Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
Pittman and his wife, Marie, were going through a divorce in May 1990, when Pittman went to the Polk County home of her parents, Clarence and Barbara Knowles, officials said. Pittman fatally stabbed the couple, as well as their younger [adult] daughter, Bonnie. He then set fire to the house and stole Bonnie Knowles’ car, which he also set on fire, investigators said.
Another Florida execution, another horrible set of facts. I can understand the death sentence. It was not just bare barbarism.
On Constitution Day [My Substack discussion], the day the Constitution was signed, we can still point to various constitutional problems.
Thirty-five years is too long to wait between arrest and execution. Justices no longer appear to care, but I do. Justice Breyer explains why:
First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it “subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.” Second, lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale. [Citations removed.]
There is also clear evidence that Pittman is intellectually disabled. The Florida Supreme Court didn't honor precedent, so relief was procedurally blocked. That is another Eighth Amendment problem.
Contrary to Prof. Reasonable Conservative's assurances, the Supreme Court is still acting in the shadows, including on the death penalty docket. The final decision allowing his execution was unexplained. The liberals also did not explain themselves.
Florida, relatively speaking, is busy executing people on their death row for a long period of time. The net value to the public welfare is open to debate.
His dying words included a proclamation of innocence. That is absurd. He still shouldn't have been executed. The death penalty should end.
There will now be a push to execute the murderer of Charlie Kirk. That too is not how we will address the political violence that poisons our times.
Kate Cohen wrote the book after she came out as an atheist largely because she did not want to lie to her children. I found the book in the library after seeing her FFRF interview.
The book was somewhat annoying. First, she had this overheated philosophy about telling the truth. It includes basically telling the whole truth (except various times when, for various reasons, she did not).* She's the sort who won't tell her children there is a Santa Claus. When she is three.
People generally don't do that. They can be private about their beliefs. They don't have to provide a full-fledged version of them without being a liar.
And, as I said, she doesn't completely do it herself. She doesn't take the Sam Harris approach of thinking "you are fat" is healthy truth-telling.
I respect her philosophy of not lying to her children. So, when a pet died, she told them it was dead. There is a way to do this in child-sensitive ways. She bluntly told them that when we die, we die. And that there is no god. Still, at times, she laid it on a bit too thick.
One thing that annoyed me was when she didn't want her oldest son to have a bar mitzvah because the only reason he wanted to do it was to please his grandfather. The son said, "fine," but she had to tell the grandfather. He was annoyed, but it went okay.
What is wrong with him having the ceremony to please his grandfather? She argued it was a lie for him to do what many did -- say the usual religious stuff without really believing it. It can't just be for symbolic reasons. You say the words, but don't mean it; it's a lie.
She argued he was not an adult yet, so she had the responsibility to make his decisions. I think that took agency away from him. He was mature enough to decide for himself. And, if he didn't want to do it, he could have told his grandfather. She basically allowed him to not take responsibility for his choices.
"Religion" is not specifically defined, but is generally assumed to mean belief in God and the afterlife. On that level, Buddhism might be considered a religion even if a Buddhist doesn't believe in a god. After all, a Buddhist generally believes in reincarnation.
What about a Unitarian who does not believe in a god? Do they belong to a religion? She also argues that the Bible is not worthwhile since it is not true. Why can't it be useful like many types of fiction? Perhaps this specific work of historical fiction is bad?
She also spends time discussing alternatives to religion. These chapters get to be a bit tedious. A church or similar holy place is not a unique piece of architecture or meeting place. She even cites an NYC ethical society site, but notes it is rare.
It is not very hard to establish an atheist meeting place. It doesn't require the deep pockets of the Catholic Church to build a really nice location. Many nice secular places exist. Atheists don't just have to meet at the local coffeehouse or something.
Many non-religious holidays have special significance. You don't have to make up some pizza holiday or something to do so. Holidays like Christmas can also have special meaning for those who practice it without believing in Christ. There was a nice documentary about how Hanukkah became a special Jewish cultural holiday in the United States.
She makes it out like this is hard to do. She went to the lengths of creating a pizza-related holiday. She wanted to mark the maturity of her son by having him in charge of a dinner party. He wasn't interested, but it was a decent idea.
OTOH, so is a Jewish ritual with religious trappings that many (including the author at that age) don't think much about. She could not allow it since she is an atheist. The ceremony requires at least some token profession of faith. Which would be a lie.
I agree with her that those who can announce being an atheist with only a minimal burden should do so. Others will give up a lot, sometimes be in danger of physical harm, if they do so. The people with an easier time of it are the voice of all the rest.
I also agree that "agnostic" is sometimes a cop-out. On a technical level, there is a difference between not knowing something and not believing.
Often, however, "agnostic" is used as a hedge. Well, I just don't know. Maybe? It gives you an out. "Atheist" also appears to be strident and stereotypically so.
I don't like the word because of all that baggage. However, yes, there is no good evidence out there for a God, especially the sort of God most people want to believe in. They don't believe in Jefferson's deistic god. They don't believe in Zeus, which at least would be more realistic given the bad things out there.
I also don't like "freedom from religion" as if religion itself is the problem. Religion comes in many shades.
Religion can be a problem when subjective beliefs are established by law. Or faith over reason rules the day "because God said so." But that is not the only type of religion possible. It can even be seen as immoral.
Some people who belong to a religion are atheists. I think that is possible. The dictionary and technical definition of "religion" includes those people.
The book has some good parts. It is around two hundred pages, which is a good length for a book. It is overall quite readable. Still, it could have been shorter, and as I said, I found various parts overheated.
I think "God" might best be seen as a symbol. For instance, people sometimes lose faith in God when a loved one dies. This seems selfish or at least curious on some level. Many people suffer and die.
Why should your father's or child's death be any different? Obviously, it is special for you. But your belief in God has to take into consideration the problem of evil and the issue of suffering overall.
People often don't think things through that deeply. A child dies. A basic goodness is lost. That goodness was a basic aspect of god for you. So, you no longer believe in god. Or your belief suffers a major blow.
"God" as a singular person, as found in the Bible, doesn't make much sense to me. God as a concept, a metaphor, as poetry for what is good makes more sense. You can have ceremonies, prayers, and other religion-like things to honor that sort of "God."
Many people do honor such a thing, which they often treat as a separate force. That is an understandable human thing to do. Atheists sometimes ridicule "watering" down God in that fashion.
Still, it is how humans handle things. I think it is fine as long as we are honest about things. She is all about honesty. We are a nation geared to a biblical type of god, and that is often the sort refuted by atheists.
Check out the video. FFRF has some good programs. The television show is on hiatus, but they still have weekly radio shows, often with good guests.
The co-presidents met on Oprah back in the 1980s. The wife was always an atheist, starting FFRF with her mother. The husband is an ex-evangelist.
===
* The "do you promise to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth" court declaration is a bit of a lie. People are instructed to not tell the whole truth. They are supposed to say the minimum necessary to answer the question. Not the "whole" truth. You can say certain things that imply something else. It is up to the lawyer to carefully draw you out.
Duffy has had a long career, both on television and the stage, but is known for her role on Newhart. I love Stephanie. This is a charming and useful (for insiders) book about how to have a good audition. She teaches acting and has the experience. Good find.
We should be careful when interpreting current events. No, those markings on the bullet castings were not some sort of trans thing. Wall St. Journal reporting, notwithstanding.
If I don't see multiple ~media reporters~ columns about the extraordinarily irresponsible Wall Street Journal report from yesterday morning — and their extensive promotion of that inflammatory report — you all should just pack up and go home.
How Law Enforcement Got the Man Suspected of Killing Charlie Kirk
F.B.I. leaders touted the immense federal deployment assigned to find the assassin. But their big break came with a single tip — from the suspect’s own family.
People have ridiculed how the FBI, whose hiring/firing tactics of late are so bad that they are subject to a lawsuit, handled things after the shooting. The purge, including "DEI hires," has struck there, too. Since DEI is a good thing, that is a problem.
I would not have judged them too harshly if it took more than a day or two to catch the shooter. These things can take time. Still, they open themselves up to criticism in multiple ways.
The right, from Trump on down, was in high dudgeon that the left incited murder. Every allegation is a confession. Charlie Kirk regularly said incendiary things. If you complain, they will taunt you for being triggered. Or claim innocence.
It turns out the shooter is not the stereotypical left-winger. To quote Heather Cox Richardson:
Robinson had recently had a conversation with a family member about why they didn’t like Kirk’s viewpoints. Robinson appears to have admired the “Groypers,” led by Nick Fuentes, who complain that more mainstream organizations like Kirk’s Turning Point USA are not “pro-white” enough and have publicly harassed Kirk in the past.
Now, Rep. Mace is talking about forgiveness. Trump, of course, was never really too concerned. I suppose the death of Ivanka or Barron might warrant some. Why would Charlie Kirk? He moved on to trucks when asked about how he was feeling:
I think very good. And by the way, right there, you see all the trucks, they just started construction of the new ballroom for the White House, which is something they've been trying to get, as you know, for about 150 years, and it's going to be a beauty. It’ll be an absolutely magnificent structure. And I just see all the trucks. We just started so it'll get done very nicely and it'll be one of the best anywhere in the world, actually. Thank you very much.
Imagine if Biden rambled on about trucks after being asked about the ... well, we know. Like the weeks of concern about his bad death and crickets after Harris crushed Trump, who had a horrible debate that was ridiculed while it took place.
One person said we should just forget Charlie Kirk, providing a vignette from Ancient Rome. Kirk is someone we should only remember if we want a really bad example. He wasn't someone I thought about too much before. Many have never heard of him.
Martyrdom talk or references by liberals honoring him as a great debater or something are bad. Just forgetting him is probably asking a lot. He has been too successful for the right to just forget him.
Many of these things anger me. The sloppy media reporting, hypocrisy, Trump horribleness, and so on.
For now, we wait and see what happens in this case specifically. And we try our best to do right.
I discuss the murder of right-wing troll (with some left-wing supporters), Charlie Kirk, here. The killer has been captured after a family friend notified the police and convinced him to surrender. Good thing as the FBI was having issues.
First off, the Supreme Court "refused to step in, for now, in a dispute over one transgender student's bathroom access in South Carolina."
It stated that it was not ruling on the merits but was only acting, given the rules for emergency action.
How they applied such rules was not cited. Notably, it gave that reminder here. Thomas, Alito, and Gorsuch, without saying why, would have granted a stay.
It is depressing that this is still an issue in 2025, but that is where we are at.
===
I also wanted to say more about this week's ruling regarding ICE searches and seizures of possible undocumented persons. Kavanaugh's concurrence assumes they have Fourth Amendment protections.
Also, a major concern here is the wrongful treatment of documented persons and citizens. Still, what about undocumented immigrants, particularly? What rights do they have in this context?
The Fourth Amendment speaks of "the people." Are undocumented persons members of this class? The question does not appear to have been conclusively decided by the Supreme Court. There is usually a way to avoid it, again, because the rights of clearly protected people are involved.
Undocumented persons are constitutional "persons" who are protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The Supreme Court has long held that those here "illegally" are protected. Shaughnessy v. U.S. (1953):
It is true that aliens who have once passed through our gates, even illegally, may be expelled only after proceedings conforming to traditional standards of fairness encompassed in due process of law. The Japanese Immigrant Case, 189 U. S. 86, 189 U. S. 100-101 (1903).
Plyer v. Doe reaffirmed that both due process and equal protection apply, including when the federal government is involved (the Fifth Amendment has an equal protection component). The right to expel someone does not bring unlimited power.
Since unreasonable searches and seizures invade "liberty" (how else was it incorporated?), why doesn't due process cover this ground at any rate? The reference to "the right of the people" probably primarily limited the rights of slaves.
U.S. v. Verdugo-Urquidez held that "the people" included "a class of persons who are part of a national community or who have otherwise developed sufficient connection with this country to be considered part of that community."
Undocumented immigrants, at least some of them, should meet that test. They can be here for a long time, have jobs, citizen families, and so forth. That is, if you read that test reasonably. The law is not always reasonable. So what does it say?
A previous Supreme Court opinion (INS v. Lopez-Mendoza) assumed they had Fourth Amendment protection. This one made sure to say that the question was left open since it was dicta.
Undocumented persons are persons. They have rights. These rights are based on the Constitution, statute, and international law. Can an undocumented minor be subjected to a strip search in a way that shocks the conscience?
All persons, no matter their documentation, will ultimately be protected from unreasonable searches and seizures. At least to some degree.
ETA: Sotomayor stayed a trial pursuant to a request that argued it was warranted by an upcoming case.
The most important thing on the ballot in NYC is the mayoral election. There are also other local offices, including city council positions. For instance, my Republican city councilperson is up for re-election.
We will also have ballot measures. I am not a big fan of ballot measures. They often are technical issues that are best determined by the legislature. Sometimes, the state constitution requires a public vote. So it goes.
The measures, which have the backing of pro-development advocates and interests, aim to simplify and expedite land use review procedures to streamline new housing development in the community districts with the city’s lowest share of affordable development and for small-scale projects. In both cases, the City Planning Commission — and not the Council — would have final say.
The third disputed ballot item would create an affordable housing appeals board made up of the mayor, the local borough president, and the Council speaker for projects the Council rejects.
These measures were opposed by the City Council, which seemed to be concerned about its turf. Yes, there is a claim that the text (see link) is not clear enough. I think the general assumption is that the claim is rather pretextual. And, reading the proposed text, it seems clear enough to me.
Housing advocates, meanwhile, celebrated the board’s decision. The pro-housing group Open New York and the political spending committee it formed to raise $3 million to support the changes claimed credit for prompting the Board of Elections to allow the amendments on the ballot by mobilizing members to inundate the board with phone calls and emails.
Here is more arguing that the City Council, particularly single members, are NIMBY-ing things here. I don't claim to know much about this. I generally trust that person's judgment and that of housing advocates overall.
Still, I prefer that such issues be decided by the legislature. The problem here is that there might be a biased bottleneck that blocks good policy. That is a major purpose of ballot measures. It allows the public to step in and act directly.
Housing is a major issue in this election already. So, perhaps, this is a good time to have this on the ballot. Either way, it's there. Time to decide.
In early June, the Government launched “Operation At Large” in Los Angeles, deploying roving patrols of armed and masked immigration agents to local car washes, Home Depots, tow yards, bus stops, farms, recycling centers, churches, and parks. Over the course of the next month, the Government made nearly 2,800 immigration-related arrests and detained many more.
Justice Sotomayor, for the liberals, then explains how racial profiling was used. She also summarizes the lawsuit. The district court, as usual in these cases, writing an extensive opinion, held for the challengers.
The judge is a well-experienced child of Ghanaian immigrants. The Ninth Circuit upheld the opinion. The Supreme Court stayed the opinion without saying why. Kavanaugh, in a dubious mansplaining way, alone has an opinion. The dissent is double the length.
Law Dork has more. A reasonable (at some point, that is a sarcastic term), conservative-leaning professor defends the decision. I am not that keen on his take and tone, but hey, what am I to do to challenge a Fourth Amendment expert?
It has a comment from "anon" that in part compares abusive practices by normal police and ICE agents:
There are disincentives to cops doing this. They can get sued, or evidence can get suppressed, and the case thrown out. Employers of cops also have incentives to train cops to make sure they don't run roughshod over the Fourth Amendment, since they can also be subject to liability (either directly or through indemnification), and since they would also rather not have evidence suppressed in criminal cases. Some of those employers also buy insurance for these sorts of situations, and those insurers are doubtless also keen to make sure that officers know the law.
Those disincentives don't apply to the ICE agents who participate in these roundups. Civil remedies against federal agents for violating Fourth Amendment rights are very weak. And these raids are not about detecting and punishing crime.
Another professor provides another take on a key standing point. Lots of legal minds found the decision quite appalling. There is also a hypocritical tint.
Meanwhile, Chief Justice Roberts handed down an administrative stay that seems to, in effect, overturn a 1930s Supreme Court opinion that protects many agency personnel from at-will presidential removal.
This might just be a temporary thing, since an administrative stay is temporary. Many are not that optimistic. We shall see.
This all makes me feel fine. That is, f-ed insecure neurotic and emotional.
Don't worry. Barrett, doing her book tour now, thinks there is no constitutional crisis.
As Sotomayor noted, dropping the "respectfully," I dissent. "I dissent" should be the normal thing.
==
Okay. That was yesterday. I was going to leave it there, but there was more action today.
John Roberts issues another "administrative stay," this time blocking Judge Ali's preliminary injunction in the foreign aid funding case while the Supreme Court considers DOJ's request (which was denied by the DC Circuit). [h/t Chris Geinder]
They will also decide the "Trump tariffs" issue. They are speeding along. No slow walking like in the Trump immunity case. Why? It surely is not because there it helped Trump that things went slowly.
The new term starts on the First Monday in October.
