This entry is being written in part with my new optical mouse -- just happened to see it in CVS, and it saved me a trip to Staples. It works fine so far; knock on wood. My old mouse just suddenly stopped working right. This seems to happen enough times to be noticeable: out of the blue, things happen. Usually, there is a clear reason, but it is a bit amazing.
Movie: The movie for this weekend was Dark Water, which is a remake of a Japanese movie, so it is not surprising that it reminds one of The Ring. It concerns a troubled mom (Jennifer Connelly) with a young daughter that finds going thru a divorce the least of her problems. Disparate parts of the movie are interesting and overall it is technically well done.
Nonetheless, the story is somewhat lacking, and overall I was not satisfied with the finished product. The script overall could have used some polishing. Still, the performances are very good with each character just a tad bit odd ... the teacher is not, but it is odd who plays her.
Book: Floyd Abrams, who represents Judith Miller, recently wrote a book (Speaking Freely) concerning his career as a press advocate. It is not really satisfying, except as a "speaking to the converted" sort of effort. The accounts (from the Pentagon Papers onward) do not really tell us anything new, and Abrams would have done better to include a few more complicated cases.
Putting aside the campaign finance case, he eventually won each one, and the facts are pretty blatantly slanted in one direction. Libel suits alone suggest the nuance involved here, but the three he included did not have much. Abrams ended with an all to brief look at other nation's path in the free expression arena (for one thing, they protect sources, but also sometimes a lot less than we do as well) as well as a particular media critic. More of that would have been helpful.
For instance, take the campaign finance case. I join him in believing the McCain/Feingold legislation was just too blatantly overbroad, resulting in a clearly unconstitutional statute. The problem with the legislation, however, was a bit complicated because registered PACs can do things the covered groups could not, including political ads that make some comment about those running for office. The idea that a corporation, including a non-profit, cannot say something within sixty days of an election should be obviously unconstitutional. Nonetheless, the PAC issue complicates things, but Abrams only brings it up in large part as an extended aside ... after railing against the legislation generally. This is kind of cheating.
By the way, it was striking to see Judith Miller as part of a debate on protecting sources that C-SPAN aired over the weekend (it was taped last November). The "anti" side had a former Bush official (I was laughing so hard at some of her comments that someone wondered what was so funny ... I noted that she probably wouldn't think it was funny) and someone who later was on C-SPAN criticizing the CIA as covering something up (basically saying no crime was committed, so the press was wrongly targeted).
The "pro" side basically had to avoid an important issue when referencing Miller/Michael Cooper: all this talk of the press needing immunity to inform the public and not become tools of the government is crap to the degree they (especially Miller) did just the opposite.
But, hey, I still support press immunity laws (at least, to some degree). It's just a complicated thing as so many things are. Speaking Freely, however, wasn't quite that. And, given the overall genius of the First Amendment is its complexity, this is not only ironic, but a basic flaw.