Couple Things

Finding My Way (Malala Y) is well written. It has a lot of personal details. I would be embarrassed. I do not keep track of NYC political events. I should. I don't. The City Council is wrong here, ethically. I voted "no" since I wasn't quite sure. But, sort of deserve to lose.

Trump Odds and Ends

The Trump Justice Department regularly lied to and didn't follow the orders of courts. 

(This should matter, right?) 

Prince (for now) Andrew is having his royal title (basically symbolic) stripped because of his involvement with Jeffrey Epstein. 

OTOH, Mike Johnson is keeping the House of Representatives in session and not swearing in a new Democratic representative, partially to prevent a measure from releasing the Epstein papers. 

Even in the friendliest polls, Cuomo has the smallest enthusiastic base of any candidate. Curtis Sliwa has more people excited to vote for him. Cuomo’s only shot is patching together enough voters who fear or despise his opponent enough to accept him by default. He has nothing to offer for the future, just a cynical warning that we cannot trust it to someone else.

But that same need to control has brought him here: stuck in a race he’s unlikely to win, for a job he never really wanted. And that’s because Cuomo can see everyone’s faults but his own. He doesn’t show humility. He rarely apologizes. And if you never admit mistakes, you never learn from them. You never evolve.

Okay. Let's move on from this ugliness.

The Supreme Court has found another possible "this goes too far" bit regarding Trump sending troops into our cities. At least, eventually. 

Don't worry. As a whole, the Supreme Court (6-3 much of the time) has supported Trump while expanding its power, including against the lower courts. 

Time for court reform.

ETA: Some SCOTUS addendum stuff.

A media advisory dropped regarding seating for a Trump firing case, underscoring the expectation it will be a well-watched oral argument. Press seating will be by assignment only. All cases aren't equal.

It could take years to have a bound copy of a term's opinions. Now, they start providing bound pages during the term. The final opinions for the 2024 Term are now available with the page numbers. 

Oral arguments begin again on Monday. 

Florida Executes Norman Mearle Grim

Norman Mearle Grim Jr., 65, died by lethal injection at Florida State Prison near Starke at 6:14 p.m., according to the state's Department of Corrections. He was convicted of sexual battery and first-degree murder and sentenced to death for the 1998 killing of his neighbor, Cynthia Campbell.

The crime is horrible, and his guilt is clear. It is not surprising that the jury sentenced him to death. He's white, so there does not appear to be a racism issue. 

Florida is leading the way in executions this year (15 so far, over five in Texas and Alabama), slowly chipping away at that long (and, as Breyer and Stevens said,  probably unconstitutional) backlog. 

Multiple articles do not provide much else to challenge this execution. Organizations against the death penalty flagged that he did not functionally have legal representation for years.  He ultimately waived final appeals. So no final SCOTUS order. 

An earlier brief noted:

The Appellant, Norman Grim, wants to die. That makes this an unusual capital case.  He was convicted of committing a first degree murder and sexual battery, but he refused to let his attorney present any mitigating evidence or argument at the penalty phase hearing.  

(Provides some possible mitigating evidence.) 

The execution of someone in their 60s, who has been in prison for the crime for approaching thirty years, in this case, comes off as semi-voluntary euthanasia. If that sort of thing, in a system that is a sort of arbitrary lottery, even if individual cases seem acceptable, is fine, perhaps the execution was fine.  

Four executions, as of now, are on tap for November. Florida has two of them. 

No Habeas For Chimps

An intermediate Michigan court unsurprisingly rejected a habeas appeal for chimpanzees. 

The claim was raised to obtain liberty for some chimpanzees allegedly being mistreated in a zoo. There are rules in place for the mistreatment of animals. Habeas protections provide a special level of protection against unjust detention. 

As part of the same framework, the common law treated animals as objects of property. Blackstone defined property as “that sole and despotic dominion which one man claims and exercises over the external things of the world, in total exclusion of the right of any other individual in the universe.” 

It is offensive that all animals, even chimpanzees, are treated as merely "property." Again, there are cruelty to animals laws that suggest they are at least a special species (ha) of property. This traditional despotic power is tempered somewhat in the modern day. 

I talked about this issue a few years ago when the highest court in New York rejected a similar claim as applied to an elephant. The Michigan Court of Appeals likewise worried about line-drawing for "intelligent" animals. 

Unlike the human species, which has the capacity to accept social responsibilities and legal duties, nonhuman animals cannot—neither individually nor collectively—be held legally accountable or required to fulfill obligations imposed by law.

And, noted non-humans are different in kind from women and slaves of all sexes (both are "persons" according to the Constitution). Such language can be pushed back upon. Babies are "persons" too, after all. But, generally speaking, yes, not the same, exactly.

Non-human animals, we can debate the line-drawing,* should not be treated as mere property. They have the intelligence, the ability to feel pain, and other aspects that warrant protection. Humans also have personal interests that warrant the protection of other animals. 

I don't know if a traditional habeas judicial proceeding is the best avenue to protect their interests. Yes, I would couch them in terms of "rights." But they should be protected. As with minors and others unable to adequately and independently defend their interests, special advocates can be appointed for this purpose. 

The legislature or the people, by constitutional change (some foreign nations protect animals in their organic law), would be the appropriate place to secure this protection. I hold to my earlier stance.

The current law warrants holding against the challengers. OTOH, two judges in NY did dissent. 

===

* Chimps are a somewhat easy case since higher primates are so closely related, including intellectually, to humans. Nonetheless, the earlier case involved elephants. I noted there that even birds, at least parrots, have shown special intelligence. 

Vegans and vegetarians draw their line in various places. Opponents will have a field day. One recent comment referenced jellyfish. Yeah. While you eat your veal, make a big deal about worms and such.

The line is going to be, at some point, somewhat arbitrary. Nonethless, like all "slippery slopes," some lines are reasonable. The general public does not think that cruelty to animals laws are stupid.

This remains so even if they step on bugs. 

Two Meryl Wilsner Books

I briefly touched upon these two books, but since I have had some problems lately finding books, it makes sense to say a bit more. 

They were such easy reading. I read chunks of them at a time when I have repeatedly been unable to get into or complete both fiction and nonfiction. 

A pleasure sometimes when you just don't want to think too much and get into a good book. They also had some "nutritional" value, too.

Julia Roberts was on Stephen Colbert recently. I wanted to reserve this Julia Roberts film (the title, that is) and saw this book during the NYPL library search. It's a lesbian romance.

A Chinese-American showrunner and former actress (41) has a great Jewish-American assistant (27). Among other things, she "clicks" with her, and the assistant knows how to make her happy. So, she takes her to an awards show as a "buffer." 

They have a personal moment that is taken by the tabloids as a sign that they are actually an item. It takes them the rest of the book to realize that deep down they are. 

We get alternating points of view from each woman via an all-knowing narrator. I like those sorts of things -- like multiple perspectives. 

The showrunner is a successful celebrity/professional with an "ice queen" persona with a softer side. The assistant is more likely to wear her heart on her sleeve and is more at the beginning of her (promising) career path. Good match.

The book takes its time (it spans most of a year), and the attraction develops slowly. The sex scene is at the very end. Overall, I thought it was well-paced. 

It also throws in things such as sexual harassment (it was published in 2020), feminism, bestie/sister relationships, and more. And not "too much" either. 

There is a bit of an "easter egg" in that the television show involved in this book is referenced in passing in the second book. Nice drop-in for fans. 

The author's second book continues the age difference romance angle. Cassie (one review calls her a "chapstick" type) is a college senior. She's apparently bi, though she seems to lean more same sex. Erin is her bestie's mom, who is 38, bisexual, and a doctor. 

So, there is an age difference, but smaller than you might think. The bestie is a frosh. At times, from Erin's comments, you'd think she was in her 40s at least. You are 38, Erin. That is still pretty young.  

(The couple in the third book is closer in age.) 

It is like someone said, "loved your first book but hoped for more sex." This book has sex from the first chapter, which is when both thought they were just having a one-time hook-up. They have a lot of sex after that. Cassie also spends a lot of time thinking about how MILF-y Erin is.  

The book, overall, was well-paced. I liked the characters. Cassie had more engagement with other people. Erin often was by herself when the two were not together. That was somewhat unfortunate. A bit unbalanced. We get more of a sense of Cassie's life. 

Cassie had a bad childhood (father absent, trailer park/mom has issues), but found a way to create a family. That part of the book, including her dealing with some self-assurance issues, was nice. 

The college crew drinking a lot got a bit old. And, hey, it's nice, but Cassie and Erin having sex got a bit old, too. Their relationship developed into more than hook-ups. The book covered that. 

But the sex at some point got a tad repetitive. Again, it's not like I skipped over it. I think, however, the first book had more character development material. OTOH, two women enjoying sex has its place.

I'll add a bit of a spoiler since no one reads these things. At some point, the daughter obviously finds out about the romance. We then wait for the other shoe to drop. It takes a LONG time to do so. 

And, it turns out that in effect the daughter works things out "off screen!"  I think it might have been a good idea, at least for this portion, to have a section from the daughter's point of view. I know it might have required taking out a couple of sex scenes (both books are about the same length). Be worth it.  

One theme is that Erin needs to give herself the chance to be happy doing things for herself, as compared to what others expect from her. The willingness to enjoy a relationship with her daughter's friend (they are both consenting adults!) is a sign of this. Nice moment when she tells her therapist, and the therapist just says, "Okay." 

Erin expected judgment. Being a therapist is such a niche skillset. You have to handle people with serious issues and treat them correctly. You cannot judge them TOO much, but you also need to pick your spots. Of course, some mess things up. 

A final question would be if there is anything wrong with their relationship. There really isn't. 

It would be somewhat weird if your bestie turns out to be going out with your parent. But people do have relationships that overlap in comparable ways. 

A 17-year age difference might be a problem, but there are couples with that sort of age difference. Often, the problem is that the older man/younger woman relationship has a power differential. It is often less evident in same sex relationships. 

My biggest concern is that the cover photo doesn't do the characters justice. Cassie lusts after Erin regularly. I wanted a picture of her, even fully clothed! Cassie, too, but Erin sounds sexier! 

One more thing added in her second book was a firm happy ending. There is an epilogue, taking place four years later, that has a marriage proposal. 

The first book ends with them admitting to each other they like each other, having sex, and then again going to an awards show, now firmly as a date. A blurb talks about "happily ever after," but that is not assured.  

ETA: June Lockhart, well-known classic t.v. mom and doctor in Petticoat Junction, who replaced the mom when the actress died, has died at age 100.  

We need a list of really old people (Dick Van Dyke, for instance) to keep track of people who are still alive. Then, we don't need to do the "still alive?" bit.

One article, in a curious place, referenced her "cougar" past when she was 47 and dated someone 21. The relationship lasted for over five years. 

The NYT obit references her liberal beliefs, including a comment she made about the Hollywood Blacklist. 

Her Wikipedia entry (which doesn't mention the cougar bit, but I found many hits via a search) notes she was a Roman Catholic and met the pope. OTOH, she was divorced twice. Seems a tad bit off. 

But her off-screen life—bold, unapologetic, and full of joy—adds depth to a legacy that continues to inspire.

That is from the "cougar" article. Erin would agree. 

Early Voting Begins

It is that time of the year again. Early voting has begun. Around five years ago, New York began to provide ten days of early voting. 

We also have "no excuse" vote by mail. I even convinced a voting-hesitant person to use it after years of not voting. She used an option where it is automatically sent to the voter, which is an incentive to vote as compared to those who would have to personally choose to vote each time. 

New York also provides a voting guide, though it does not cover judicial races. I find that dubious. 

I understand the value of convenience. I had to walk a significant way (not too long) the first time. Now, an early voting location is five minutes away. I will man the polls on Election Day.

(There is a race for governor going on in New Jersey. One person I follow on Bluesky is scaring me by warning us that the Democrat is not putting up enough of a fight. This is where we are at. Even NJ is not totally safe regarding not voting for the Trump Party.) 

Civic Duty 

I think in-person voting is an important symbolic act.

So, a little part of me doesn't like mail-in voting. But I understand there is a value there, especially for certain voters. It is best to have various options. 

Some argue Election Day should be a holiday to help some of these voters. It makes some sense, especially given the importance of voting overall to democracy.

But early voting helps to fill in that gap. After all, many people are already off today, Saturday, the first day of early voting. I don't think a whole day off is necessary. Early voting and many voting locations will also cut down wait times and other problems. 

Overall, we have a moral duty to vote. It is our civic duty. Some people are annoyed with that claim. 

How dare you tell me I have a duty to vote! I'm not (though it might work) talking about a penalty for refusing to vote. The state doesn't penalize being mean to mom. Is a minimal thing like voting too much for citizens to manage? Perhaps this helps explain things.

A fraction of the public voting has various problems. One problem is that it encourages very partisan representatives. Low turnout in primary elections is especially problematic when they are likely the "real" election in safe districts. AOC first won her primary with a tiny fraction of the vote. 

New York City Elections 

The two big things in NYC this year are the mayoral race and some ballot measures. 

Mayoral Race 

Zohran Mamdani is favored to win the mayoral race. He is a fitting answer to the times. Put aside the exaggerated, often bullshit criticisms. The main concern is that he is too young and inexperienced. He's more experienced than the Republican choice. 

And, as Mamdani said, Cuomo's "experience" is a big part of the problem. Plus, just what experience does he have to govern New York City well? Mamdani's campaign, including being open to respectfully listening, has shown a basic quality Cuomo lacks. 

It is a good thing that Mamdani and Cuomo (who should have simply dropped out) are not the only options. Mamdani's opposition hates that the anti-Mamdani vote is split. But do we really want Republicans and independents to only have to vote for Cuomo? It's as if Bill Clinton were the alternative to a very liberal presidential option in 1996.  

I'm obviously biased, but I am honest in saying that. My Republican city councilwoman (I have not seen a single campaign sign in the neighborhood of her competition; the Democrat deserves to lose), along with the rest of the small Republican caucus, endorsed Curtis Sliwa. If nothing else, Sliwa is not an asshole, Democratic, and likes cats. 

Sliwa is still not a serious option if you truly thought Republicans had a chance. He ran unopposed in the primary, probably because they felt Cuomo would win. He didn't. Too bad, Republicans. 

Additional candidates have filed to run on other ballot lines in the general election but have not raised significant funds or polled among leading candidates. They include Irene Estrada (Conservative Party) and Joseph Hernandez (Quality of Life Party). Walden and Adams will both still appear on the ballot, despite suspending their campaigns.

Some long-shot candidate (Walden) floated himself as an alternative for a little while. He waited too long to concede he had no shot and remained on the ballot. 

Eric Adams, who wound up endorsing Cuomo, is still on the ballot. Filling out the ballot is the first time I heard of the "quality of life" party. 

The biggest question is probably whether Mamdani receives over 50% of the vote. Cuomo concedes it is a longshot for him to win with Sliwa in the race. 

I am also interested in whether Adams or anyone else will receive a significant amount of the vote. I reckon Adams' loyalists might give him a percentage or two at least. I don't expect miracles with Mamdani.

But I think he gives us a chance to obtain some good things, including a suitably strong counter to Donald Trump. Plus, Adams is so darn crooked. 

Ballot Measures 

Mamdani has played it safe lately, including not stating his opinion on the ballot measures. 

I don't think the reason was the state measure concerning the use of wilderness land for development (more land will be put aside to compensate) or one about new maps. That is, the two I supported. A sixth measure about ending off-year elections (it is not the final step, even if it passed) is challenged here. 

The three housing measures, a "gift" of sorts from Zombie Candidate (he is still on the ballot), Mayor Eric Adams, are particularly touchy since the City Council hates them. It's logical since a major point is to reduce their role, to help speed up the process. 

Affordable housing advocates support the measures, though the League of Women Voters was agnostic about one of them. A "yes" vote seems reasonable, even a good idea. Still, I was hesitant. I decided to vote "no" out of caution. 

I am wary of direct democracy, especially regarding specialty issues and/or things that warrant the balancing of interests. This issue is a reasonable exception since it specifically challenges the City Council's role, and they are self-interested. 

Other Races 

One more thing. New York has a form of instant run-off voting for city races (district attorney is a state race). It is only available during the primary. 

There are other local races. Sometimes, you could vote third party (e.g., Working Families Party) instead of voting Democratic or Republican. For whatever reason, not every candidate runs on two lines.

It helps send a message that you support that cause. Third parties in even years also need significant vote totals to remain on the ballot. That doesn't seem like an issue in 2025. A few voters are confused and want to fill in the ovals for a candidate in both places! 

Sometimes, there is a third option, such as the "Unity" Party, which is meant to be a third "unity" type alternative. Only a few people vote for these candidates. Still, as with the chance to fill in your own candidate, it is helpful to provide other options. 

The comptroller and public advocate (who is the next in line if the mayorality is vacant) are decent Democratic sorts who will win. 

The city council races are generally not in doubt. Maybe there is some upset or two possible somewhere city-wide. I would hope that maybe my city council district (after an upset last time) would go back to being Democratic. But that candidate has basically not shown up. It is annoying.  

Judges 

Two local judicial candidates are also running unopposed in my district. This is common. 

It also underlines the stupidity of judicial races being on the ballot. Some states have more active judicial elections, and there are some ethically dubious things going on. Here, it is largely just something you fill in. 

The average voter knows little or nothing about them. Not that it often matters since (you can write in a name; I usually do), there often is no actual race. 

Final Thoughts 

I continue to find it reassuring that voters have a chance to decide on Election Day. Often, yes, things seem pro forma. The winners and losers are obvious.

Enough times to matter, however, there are actual races. That happened this year, too, especially the mayoral primary race. Either way, the act of voting, our civic duty, is a wondrous thing.

Some people argue that democracy is dead now that Trump is in power. Or, at the very least, it is in suspended animation, somewhat akin to Han Solo in that Star Wars movie. Fuck that. 

I got my sticker. And, voting still matters. It is still going on. Some might want to interfere, but we don't have to let them. Happy voting. 

Tidbits

I discuss the moral argument against Trump. Something to Talk About isn't just a good film. (Her second romance is good as well and has a lot more sex. Maybe too much!)  Yippee. Good luck, Blue Jays.

Alabama Executes Anthony Todd Boyd

According to court documents, in July 1993, Boyd and with three other men kidnapped Huguley because Huguley owed them $200 for cocaine he bought from them and never paid for.

Yes, there was burning. We are talking about an extra level of cruelty. One person testified and was released in 2009. Another received life without parole. Two were sentenced to death. 

Thirty-plus years is too long (Breyer, dissenting). 

His lawyers raise various claims, including arguing that the sentence is disproportionate (there is not enough evidence to justify the death penalty) and even an innocence claim. The jury decided 10-2 for death. 

[A few more links that show there is some concern that the prosecution was not fair.]

Boyd was executed via nitrogen gas. Another person was executed for involvement in a horrible crime via a very flawed process. Particularly, a lag time of decades that taints the whole process. 

(After not saying anything regularly, we have another dissent this month, joined by all the liberals. 

Sotomayor argues that nitrogen gas is cruel and unusual. Boyd should have been executed by firing squad. Some people, including Prof. Lain, argue the firing squad is the best method, relatively speaking.) 

If he were fully guilty, thirty years in prison was quite a serious penalty. The death penalty is gratuitous. 

ETA: The Supreme Court, without comment, rejected another final appeal. Another form of this piece, focusing on the firing squad issue, can be found here. Boyd's execution fits Sotomayor's description. 

A separate order announced times for oral argument in the upcoming Trump tariffs case.