Odds and Ends

Let's cover a few unrelated things raised during the last week.

Svengoolie: The Sven movie this week was the Invisible Man Returns, a follow-up to a film I saw in the past. The first was pretty good though at some point it got a bit silly, the thriller nature of the film mixed with almost a keystone kops sort of vibe by the goofy police after them. It also had a young Claude Rains, which leads to an (as I recall, unnoticed by Sven) connect with Jimmy Stewart, since two actors in the film (a supporting role later played a familiar angel) were in well known Stewart movies.

This one had a young Vincent Price and weakly was connected by having the brother of the last guy have a supporting role. The last invisible man (who died at the end), had a cameo on a police record, this time the chief police investigator early on being on the ball about the whole invisible thing. (Other than the invisible drug having a slightly different name, reference was made to lots of murders by the last guy, but that didn't happen).

This helped make the story a bit more serious, but the writing was somewhat weak later on.  Price hammed it up a bit (and was less reckless than the first guy).  A few weak story points (including one involving him with a gun that disappeared at a key moment). Overall, watchable, but disappointing.  There is one more in the series as well as more invisible people films (including an amusing one involving an invisible woman covered in a past episode).  

====

Abortion Ban News: South Carolina Governor Henry McMaster signed into law the Fetal Heartbeat Protection from Abortion Act, prohibiting an abortion if a fetal heartbeat is detected.  The ban was then immediately put on hold by a federal court.  It is very unclear to me if five members of the Supreme Court [yes, I will continue my moratorium of calling Trump's appointees "justices"]  wish to uphold such a law.  

A complete ban like this is quite different from a range of other laws (TRAP laws generally) that burden abortion rights, unduly burden by a reasonable application of Casey, that very well might get you five if the Supreme Court faced the issue directly.  Now, many do not think so -- they think "Roe will be overruled."  I question this.  It seems to me that what will happen will be further watering down of Casey.  That isn't a trivial distinction though it will cause a lot of problems. The breadth of these laws (another would allow a father -- to use a term without controversy in this context - veto without exception) underline the fact.  

===

Ted Cruz: New York City has had multiple snow storms (two or three of some note) so far this season, the first coming even before winter began. This is notable since in recent memory we had very little snow. When I was growing up, I repeatedly had to shovel snow on what seemed like an annual basis.  We had two in the last week or ten days though the second one was fairly mild.  The weather (this is more consistent) continued to be weird -- one fifty degree day followed by a twenty degree day.  

OTOH, snow and ice in the South is a lot more notable.  Texas in particular had (and the effects are still lingering) a hard hit. Texas it turns out isolates itself from the rest of the country when setting up its energy system.  This seems like something (especially giving the size and national/international effects of Texas' system) that can be controlled somehow by national means. Congress has commerce powers over that and should use it.  And, there might be addition problems regarding how Texas is handling things as covered here.  The net effect has been power and water cut-offs. 

The pain this has caused is evident and it is something that like the shocking nature of the weather for which NYC has not generally suffered.  (To be clear, heat and other things have been an issue in limited ways, especially for less well off people in some places.)  What seems to have happened is that Texas is generally a place with mild weather, so the government cut corners that now has bite them in the ass.  Again, actually, but the last time was too long ago to keep them honest.  

This shows the need not only for insurance (for when you need it) but again a united, national, system.  Change is hard with Ted Cruz being too often representative of party in the government.  Cruz provides a special face on the issue here since he and his wife (as seen in a text message leaked) decided it would be a good time to go to Mexico for a trip.  Cruz, this not being the years before social media gotchas, was caught with photos. He first said he was only being a good dad, his young daughters wanting a break.  This asshole move looked even worse when his wife's texts proposing to neighbors that they go on a trip came out.  

[ETA: The Texas energy situation is complex so I am not surprised if my statement here is incomplete. Here's one discussion.]

There was a "defense" that he couldn't do much anyway.  This is dubious given the efforts being made by his last Democratic opponent as well as AOC (who Cruz from time to time tweets at, as if he has a crush on her) to help people there, including raising money.  Cruz also has been called out as a hypocrite because he campaigned last time about how he was there for Texans during a former emergency.  And, yes, part of being a representative is a symbolic and personal connection to your constituents.  

Going on a trip, especially after it was flagged that unnecessary international trips to Mexico should not be made anyway, just is stupid all around.  This without his CYA move.  OTOH, he won't run for re-election for years. He has high popularity numbers among Republican voters.  So, why should he really care?  Recall again he just aided and abetted the insurrection on the U.S. Capitol.  And, then went out of his way to help the Trump side during the impeachment trial.  It's like rubbing our faces into it.  

Bottom line, even more than other Republicans, he should be shunned. There is only so much one can immediately do here, as noted, and it on some level seems so hopeless. See also Trump -- like Rachel Maddow covering the Georgia criminal investigation of Trump annoys me, since like her long ago continual pushing the idea that maybe THIS TIME torture by the Bush Administration would actually lead to a criminal case -- I recall her dragging out hope in a couple particular case for years (spoiler: no prosecution) -- is at least this point almost fatuous.  

But, sigh, yes, it is important you put it out there. Maybe, even assume there is real hope.  And, you need to push against not just Republicans generally, but certain miscreants like Trump.  It will help, if in ways that are not totally clear, in closer cases and anyway simply is right.