SCOTUS Watch

There are no scheduled order lists, argument days, or opinion days until February 8th, when there is a special Thursday oral argument regarding Colorado keeping Trump off the ballot. Briefing continues.

On the same day the Supreme Court released its last Order List on Monday, it also released two miscellaneous orders. The Order List is concerned with specific things they are considering. Miscellaneous orders deal with various things, including pending issues not addressed separately.  

Border Issues 

Texas has clashed with the federal government regarding the border in various respects. This includes putting up buoys and razor wire as their own personal border security. 

The problem here is when this clashes with the federal government. The U.S. Constitution gives the federal government, even if certain states and the Speaker of the House disagree, authority to regulate the border. 

Art. I, sec. 10 grants an exception when a state is invaded. In the case of imminent attacks, a state need not just let invaders come in without a response. 

But, this is only when there is no ability of the federal government to step in. This is not the case now. Texas disagrees with its response. That is a policy question left to the federal government. 

The Supreme Court, by an unexplained by either side 5-4 (Thomas, Alito, Gorsuch, and Kavanaugh) vote, lifted a lower court injunction that denied federal border personnel to cut razor wire put up by the state. The injunction provided a limited exception for emergencies. The issue now will be up for argument by the infamous Fifth Circuit. 

It is troubling it took weeks for the Supreme Court to do that. The justices also should have briefly explained themselves, especially those who dissented in what appears to be a rather easy case. The close vote also suggests behind-the-scenes jostling. 

Districting 

Amy Howe summarized the other order this way:

The Supreme Court on Monday declined to intervene in a battle over race and redistricting in Michigan. In a brief unsigned order, the justices denied a request by the state’s independent redistricting commission to put on hold a lower court’s ruling that requires it to redraw state legislative maps for the Detroit area because the original maps relied too heavily on race.

"A brief unsigned order" again suggests is is more substantive than it is. This is the order:

The application for stay presented to Justice Kavanaugh and by him referred to the Court is denied. 

My hobby horse to have SCOTUS journalists stop using "a brief unsigned order" is all it did was deny something continues. 

Anyway, this is just one of many battles over districting, which are very important not only to combat discrimination but also because what lines are drawn can determine who is chosen and who wins. 

Personnel News 

We also have a press release:

Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., today announced the appointment of Judge Robert J. Conrad, Jr., as the Director of the Administrative Office of the U.S. Courts, effective March 1, 2024. He will succeed Judge Roslynn R. Mauskopf who has served as Director since February 1, 2021, and who will retire from the Federal Judiciary on January 31, 2024. The Chief Justice also announced that Deputy Director Lee Ann Bennett will serve as Acting Director of the Administrative Office for the month of February.

Robert Conrad was a Bush43 appointee. Nonetheless, he appears to have had bipartisan respect, including an appointment during the Clinton Administration. 

Death Penalty

As discussed here, the upcoming Richard Glossip case is tricky. Since the state is not challenging his claim (see the discussion), someone needs to be appointed to argue that side. An order was dropped doing just that. 

Talking Oklahoma, FFRF Radio flagged an NYT piece about Philip Hancock (the governor refused to follow a 3-2 suggestion to commute his sentence) choosing a humanist chaplain to be there for his execution. 

Good in-depth discussion, including how both traveled from Christianity to non-belief in God. The Supreme Court had various struggles with applying the rules for end-of-life chaplains. 

It is fitting to allow them in an evenhanded way. Life event rituals are an important religious practice. 

Opinion Announcements 

As we wait for the Supreme Court to do something else, Oyez.com has dropped more opinion announcements from last term. 

These are helpful, especially to provide justices an outlet to dissent now and then. If the justices feel it useful, they should put them on the website for those unable to be there to listen. 

This includes multiple long dissents from the bench from Justice Sotomayor (wedding website and affirmative action). Thomas also dropped a concurring opinion announcement in that case. We also have Kagan's dissent in the student debt case. 

I am not aware of any conservative dissents from the bench last term. 

Kenneth Smith Redux

Try, Try Again? 

The latest Order List brought a grant regarding the ever-continuing problems of executing Richard Glossip.

The other thing they are handling (a stay request submitted last week) involves the first scheduled execution for 2024. Kenneth Smith is a retry. I talked about the first attempt in November 2022 here. I won't go over all his details. But, this one has been going on for over thirty years. 

The execution is already questionable because an 11-1 jury vote for life was overridden (as allowed at the time) by the judge. Nonetheless, the Supreme Court has not shown any indication they find this constitutionally problematic. 

The seminal issue here is the use of nitrogen gas (after it has been allowed by legislation for approaching a decade in one or more states). After Alabama botched trying to execute him with lethal chemicals (they now have more time to carry out a death warrant, to help deal with tardy SCOTUS final review), it agreed not to use that method.

So, he would be the first inmate to be executed by nitrogen gas. Technically, the state has the power to execute him some other way, though generally needs his permission. 

A challenge to lethal injection under the Supreme Court's precedents had to include Kenneth Smith showing there was an alternative available. He offered nitrogen gas. This would be "consent" for that purpose. So I would suppose. 

There was some argument (feels familiar) that nitrogen gas was a solution to the cruel and unusual methods concern. Nonetheless (ditto), especially since this was never used, doubts are now raised (Prof. Lain) about the method.

The Glossip opinion (2015) was but one example of the Supreme Court (even with Kennedy) not being sympathetic about challenging the method of execution. (A few cases upheld allowing people to try to challenge it.) The Supreme Court has never blocked an execution on that grounds. 

Methods covered: firing squad, electrocution, cyanide gas, hanging, and lethal injection. They either upheld them or found a means to avoid deciding. So, a direct challenge was iffy here. But, the death bar is nothing if flexible.

Alabama had trouble executing people with lethal injection. Shades of Oklahoma (now playing catch-up), they did a review. They expanded the time (thirty hours) to carry out a death warrant. The Supreme Court sometimes leaves things to the last minute. 

It is unclear, however, how much the state did to ensure that executions would go on correctly. An unused novel method does not lead to much assurance. Kenneth Smith has a specific concern since they already botched the first attempt. It wasn't the first time they botched things too.

(This is not just a blanket rejection of the death penalty. A state like Texas manages to avoid as many problems.)  

The Supreme Court (5-4 with Frankfurter distraught but going with judicial restraint) allowed a second attempt back in the 1940s. But, this case (putting aside the evolving standards of decency) is arguably worse. The botch was not a one-off. [See here.]

Should the state get to "try, try again" in this case? 

SCOTUS Decides

There were two steps. First, the Supreme Court (without comment from anyone) denied the challenge regarding the unconstitutionality of Alabama trying to execute a second time given the overall facts. I think this warranted at least some comment but there you go.

The second challenge focused on the novel use of nitrogen gas without proper safeguards. The majority again anonymously without comment rejected this request. Nonetheless, the liberals in dissents by Sotomayor (alone) and Kagan (with Jackson) did explain themselves.

Sotomayor's dissent is a passionate one on the continuing horrors and tragic nature of the situation. She cited the failed attempt to execute him. The other case would have addressed the special case of a need to try again. ("It was Alabama’s third failed execution in a row in five months.")

Kagan provides a briefer dissent arguing the novelty of the situation as applied to Smith (including his personal concern about vomiting, which as Sotomayor's dissent notes is related to his PTSD arising from the first failed attempt) warrants a stay and review. 

The End

The NYT provided a useful summary of the people involved in the contract killing ($3000, which was split three ways):

Mr. Sennett killed himself shortly after the murder of his wife.

[A link notes: "Charles Sennett was a minister in financial trouble and weary of his marriage to his recently insured wife."]

One of the other men involved in the murder, John Forrest Parker, was executed by lethal injection in 2010, and another, Billy Gray Williams, was sentenced to life in prison and died behind bars in 2020.

Williams subcontracted the murder to Parker (the jury's life sentence also overruled) and Smith. Smith was executed. A $1000 each for a life isn't much even thirty-five years ago.

It does provide a footnote in capital punishment history. The first execution by nitrogen gas. Was it more humane? Hard to say. One witness:

Witnesses saw Smith struggle as the gas began flowing into the mask that covered his entire face. He began writhing and thrashing between two and four minutes and was followed by around five minutes of heavy breathing.

I don't think the process was due. The state repeatedly had problems executing people. They were unable to execute Kenneth Smith. They decided to try again, agreeing to use a new, untried method. The details of the protocol were unclear. To quote Justice Blackmun, they continue to tinker with the machinery of death.

It continues to leave a lot to be desired. 

ETA: During the oral argument for Glossip v. Gross, Justice Alito cited legal euthanasia laws as an example of how it was possible to kill people humanely. 

The problem is that executions are not the same thing as voluntary euthanasia. Also, the procedures used are different:

Nitschke said the right-to-die movement long ago moved away from using masks such as the one in Alabama, instead favoring methods such as hoods, specially designed bags, and pods. Another key difference, he stressed, is that people are calm and cooperative in their assisted suicide, while a prisoner is anxiously awaiting an execution against his will.

Executions are also not like euthansizing pets. Overall, it is not euthanasia. 

Barbie

The Oscar nominations have dropped. Years ago, I watched and kept track of the Academy Awards. Not so much now. I checked and am not too interested in the leading films.

Barbie is one of the top films that received a somewhat ridiculous amount of anticipation and attention. The other (on reserve) involves a biopic of someone leading the creation of the nuclear bomb. The two were like the two "must-see" films. Few had anything bad to say.

I am not here to dis the film. The Academy Awards nominators did that by not nominating the director or Margot Robbie (who played the lead Barbie, "stereotypical Barbie"). America Ferrera (not a Barbie) received a Best Supporting Actress nomination. "Ken" (Ryan Gosling) also received a Best Supporting Actor nomination. 

[Greta Gerwig, of course, is a big part of why the film was nominated for Best Picture. She also was nominated (with her husband) for Best Adapted Screenplay. It also has awards for production design, costume, and song.]

It is seen as a bit much that Barbie did not get a nod but Ken did. This is fair to a point. But, a woman did get a nod too. The message is that Barbie dolls are objects of others. These "others" in a fashion received their due here. 

[ETA: Upon further thought, I think the argument leaves somewhat to be desired as to Margot Robbie. 

Ryan Gosling received a supporting nomination. A woman also did for this film. So, should Robbie (since "Ken" did) replace another Best Actress nomination? I can see how a close split resulted in someone else getting in there. It is not a sexist plot. 

This isn't the first time the director of a top Best Film was not nominated. Still, directing was an important part of making this film. 

Again, you would have to decide if someone else should be knocked off. She also received a writing nod, if shared. Was this a possible tie-breaker? Who knows.]

The film did a great job giving us a look at Barbie-Land and an imaginary look at Mattel HQ. It should get some sort of technical awards for this magic of the movies accomplishment. And, yes, ultimately, the director should be honored for the overall accomplishment.  

I liked the film as a whole. A good judge of this is that I was able to watch it straight through. I have issues with watching films straight through these days. It might be a result of the Internet or whatever. The acting was good, including America Ferrera, a mom who is actually the cause of Barbie's existential crisis. 

She added to the whole wonderland feel. The overall plot is good. It is not extraordinary. That is fine. It just is that some of the talk makes it sound like this is a classic film. I don't think so. It's a good film. It has movie magic. It just is not AMAZING as some make it out to be. 

Don't say I am not the audience. I liked AF's traveling pants films. I can relate to "women's" pictures (and it is appropriate things begin when the mom has issues; in a fashion, it's like Mamma Mia! for speaking to adults).

A charm of this film is creating a Barbie universe (including an all-women Supreme Court, which many girls playing with Barbie dolls won't think about ... some will!). It is also about the overall message. The director repeatedly has made films with strong women characters. 

Barbie suddenly is depressed (that's weird!) and has to find the "girl" who played with her to find out what is happening. Ken (who has his own crisis when he realizes his existence is all about Barbie, not himself) goes along. He is amazed at how men control everything. He goes back and Barbie-land is controlled by men. 

Until Barbie and company save the day. Then, Stereotypical Barbie decides she needs to be human. She becomes Barbara Handler. The film ends with her going for her first gynecological appointment! Talk about metaphors. 

Still, women can play Barbie. Or watch this film.

A Beginning's Guide to Japanese Haiku is the source of this quote. Haiku is short Japanese poetry with a naturalistic focus. It was interesting to read about it. Still, for me personally, a few short verses will do it. A book fill of them with short biographies of the poets was a tad tedious. 

Still glad I skimmed it. 

SCOTUS Watch

Chevron Deference 

The Supreme Court had two oral arguments on Chevron deference. The other argument involved the Takings Clause.

[There were two arguments since Justice Jackson was recused in one case. This led them to artificially split the arguments though the questions presented for argument are basically the same.

The second argument had an also ran feel, except to have Paul Clement -- conservative advocate extraordinaire -- rant a lot.]

Amy Howe at SCOTUS, usually less excitable than certain liberal court watchers, suggested the oral argument is a red flag. They are likely to "discard Chevron" or at least significantly water it down. 

The Supreme Court in recent years has been more likely to not accept agency interpretation of statutes. The original case noted that agencies should be given the benefit of the doubt if the law is "ambiguous." The agency should not clearly ignore the law. When that occurs is quite debatable. The rules also change if constitutional rights are threatened. Now we have a made-up "major questions doctrine" rule. 

Let us say -- as one liberal commentator whose pieces seem to flag every other case as a big threat suggests might happen -- the Court decides this case on an off-ramp argument. I am unsure how much this limits court discretion. The federal government also does not grant the case is "non-ambiguous" against them. 

And, probably with language that can be applied broadly (if judges are inclined), the opinion can provide courts broad discretion to find fault with federal regulations. Chris Geidner was more upset than usual regarding the bullshit arguments made by the opponents. 

The argument put forth judges as above-the-fray truthtellers. That sentiment is a concern as much as overturning Chevron and replacing it with some other test that claims at least to some degree to trust agency review. The game also might be broader, as the usually on the money Prof. Dorf suggests (delegation).  

The next oral argument is the Trump insurrection case. Briefing taking place. 

Orders 

The justices met for their private conference on Friday (1/19). They will not have one again until February 16th. 

There were no separate orders between the two Order Lists (last Tuesday and today). The big news (Gorsuch not involved; doesn't say why not being  Kagan/Jackson, but he was on the 10th Circuit) is that they finally (after putting it off for a long time) took Richard Glossip's case for oral argument. They just can't admit his case is so screwed up that it is just obvious that he shouldn't be executed.  

Upcoming

Their mid-winter break will be interrupted by the insurrection case. But, there is no conference scheduled for the next day. They, of course, can meet off-schedule. We might also have additional miscellaneous orders. 

We still only have one opinion (basically a short punt) for this term. There are some big issues to decide but there are also other opinions that should be quick enough. 

There is also an execution scheduled this week. 

Roe v. Wade 

Roe v. Wade was decided 7-2 on January 22, 1973. It did not make fifty. A corrupt-packed Court, got that way because Trump Republicans, overturned it in a corrupt way (more details coming out later). Perhaps, it will long term be our Kansas-Nebraska Act moment. That's a good suggestion. 

NFL Division Round

First off, some general football news. I appreciate that the smart move was taken regarding the Las Vegas Raiders. Antonio Pierce is the permanent head coach. Meanwhile, the hoodie appears to be the next Falcons HC. 

Texans v. Ravens 

Saturday was for the #1 seeds. 

The Texans struggled in the first half versus the Ravens with multiple false start penalties. Their defense did hold and a special team (punt return) score made it 10-10. 

They did not make a long field goal near the end of the half. This was a bad sign. They didn't score again. The Ravens scored once in the third. The Texans defense finally lost it in the 4th Quarter, with 17 unanswered points. 

The celebrated Ravens defense held Houston to three points (seven on that special team play). Not a way to win. The end result is not too surprising though it's unfortunate that the Texans could not make more of a game of it.  

(Setting up a big championship game no matter who won the next night. Kansas City or the Bills vs. the Ravens.)  

Packers v. 49ers

The Packers looked great against Dallas (going back to their playoff-losing ways; their head coach will get another year, but no extension yet). But, the 49ers were another affair. They were great except for a mid-season losing streak.  

They hung on because of Packers f-ing blew it. The Packers dominated possession early but it took a missed FG late in the first half to make it only 7-6 SF. This included multiple red zone Packers drives, including one stopped (maybe) on 4th and short. The announcers were all "got to go for it" (in the rain) but maybe an FG would have been the move. 

Later, it was the Packers who missed a key field goal. It turned out to be the difference with a 24-21 losing score. We have another one-sided fourth quarter, with SF having all the ten points. Anyway, the Packers should have won this game but great teams have some "escapes" like this. 

(If the Packers did win, they had a real shot to win one more game, but well, they didn't. Annoying.) 

Bucs v. Lions

This is basically the second game where the upsets had a harder task. The Bucs did not quite upset the Eagles but in some other year, the Eagles should have been the better team. The result is another mismatch, at least on paper. The Bucs were 9-8. Still, they had their moments, and the Lions are not the Ravens. There was a chance.  

Tampa didn't score much early but it was still only 10-3 (Lions) late in the First Half. This allowed Tampa to tie things up with a quick late drive. The teams traded scores in the third. Lions went ahead in the fourth. We are getting a theme here: Fourth Quarter dominance. 

Down two scores with under six minutes left, Tampa was 4th and long deep in their own end. They get the first down to have a bit of life. They score but (down by eight) fail the two-point pass. Just kick the damn XP.  

(ETA: There are supposed to be analytics that says this was the best move. Fine. 

I still question it. The result was that they made it harder on themselves. Plus, you have to factor in that it is not like you lack any shot in OT, especially if you win the toss. 

But, what do I know? I saw someone online note Tampa had low scoring in goal-to-go situations. They aren't average in the two-point conversions anyway. 

Worry about tying before winning, I say. Also, Detroit flubbed the timing of the kneeldowns, but Tampa decided to give up a final shot anyhow. Maybe take back that "less aggravating." Also, this sort of bad clock management versus an elite team in dangerous. Watch out against SF.)  

Oh well. Interception in the last drive made the whole thing a "moo point" as Joey from Friends would say. Another expected ending, more respectable than the Texans, and somewhat less aggravating than the Packers. Sigh. 

Chiefs v. Bills

This was the game that promised to be an evenly-matched affair. We saw this game already. It's one of those annual type match-ups. It followed the expected theme. 

I am unsure how much the Bills being at home mattered. In fact, the Bills missed a potential game-tying 44-yard field goal with under two minutes to play. A different way to blow it late. 27-24, Kansas City. 

I don't really care about the Ravens or the Chiefs. I am supportive of the Lions finally getting in. SF winning would be okay. But, I don't care about a Super Bowl with the other two teams. I'm tired of them. 

This weekend's theme was "Blowing it on a big stage." 

On Voting

A Substack about voting caught my eye. I think it is too one-sided. 

Voting is always and only about enacting certain policies. No candidate is going to be your friend, counselor, avatar, or defender. They enact and administer laws and policies.

I don't think so. The overall point ("No one will agree with everything you want" etc.) is fine. If something is mostly true, it's appreciated. 

Still. This is a somewhat simplistic account. There are people in public life, especially on the local level, who will do those things. Are we saying that, for instance, no one in public life is going to be the "defender" of trans people? 

No one will have the staff and constituent services to help specific people? Are they not partially about personality, not pure policy?

One of my principles is to be wary of absolutes. This does not mean good rules of thumb are not common. I am somewhat tired of people who go all "let's press that" to find some sort of exceptions to make things complicated. This is especially so when a comment online is parsed as if the person wrote a carefully crafted brief. Things are messy.

This is the primary season. The stakes are higher in November. My current House representative bothers me in various respects. For instance, he is just too knee-jerk pro-Israel. But, he "mostly" agrees with me on what matters given the alternative. I also doubt he will have a primary opponent, anyway, though I hope he does.

The primary season is a chance for you to look at the candidates and see more than "enacting certain policies." Yes, there is a certain minimum you have to seek out. Again, the substack provides a good rule of thumb. 

But, not every electoral choice is going to turn on that. Personalities matter, including when choosing who will be the ultimate nominee.

(There also will be limited cases where the candidate is someone you will find very hard to vote for. When the stakes are Biden or Trump, even if you are a left-wing type, you vote for sanity. A vote for the Alabama legislature might not have such high stakes.)  

I saw a comment elsewhere that people should not be "fans" of politicians. The word "fan" is broad enough that a person can be a fan of a politician. The politician can be such a good politician (and person) that being a fan is okay. Fandom is not the same as worshiping a sports figure or something. This is a case of an open-ended word being used too narrowly.

Nonetheless, Substack is correct if the lesson is that voting should not be used as an emotional act of preference. Voters do that. Voters are human. We should recognize the human aspect of our institutions. But, politicians are also not just "policy machines." They are individuals.

That factors in our voting. It isn't always bad. 

ETA: DeSantis suspended his presidential campaign and endorsed Trump. I guess he can focus more on making Florida more fascist. 

Some people had fun ridiculing how lousy his campaign was as well as people trying to make him the alternative to Trump. At some point, that didn't do much for me, especially as Florida (third most populous state) continues to be so lousy.  

To the extent you actually want to at least pretend you are not all in for Trump, Nikki Haley was the person to support. She is far from ideal, including her weathervane ways (which on another level is politically useful), but there is more there to work with. 

Heck, she even has foreign policy experience as the U.N. representative.  She also has some personality. Anyway, I continue to be disgusted that Trump is so readily accepted as the candidate. "Well, yeah, my party's standard bearer is Ted Bundy, but JOE BIDEN!!!!"  Uh yeah. Come on. 

Sophie and the Rising Sun

Every Saturday, I check to see what is on television. 

There are various things to check. What will be the history lecture on C-SPAN? What will be the Hallmark Channel film at 8 P.M? What will be the comedy binge on Catchy TV? Also, what will be the two films (classic and recent indie) on PBS Channel 13?

The first film was not really a classic film except if you are looking for one from circa 1990. The Addams Family is a pleasant enough film and all. Still, the idea is to link up B&W-type films (or maybe from the 1950s or 1960s) with modern independents When they include a more recent film, feels like a cheat. 

Anyway, the second film (I caught it after that annoying Packers game) was based on a novel, Sophie and the Rising Sun. It is well made with an excellent cast, including old pros like Diane Ladd in supporting roles. It also adds a nice touch by having Diane Ladd's racist character (not atypical in South Carolina, circa 1941) take care of a seriously injured son, played by someone who was injured in the Middle East. 

The NYT review complimented the acting and cinematography while criticizing its "tepid" storyline. Yes. I do not know if I would use that adjective but there was a sense of predictability in all of this. I do think the slow, deliberate pace as a whole worked well. 

A seriously injured Asian man pops up. A widow accepts the responsibility of letting him staying her cabin. Her younger neighbor (middle-aged), an independent collector of crabs, slowly falls in love.  He's actually Japanese. This is 1941. So, you know, things will get problematic here.  Meanwhile, the widow has a new housekeeper (mostly silent but oh would you like to hear her interior monologues), who has her own story.

There are a lot of interesting things here, including some strong women characters. There is enough there for multiple films, probably, and you are left wanting to learn some more about them. The widow, for instance, was a nurse in World War I. The racist woman also is intriguing, including talk of a problematic father. The housekeeper also has stories to tell. 

The Chinaman (as people assume)/Japanese love interest also has stories to tell, including back home in California. A first-generation Japanese-American, he is firm in insisting on his status as an American. OTOH, his character is stereotypical, not given much of a chance to have much agency. Perhaps, this is somewhat acceptable, since this is a story about the women. Still, the whole plot has a predictable feel without enough surprise.

Oh well. Films, like life, are regularly flawed. I enjoyed the film as a whole since it had enough going for it to be an enjoyable late-night watch. Checking, Amazon reviews of the source novel included some annoyance that the book ended without sewing up loose ends. 

I was waiting for the tragic ending of the film. The couple does manage to get away together (the housekeeper helps, including in a dangerous way; she might be leaving soon). Then, the last shot has them together (apparently happy) in an internment camp! 

It is so quick that some might miss it, but that is clearly a camp. I actually am not aware of Japanese being required to go into camps on the East Coast. Some who lived in Latin America were put in camps. Checking, at least some people were confined on the East Coast, but they were not expelled by federal order. It's possible some fell between the cracks. Also, perhaps, after being beaten up, they felt it was the safest place. 

==

The Psycho Boys by Beverly Driver Eddy is a short (the main book is around 160 pages) interesting account of men chosen for propaganda work because of their language skills. The book has a lot of pictures and personal accounts. There was a brief account of the story told in a book that the author behind Gidget (love those connections) helped write. 

They served as interrogators, "hog callers" (loudspeakers used to appeal to Germans to surrender), radio work, and newspapers/other propaganda. For instance, surrender bulletins were written up and put in artillery shells to be shot over to the enemy.  How big were these shells? The paper couldn't be THAT tiny! A lot of interesting details.

The interrogators were also involved in the liberation of concentration camps. The book includes some accounts here and it's hard even reading them. Erik Loomis, historian, over at the blog he writes for dropped one of his Old Man shaking a fist at cloud comments about not liking true crime. It wallows in people's misery. But, what does history do? 

The word "Holocaust" has an interesting backstory. While reading about events that took place during the times of the Hebrew Scriptures, you might see the word "holocaust." It is a word for a type of burnt offering. The connection here is apparent if somewhat ironic. The Germans are sacrificing the Jews but the event is far from a godly affair.  

TV/Film/Book

Television 

The Academy Awards nominations are coming soon. I was a loyal watcher for a while. I was a regular moviegoer and watched many of the films. Over time, I watched fewer films and stopped watching. I know little about most of the nominations these days, except by reputation (at times). 

I never was a regular watcher of other award shows. Still, it was nice that Christiana Applegate (born a few weeks after me) received a large round of applause when she showed up (with a cane, per her MS) to present the first Emmy. I know her as Kelly Bundy, Amy Green (two great guest appearances on Friends), and various films (including Anchorman). She also now and then showed up on Twitter. 

Film 

Over the weekend, I caught Fourteen Hours on one of the classic movie channels (this one with commercials). It is a good B picture with various familiar faces (including Grace Kelly in an early role). The voice of a gruff, but fair/competent police deputy was familiar. He played Ben Franklin in the film version of 1776. It involves a person on a ledge.

(One almost amusing aspect is the somewhat heavy-handed psychoanalyzing of a therapist on hand.) 

Queen of Glory is a contemporary independent film. I was flicking through the channels and caught that one too. It's under eighty minutes long and is a bit undernourished in certain respects. For instance, the ending seems a bit tacked on, needing a bit more connective tissue. Also, her relationship with a married guy (white) and her plans to follow him to Ohio seem dubious. Why would a smart woman like her do something like that? 

Still, overall, it is a well-acted snapshot of a Ghanaian-American woman dealing with the death of her mother and other issues in the midst of getting her doctorate. It provides an interesting look at another subculture with good use of home video. She inherits a religious bookstore in the Allerton section of the Bronx, making it somewhat local to yours truly. 

==

Meanwhile, I have been tired of the latter films in the Blondie film series shows on a classic channel each Saturday. 

I referenced some films here. My limited reference of late is thus explained. I saw a bit of the next one. Then, there is one left. 

The film today is notable to show how "Baby Dumpling" now has teenage boy problems. I continue to think Blondie (Penny Singleton) is underused (for instance, it was great when she had a chance to sing). Bumstead's bumbling, even when it's something simple, gets tiresome. 

Books 

Longstreet: The Confederate General Who Defied the South by Elizabeth Varon is overall a good book. I was somewhat tired of hearing him whine for the nth time that he was right about certain military strategies (neither side was totally right). Still, it was about the right length at somewhat over three hundred pages long, dealing with his long life. 

(Three phases. Antebellum and Civil War. His decade in Louisiana. And, then his final thirty years in Georgia.)  

It is a fascinating look at someone who fought for the Confederacy and later became a Republican until he died. He was a state militia leader of black troops in Louisiana. At the end of his life, he was a railroad commissioner for President McKinley. He wasn't quite John Marshall Harlan-level pro-civil rights, but he supported Republican policy overall all the same. The book suggests he at times hesitated some but it really is not to be expected someone like him would totally change his tune. 

He was not the only leading Confederate to become a Republican (John Mosby is one example) but he surely was the most elite (Longstreet was nicknamed "Number Three" after Lee and Davis). Longstreet ("Old Pete") argued that when he surrendered, the quid pro quo of the surrender terms was that he accepted the victors' policies. His young second wife herself had a change of heart in the 20th Century, supporting civil rights. 

It would be interesting if there was a book that talked about other Confederate military people who became Republicans. 

---

Meanwhile, The Psycho Boys by Beverley Driver Eddy is a short account of a largely unknown tool to win World War II. 

A collection of men prized for their language skills served a range of roles, including interviewing prisoners, encouraging surrender, doing radio and media work, and later helping judge if people were properly de-Nazified. The book covers training, travel to the field, the push toward Germany, liberating the concentration camps, and after the war.  

A lot of pictures and personal accounts enrich the volume.  

==

One more thing: The continual attempt to find a means to prosecute Alec Baldwin for his part in what looks like a horrible accident in 2021 from my vantage point appears very misguided. A failure of an earlier attempt should have been a warning. 

Maybe, the person actually behind mistakenly putting real-life ammo in the prop gun is somehow criminally liable. It is hard to understand how Alec Baldwin was supposed to know, especially clearly enough to convict him of involuntary manslaughter. 

Tim Scott Shows His True Colors

Senator Tim Scott of South Carolina is expected to endorse Donald J. Trump at a rally in New Hampshire’s capital, Concord, on Friday night, a blow to Nikki Haley, who as South Carolina’s governor appointed Mr. Scott to the Senate.

I started this blog amid the Bush43 Administration. I was strongly against him. I supported filibustering judicial nominations (partially since a fairly apportioned Senate would have been Democrat and I considered Bush a minority president without the usual mandate). I question that now, especially since at the end of the day, what good did it do? 

I thought the Administration went too far, not wanting to compromise, even when the result would have been a win for a specific policy goal. I was quite negative about Republicans supporting him. And so on. 

My level of disdain, however, has increased significantly. Trump is the waterboarding form of presidential options (some line in the sand of principle). I think you have to oppose him. If you do not, you simply are not credible. You should not be taken as credible. You are promoting political evil.*

This endorsement -- after the guy won 51% (true his debate surrogate, VR, would push that close to 60%) of the small fraction of the Iowa caucusgoers showing up. This is not exactly a "the people have spoken, let's end this" level of acceptance. I know Ted Cruz thinks so, but you know, he's a troll.

It was Haley who appointed Scott to the Senate in 2012 while serving as governor of the Palmetto state.

Bit of additional "f-u" there, huh? Tim Scott promotes himself as a Christian, if not quite as much as Mike Pence. He wants to endorse someone who is continuing to go after someone a jury found sexually abused and defamed a woman? It's disgusting. 

What is this big threat to the United States that requires him -- NOW -- to support Donald Trump? President Joe Biden, who might have to deal with his hands tied by a Republican Senate (nominees are a big concern)? Oh no! It's a question of doing it now that underlines the point. 

Tim Scott is underlining he is ALL IN for Trump. It is not like Nikki Haley is likely to win New Hampshire. Let the primary system play out. The predictions are that she might do somewhat okay (low bar) there but horrible in her home state. But, he can't just play the "he's the nominee" card ("Well, Ted Bundy's the nominee, what can I do?") here. 

We should shun people who support insurrection promoting racist sex offenders for office. It is even more clearly appropriate when they go out of their way to do so. 

An op-ed challenged Democrats for not sticking up to a smeared judicial nominee. Without doing a deep dive, he has a point. Smear jobs should be firmly opposed in most cases unless there is a compelling case that the situation can be touchy. 

I do not like the idea that "no Republican is respectable" or the like. I very well understand it at this point. But, some do now and then provide some reason to not want to spit when their names are mentioned. Tim Scott is not one of these people. 

He's a fucking asshole. He true colors are already apparent. He decided to really show them. 

===

* I am somewhat wary of the term "evil" because it has a religious otherworldly feel. I do not believe in actual angels or demons. The term can lead to dehumanization. Nonetheless, it has a reasonable meaning as something that violates basic decency. 

I wish to use it sparingly.

Trump at this point is a political evil. The leadership of Israel now crossed that line. The leadership of Hamas who sacrificed the people whose name they supposedly act in also did. A blatant racist or someone who promotes harm to LBTQ people also at some point crosses that line. 

If "evil" is not appropriate, blatantly violating the boundary of acceptable politics or some other expression can be used.