First, let's summarize my sentiments from the last post. Under current judicial doctrine, warrantless collection of phone numbers is in some sense (this matter was not directly addressed) (wrongly) deemed constitutional. Statutory law -- though the experts are gnashing their teeth at the complexity of the matter (but since there is more than one potential problem, surely there is at least one breach, if not more) -- is another story. Finally, overall, politically we should be against this sort of thing. The "no quarter" position of the President underlines the point. Let's not get bogged down in legalisms -- such things always has wiggle room, though ultimately they will try to go with a broader argument. Such is their wont. Let's hoist them on their own petard.
Second, though it might not be over, the last six games of the Mets are cursed. After winning two vs the Braves in somewhat surprising fashion, fans expected a loss on Sunday from Lima. But, bad calls (balk/non-play near the plate) tainted things -- you felt cheated, even though the game was destined to be a loss anyway. Quirky events led to a loss vs. the Phillies (three or four plays had to go their way for them to ruin a late inning comeback). Blowout Mets win. [Phillies meanwhile was on a winning streak -- ultimately cutting the Mets lead to 2 ... for now.]
Then, a Phillies' outfield played martyr (broken nose) to rob the Mets of three runs, leading to the first five inning game (2-0, Phillies) the Mets had to deal with since 1993. And, then two close calls (ball/safe at third) prevented Lima from getting out of the Fifth up 3-1 ... he was left in at least one batter too long (4-3), and then three more runs were given up before the final out was made. Enough already -- once or twice, these are excuses. After awhile, it's at best pretty bad luck.
Finally, a heartwarming story led me to consider a philosophical question. A local political figure stepped down from a race to donate a kidney to his teen daughter -- the mom gave one years before, but it was bust a few years before the doctors hoped. The problem was present at birth -- in effect, the parents passed it to their daughter.
A case can be made that they are morally obligated to give her a kidney, even outside of the fact that she is their child. But, legally, surely not. Legally, even if they knew that they had a recessive gene that was likely to lead to the problem, bodily autonomy is supreme. The right to privacy, including with abortion connotations, clearly follows. The issue was obviously not raised in the local story (NY Daily News), but it implicitly underlines such principles.
By the way, I'm reading a good book by Stephen Kinzer concerning how the United States was responsible for the "Overthrow" of various governments -- with often tragic results -- over the last century. This includes the government of Hawaii -- involving a queen who felt her predecessor's transfer of the rights to Pearl Harbor was a "day of infamy." Kinzer leaves the irony to the reader. It is a depressing read, fourteen chapters of sadly quite "American" behavior that in various cases is still defended or (when unpleasant -- see the Philippines atrocities after 1898) conveniently forgotten. How will the current situation (addressed) be treated down the road?
I guess, if the sports related stress does not get me before my time, I will find out eventually. After all, I recall the "coup" of Gorbachev, the First Gulf War, and so forth, now deemed almost ancient history. Will current events, a decade or so later, be equally deemed so?