhero/comic book movies like "Guardians of the Galaxy," both "Amazing Spider-Man" movies (the ones with Andrew Garfield), "Iron Man" 1 and 2, "Man of Steel," "Batman v. Superman," and every other "X-Men" movie. This was on a modest $58 million budget, which is about 1/3 the cost of most effects-heavy entries in this genre. Granted, some of the CGI effects looked like CGI, and lacked the refinement of the pricier superhero movies, but the filmmakers managed to make Colossus, a CGI character, look great.

Just to point out, his is not part of the Marvel Cinematic Universe (the Avengers et. al.). This is technically a spinoff of the X-Men movies.

First of all, what a riot! Deadpool's frequent breaking of the fourth wall and vulgar sense of humor worked perfectly here, as did the bloody violence. Ryan Reynolds was a perfect fit for this part, kind of like how Robert Downey Jr. seemed like he was born to play Tony Stark/Iron Man.

The movie knew exactly what it wanted to be. It took itself seriously enough so it didn't become an all-out farce, but wasn't too serious. The tone was set from the hilarious opening credits: "Starring God's Perfect Idiot, A Hot Chick, A British Villain, A CGI Character... Produced by Asshats, Written by The Real Heroes Here..." you get the point. This is set to a freeze-frame of a car full of bad guys wrecking (and Deadpool tea bagging a bad guy) as Juice Newton's "Angel in the Morning" plays. In otherwords, I was already laughing uncontrollably 30 seconds into the film. I would have loved to hear how a packed theater reacted to this opening.

This was not a perfect movie, but it was pretty damn good and really entertaining. Looking past the off-color humor, fourth wall breaks and graphic violence, the story is, for the most part, a standard-issue superhero origin/revenge tale. It is the humor and Reynolds' performance, however, that make this movie particularly memorable, and made this movie the success that it is.  My wife enjoyed this movie somewhat, but said it was a bit too crude for her tastes. In her defense, it was awfully violent and very offensive.

A unnamed movie industry executive said he loved this film's willingness to make fun of itself. "Guardians of the Galaxy" director James Gunn rightfully ripped this person a new one. I tend to agree with Gunn, who said "Guardians," the "Iron Man" movies and "Ant-Man" all shared a humorous, self-deprecating tone, and "Deadpool" succeeded on its own merits thanks to good performances and good writing.

Also, I worry a little about the film's success relative to its R rating. I am fearful that stupid Hollywood execs, like the one above, might add gratuitous sex and violence to comic book/superhero movies for no particular reason other than the fact that R rated movies can make a lot of money. This is a dumb idea. It works for Deadpool, because the comic book character is also very sick and twisted, and has a filthy mouth. The next Wolverine film will be rated R. I am OK with Wolverine being rated R as well, because, well, 12-inch blades protrude from his hand. However, there is no reason for Superman, Iron Man or Captain America movies to be rated R, because the more mainstream comic books are not overly violent or profane.

Finally, as Deadpool revealed in the hilarious end credits that spoofed Ferris Buehler's Day Off, Cable will be in the next movie. The rumor mill says Dolph Lundgren will be cast in this role. I am not too familiar with the character, but he looks the part physically, and I don't object to the casting of Lundgren in anything. I also hope they bring back Colossus and Nega, who were both great supporting characters.

Basically, anyone who enjoys the comic book/superhero genre should definitely check this out. I am looking forward to the sequel.

Interesting stuff about Prince

I wanted to pay tribute to Prince somehow. I would normally put up a list of his best songs, but his body of work goes back to 1977, and I am just not well-versed enough with his music. Instead, I am going to share 10 things I learned about His Royal Badness you may or may not know.

1. He was an incredible musician, and he could shred on guitar. First and foremost, Prince wasn't just a run-of-the-mill pop star, and there was some true talent behind his sometimes crazy (no pun intended) behavior. He could play guitar, drums, bass and keyboard, and he was good at all of them. He also happened to be a decent vocalist. I actually considered him to be one of the best pop/rock guitarists ever. Not too much of his music featured heavy guitar work, but the music that did was some good stuff, like Let's Go Crazy and Purple Rain (his Super Bowl halftime show had a great performance of this song). The most convincing evidence of his insane guitar skills is on a video that's been viewed a lot since his death - The 2004 Rock and Roll Hall of Fame induction ceremony. During this performance of the Beatles classic "While My Guitar Gently Weeps," he shared the stage with some legendary musicians like Eric Clapton, Jeff Lynne, and Tom Petty. He managed to blow them all away with his solo. Finally, he, like some of the greatest performers like Michael Jackson and the Beatles, could not be defined by a genre. His music had elements of funk, R&B, rock, pop and even some jazz. He was always willing to reinvent himself and stretch himself musically, right up to his untimely death.

2. He said he was part white to get on MTV. For my younger readers, there was a time when MTV played something called music videos. These were short films that accompanied songs, and brought pop/rock music into a new era in which you had to look good as well as sound good. Well... you had to look good. In the early days of the cable channel, MTV tended to shy away from black artists until Michael Jackson redefined pop music as we know it with the incomparable "Thriller" album. Supposedly, Prince told MTV execs he was half-white (he wasn't), and they started playing his videos. Needless to say, Prince's image and visual look was a huge part of his success.

3. He collaborated with a lot of fellow musicians. Among the songs he wrote for other artists were the Bangles' "Manic Monday," Sinead O'Connor's "Nothing Compares 2 U," and "I Feel For You," by Chaka Khan. The best story I heard, and I heard this again on the radio a few days ago, was the story of "Stand Back" by Stevie Nicks. Stevie heard "Little Red Corvette" and wrote "Stand Back" using the same chord progression. Stevie, being the consummate professional, was courteous enough to call Prince and tell him what she did. Prince's reaction was to come to the recording studio when she cut the song and play the synthesizer track. Stevie and Prince were friends from then on, and she was, according to an interview, very saddened by Prince's death. I really appreciate Stevie Nicks' honesty here, because, until I heard this story, I had no idea these two songs were similar. Stylistically, they are completely different. There were songs that were much more blatant ripoffs, like "Ice Ice Baby," which sampled the bass line from "Under Pressure," and "Ghostbusters," which, essentially ganked the entire melody and instrumentation of "I Want a New Drug," and changed the lyrics. (Huey Lewis sued Ray Parker Jr. and the case was settled out of court.

4. "Jenny Calendar" danced for Prince. Only Buffy fanatics like me will care about this one. Robia LaMorte played Jenny Calendar on the TV show "Buffy the Vampire Slayer." Calendar was a semi-regular on the show until she was shockingly offed by Angelus during the second season. LaMorte was one of two featured dancers on Prince's "Cream" music video. After dancing for Prince and playing a "techno-pagan" on "Buffy," LaMorte became a born-again Christian and minister. LaMorte still has nothing but love and respect for Prince, and was "in shock and disbelief" when she heard about his death.

5. The Vault: Prince's Paisley Park complex in Minnesota supposedly has a vault of thousands of unreleased songs and music videos. Is there anyone who isn't curious to hear them? (unless the report from The Onion is true that they were just covers of Billy Joel songs). Prince did not write a will, so the contents of the vault will remain in limbo for an undisclosed period of time.

6. The Untitled Kevin Smith Documentary: The New Jersey writer-director, on one of his marathon question and answer sessions, was asked about his experience making a documentary with Prince. The not-so-silent Smith then shared a 36-minute-long anecdote about his work with the Purple One. It was interesting, to say the least. Smith was chosen because Prince really liked "Dogma." The doc was meant to accompany his album "The Rainbow Children." He said to Smith, "We are going to change the world," to which Smith replied, "I don't even change my underwear." Smith spoke in detail about Prince's eccentricities, and the collaboration didn't end too well because Prince never expressed any gratitude for Smith's work. Still, Smith wrote a nice Tweet for Prince after his death. This documentary was also tossed in the vault and would never see the light of day.

7. Nobody's perfect... but with Prince, the good definitely outweighed the bad. Nevertheless, he was still responsible for the soundtrack to 1989's "Batman," (the Tim Burton movie, and don't confuse this with Danny Elfman's decent score), and "Under the Cherry Moon." (no links provided for the reader's own good).

8. Diversity: Prince's bands, such as the Revolution and the New Power Generation, were diverse. He especially liked to showcase talented women like drummer/vocalist Sheila E and bassist Rhonda Smith. He claimed his bands were diverse because he wanted to reflect what the world looked like.

9. The Love Symbol: During the 1990s, Prince changed his name to an unprounceable symbol. At first I dismissed this as him being pretentious and weird, but I found out he had a real reason for doing this. Apparently record execs, being the geniuses they are, told Prince he was releasing too many albums, and he needed to slow his pace down. He renamed himself the "love" symbol to screw with his record company, leading to the media referring to him as "The Artist Formerly Known as Prince," or simply, "The Artist."

10. "When Doves Cry:" Prince made the decision at the last minute to cut the bass line from this song. It worked perfectly, because it gave the song an ethereal feel, and brought out one of Prince's best and most emotional vocal performances.

Bonus: His Legacy: After Prince's death, tributes were performed by Adam Levine, Bruce Springsteen, Billy Joel, Sir Paul McCartney, Stevie Wonder and Aretha Franklin, who performed in front of the President.

And last, but not least: There's this.