Sandra Day O'Connor was on David Letterman last night* (she already was on The Daily Show to promote her new civics website) to hawk her new children's book. Justices have been on more serious talk shows and 60 Minutes, but I am not aware of any on this sort of show. She was good -- O'Connor has a down to earth, no nonsense style that works well. The whole independent cowgirl thing also works with a touch of feminist, even if she might be loathe to use that word.
The book itself is about her getting a pet dog as a child. The book discusses how various other animals were unsuccessfully tried out first, including a coyote. Shreve Stockton might disagree on that front. She after all did raise a coyote in Wyoming, and did not even grow up on a ranch. The Daily Coyote (also a blog) tells the story, added considerably by her photography skills (which also helped on the monetary front). Then again, she did go cross-country on a scooter already. And, it was not easy, though she (and her cat) got along well in the end. Just check this out (more on her blog):
The book is a powerful look at the complexity of animal/human relationships (and life in the middle of nowhere), including those animals (or humans) that often are seen as the enemy. It also is a reminder of the complexity of concern for animal welfare. Obviously, you can not raise all the coyotes in this fashion. Also, it is striking that she got the coyote pup in the first place because her boyfriend -- who kills coyotes as an animal control officer -- saved it for her. He also hunts and helps hunters. His annoyance at how hunters disrespect animals underlines that there is not always a black/white approach to be taken here.
I'll talk about another animal book in a few days, but first read a short and overall well written one by Lynn Curry entitled: The Deshaney Case: Child Abuse, Family Rights, and the Dilemma of State Intervention. It is part of the "landmark cases" series that I have repeatedly found very good, including those that provide a historical background to the issues involved. The case thus serves as a window into a much deeper set of issues and events. For instance, here, the history of child welfare, particularly the role of women and experts (of varying social influences, from sociology to medicine) involved.**
One footnote: the child welfare officer denied telling the mother that she just knew one day Joshua Deshaney would be dead. The book takes a basically neutral approach, but that official (Ann Kemmeter) does come off as overly naive -- more concerned with protecting the integrity of the family as a whole and helping the caregivers than truly being aware about the danger of the child. The book notes that even liberal columnist Ellen Goodman agreed with the Supreme Court that this was not federal case material. But, Justice Blackmun's dissent still holds power:
the facts here involve not mere passivity, but active state intervention in the life of Joshua DeShaney -- intervention that triggered a fundamental duty to aid the boy once the State learned of the severe danger to which he was exposed.
Joshua fell between the cracks. The government doesn't want to claim liability for fear of too many more claims, which is understandable, but it should take responsibility all the same when things like this occur. The lawyers took it to federal court because the state remedy amounted to chickenfeed (fifty thousand dollars) given the cost of Joshua's care alone. And, the dissent has power: the state took responsibility via it's child welfare system, but when it very well arguably slipped up, it claimed none ... blaming the private actors.
One of whom served about two years in jail ... meanwhile, Joshua is about thirty, and living in an institution somewhere. "Poor Joshua!" indeed.
---
* The latest non-Tiger Woods golf person in the news did the Top Ten. Very good ... great dry style.
** It's discussion of the "progressive" era underlines there is a difference between that term and "liberal." The first term suggests a scientific approach to government, one where experts have an important role to play. The "agency" system that has a lot of independence from direct democratic control fits in here. The opening for abuse and lack of adequate safeguards (just "trust us experts") is present. "Liberal" can have some or all of that, but can be more questioning and so forth.