Mayorkas Impeachment

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors

Impeachment provides a check on executive and judicial power. 

There is a minority view that federal judges can be removed some other route given they serve during good behavior. After all, other federal officials can be removed in various ways, including in some cases by another removal process. Mentally unfit judges are another interesting thought experiment. In extreme cases, lower court judges have been denied the right to hear cases for a limited amount of time. 

I think there is some validity to this alternative but it's theoretical given long practice and likely court review. The likely process is that a federal judge will be convicted of a crime and then removed by impeachment. A few judges were removed in other cases. Ethical rules are another way to enforce the Good Behavior Clause. So, it isn't impeachment or nothing. 

Impeachment was used a few times against presidents, leading one president to resign before the process played out (Nixon). It was used against a senator but the final result made it unclear if people thought senators could be impeached. It was used against one Cabinet member. He was not convicted. OTOH, the trial continued after he resigned. 

William Belknap earned his impeachment. Homeland Security Secretary Mayorkas did not. He regularly showed up in front of Congress. [Compare Trump's stonewalling that led to an impeachment count.] Congress tied his hands by not providing enough funding.  Efforts to pass legislation are being blocked for political reasons. The current House impeachment campaign is best explained as a policy dispute. 

Some liberals are strongly against President Biden's border policy. Overall, I think this is a mix of not giving him enough credit for some of the stuff he did and an unrealistic judgment of what he can do in the current environment. Yes, I wish he was more liberal. He's not a lefty. He's overall a reasonable moderate with some lefty positions (he has been strong on labor in multiple cases). Also, the country at large is more conservative than his critics wish. You take what you are offered here. 

Some people argue that basically whatever a majority of the House decides can be impeachable. There is a text that provides specifics. You can say that the law is whatever five members of the Supreme Court say it is. That is a bit blunt. We can also say that the body interpreting the Constitution (or whatever) is being unreasonable. I think that is a valid approach.

I think -- without doing a deep dive (I might do more if this actually passes the House) -- the House Republicans do not have a case. They are using impeachment to go after maladministration (what we are told impeachment is not for) and politics. You use the tools available, even if it is shoving a square peg in a round hole. Still, there are levels here. They do come off as hypocritical and cynical partisans if we look at it as a whole. 

They are charging him for not enforcing the law even though he is following the bipartisan policy of enforcement discretion. A general abuse of power claim also doesn't hold up. Homeland Security, if anything, has engaged with Congress more than other departments have. This is symbolic of the whole thing:

Ahead of the hearing, House Republicans and DHS clashed over whether Mayorkas will appear in person during the impeachment proceedings. Republicans wanted Mayorkas to attend this week's hearing, but he declined, citing a conflicting meeting with Mexican officials about border enforcement. The secretary agreed to testify, but asked to coordinate a time that works for his schedule. 

The test under the impeachment clause is so vague and open-ended that I am not totally sure you can say they are blatantly violating it by charging him this way. It likely at least violates its spirit. It also is a horrible approach as a matter of discretion. All three factors in here.

There is also the politics. It is in Trump's interests to keep the border issue on the table as an issue. A bipartisan bill therefore is not in his interests. It is somewhat less clear how useful this all is for swing-seat Republicans. They continue to be tainted by the stink of the overall clusterf- of this House of Representatives. I doubt Senate Republicans, who have a good chance in November and want to appear more reasonable, want a trial. 

It has passed the committee and is now going to the floor. 

NFL Championship Weekend

Chiefs v. Ravens

The Kansas City Chiefs (11-6) struggled this season. They had to work (including being helped by at least one dubious penalty in making two third and really longs) to beat the Jets. They had to play the Bills on the road. 

Still. They are KC.

After the Ravens had an opening punt, the teams traded touchdowns. The Ravens went for it on their own side on 4th and 1 during that drive. Lamar Jackson had one of his patented long scrambles. The Ravens survived a fumble on their own side when KC didn't make a 4th and short.

Still. The Chiefs still scored all ten of the second-quarter points. The Ravens were burned by two more turnovers deep in KC territory. No KC points though.

The game stayed 17-7 until a good punt return with five minutes left gave the Ravens good field position. They made it a one-score game. It was 3rd and 9 for KC with more than two minutes left at about midfield. Decent chance for an exciting finish! 

The State Farm spokesman clinched it with a pass. KC, unlike Detroit, timed the kneeldowns correctly to run out the clock. KC knows how to win in the end. 17-10.

(Talk about clockwork. That third-down pass was completed at the two-minute warning. 

The Ravens were out of timeouts. This translated to basically exactly the time three kneel-downs took. The last kneel-down was at 39 seconds. A few more seconds, they would have had to run a play to run off the clock.)  

Lions v. 49ers

The Ravens were favored. KC had a history of winning. This game is a bit different. The 49ers are favored. But, they barely beat the Packers. The Lions had a good season but a history of losing. They had it in them to win or lose. 

Okay, the 1 (SF) and 2 (Detroit) seeds face off. Similar 12-5 records (SF with that blip mid-season). Long-suffering Lions fans looked on. They watched the Lions score an opening touchdown. A forty-two yard play mixed in.

SF responded with a drive that ended with a missed 48-yard field goal attempt. KC made a fifty-plus attempt at the end of the first half. The Packers burned themselves with kicking too. The elite kickers who own those long field goals are precious. SF's kicker had issues of late. 

Detroit ended the first half 24-7 though SF did stop them from getting more. Detroit then had a horrible third quarter. Opening FG for SF. Detroit was stopped at 4th down. SF scored. And, then Detroit fumbled, and SF scored. 24-24. 

I'm sorry. You can't allow that to happen. Detroit followed up with a pathetic three-and-out (one-yard). 

Then, SF went ahead after a long drive. Detroit did do the minimum. It was a FG.

For the second time, this time with a chance to tie the game, Detroit went for it. They again didn't make it. Again, SF scored. Lions fans, never Super Bowl-bound, said "Yeah, okay."  Detroit did score again. 34-31. Would have been nice to have one of those two FG tries back, huh?

I'm not seeing the Super Bowl. I'm not even writing about it. The Packers and Lions blew their chances. They should have won. KC and SF are to be congratulated. They didn't choke. I'm still tired of them.

(ETA: Detroit managed to make it a one-score game but only had two time outs left. They got to first and goal with some time left but took too long. SF managed to just run out the clock after the failed onside kick. Hey, last season the Jets made one that helped them win a game!) 

==

Bonus: Since it's Sunday, I will toss in  Zeke Piestrup's documentary about Satan teaching Sunday school. Freethought Matters (FFRF TV show) had him on for this week's episode. 

The film is an amusing and informative look at the Bible. It uses the framing device of Satan teaching Sunday School. The framing device is animated. There are videos of talking heads, both professors such as Bart Ehrman, and videos of evangelicals. The director is not a scholar, but from what I can tell, did a good job.

The film is available free online. 

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. An Order List is scheduled and disposes of multiple matters. Miscellaneous orders deal with specific things and are not normally scheduled. 

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 it 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 to combat discrimination 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 must be appointed to argue that side. An order was dropped doing just that. 

(Amy Howe provides an analysis. I appreciate her discussion of these "very brief orders," which helpfully clarifies what is involved.) 

Talking Oklahoma, FFRF Radio flagged an NYT piece about Phillip 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 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. 

ETA: At the ALTAR of the Appellate Gods: Arguing before the US Supreme Court by Lisa Sarnoff Gochman is a personal account by the woman who debated the state side in Apprendi v. New Jersey. Here's a review with a striking personal aside by the author of the review, who I read without knowing about it. 

Apprendi is an important landmark case that required so-called "sentencing factors" such as racial motivation that increased the sentence had to be found beyond a reasonable doubt by the jury. If a sentencing factor influenced an existing sentencing range (even if the net effect would be the same time in prison such as a 5-15 possible range where the 15 would be applied), it's a different matter. This was addressed in a range of cases before and after Apprendi. 

Gochman's account provides a down-to-earth "you are there" account of the whole process. At times, her asides were a bit annoying. A few times (wait? Isn't a state as well as a federal law generally considered constitutional unless constitutionally suspect?) her commentary seemed off. 

Overall, it's a good addition to a cottage industry of books about Supreme Court cases. A smaller number are personal accounts, this one twenty years later to provide a sense of distance. Has some pictures. 

(She was understandably on a human level upset that she lost, but it was far from a surprise, as she flagged beforehand. Someone flagged it to her right away: they probably didn't take it to uphold the lower court. 

Also, near the end, she grants they were right to overturn. It would have been less dramatic if she noted this earlier.)

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. 

Biden Administration: A question arose at the daily press briefing related to the execution.

Q: Last night, Alabama executed a man with nitrogen gas, which is the first time that that new method has been used.  I’m wondering if the White House has any reaction to that. 

MS. JEAN-PIERRE:  Yeah, we do.  The reports of Kenneth Smith and the — and his death last night, obviously, is troubling.  It is very troubling to us as an administration.  It is very troubling to us here at the White House.  It underscores why the President support the — support the Attorney General’s mora- — moratorium on federal death penalty, pending review of the policies and procedures governing its use. 

The President has — long had said and has had deep — deep, deep concerns with how the death penalty is implemented and whether it is consistent — consistent with our — our values. 

So, we are deeply troubled by it, by what we he- — by — about Kenneth Smith’s death.  And so, you know, it is just troubling to hear.

One thing the review covers is a study of the various methods of execution. 

And More: A few people found the official statement underwhelming. As I noted in a comment here, I basically disagree. 

There is also another footnote. The dissent provides the first online sources cited in this term. The possibility of dead links has led to a policy of saving hard copies on the website. 

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 something 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. 

DOJ to seek death penalty in Buffalo shooting case despite Biden 2020 pledge

The notice in Gendron’s case represents the third death penalty sentence pursued at trial by the Justice Department in the Biden administration despite President Biden’s campaign pledge in 2020 to work to end the federal death penalty altogether. 

What does "work to end" mean? That would require a new law. 

He could commute all people on death row. Some governors are limited in their pardon power. Biden, however, cannot on his own end the federal death penalty altogether. 

The Justice Department has also argued in appeals courts in defense of existing federal death sentences. 

This basically is a matter of protecting their discretion. 

And though Garland placed a moratorium on the carrying out of federal executions, the execution spree carried out during the Trump administration sent 13 people to their death and harshly illustrated the limits of a moratorium.

This is a warning. President Obama did not totally oppose the death penalty. Nonetheless, no one was executed on his watch. Only three people were executed (including Timothy McVeigh) since the 1960s. 

The test here is what President Biden will do before he leaves office. If Congress (as is likely) will not end the death penalty (retroactively at that), it will be up to Biden to decide if he should leave the death row filled. Obama is likely to have found many of the thirteen executions problematic.  

Chris Geidner and others have flagged the Justice Department's capital punishment policy. The person here murdered ten people. The others also were mass murderers. There is a pure principle involved when you wish to deny juries the opportunity to choose in such cases. 

Biden noted that he supported LWOP for even these people. He has the power to commute sentences. The person involved here has been sentenced to LWOP. There is a certain gratuitous quality to trying for more. Civil rights groups have come against this specific race-based murderer getting the death penalty. I don't know the split among the victims' families.

I think a case can be made that there is a difference between Biden's promise and continuing to try to obtain death sentences in limited cases. President Biden also campaigned on the strong independence of the Justice Department. He did not campaign on "doing every single thing I can" to stop the death penalty in any form. The quote references "legislation." 

I understand how those strongly against the death penalty could be upset. I also think there are degrees. It is three cases involving mass murderers. A few people act like Biden did nothing and is a big hypocrite. That is not fair. There is a moratorium in place on executions. 

The Biden Administration still is off base here. A moratorium is in place. While the moratorium is in place, no more executions should be put in the works. This includes providing judges and juries the opportunity to sentence people to death. It continues a broken system. 

President Biden can formally establish a rule, under his pardon power, to commute any death sentence. It would be costly symbolism to have a jury sentence someone to death under that policy. I have not seen this, but apparently, the idea is that the President does not want to interfere with the Justice Department's prosecutorial discretion. 

He can still -- citing various constitutional and policy concerns -- draw up such a policy. His pardon power -- which should be used more (and Congress can help) -- is a special constitutional power in his hands. 

Ultimately, how much bite is in his promise (there are various promises; how passionate he is about it is unclear) will be seen by what he does before the end of his term. If he is truly against the death penalty, leaving a future president (not necessarily on Republican) to execute people is dubious. 

I support pushing him here. Also, to be fair to him overall. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

After there were grants on Friday, the path to a vanilla Order List today (usually the order list after a conference drops on Monday, but it was a holiday) was secure. Still, close watchers usually find something.

The motions of petitioners to dispense with printing the joint appendices are granted. 

The three pages (short even for these things but they did recently dispose of a bunch of pending petitions) had this sort of thing. As usual, the order list is a copy, without links to the docket page. 

For instance, if you follow the docket number in that case, the motion noted:

The parties do not believe that any other portion of the record merits special attention that warrants the preparation and expense of a joint appendix.

Order Lists include a range of cases not taken, some dubious, others with interesting claims that they do not grant for various reasons. So, for instance, they did not take a trans case, leaving in place a victory in a case involving the controversial bathroom issue. They have avoided taking trans cases, though the Biden Administration has asked them to in one case. 

One notable thing is that Alito and Jackson did not take part in two cases (separately). So far, only Kagan (now with a citation to the Code of Conduct) has cited the basic reason (such as former governmental employment in the case) why she didn't take part. Now, Jackson has joined in. Alito has recused regularly, usually involving a financial clash, but never says why. He explained why he took part in one case.

People online assume Alito never recuses. They are not big readers of Order Lists. Still, it would be helpful if more effort was provided to be clear about their actions. A couple justices have begun to provide minimum transparency. The Court has a long way to go.  

Wild Card Weekend

We now have three days of football (Saturday to Monday) with two games each day. There was originally only one Monday game but snow called a postponement of the Steelers/Bills game. Both teams can handle things.

Bengals vs. Texans 

The opener was the promising Bengals/Texans match-up. The Bengals persevered through multiple QBs with "off his couch" Joe Flacco (an anti-vaxxer who didn't thrive as a Jets backup) leading them to the playoffs. 

They had one more win than the Texans, partially because of a December match-up without rookie phenom C.J. Stroud. But Houston thanks to their win in Week 18 and a Jaguars loss was the divisional winner. 

The game started well for the Bengals. They held the Texans to a chip-shot field goal. The Bengals responded with a TD. Then, there was a back-and-forth, leading to a 17-14 Texans lead. The Bengals did not score again. The lead was 24-14 at halftime. Then, back-to-back pick sixes sealed the deal.

Dolphins vs. Chiefs 

This game was scripted as a lost cause for the Dolphins. There were no surprises here. 

The Dolphins looked like division winners early. Then, the Bills re-gained their mojo. The Dolphins went into a slide. They had a shot at the division if they won the last game of the regular season. A stop late (inches) gave them one more shot. They did not succeed. The Bills got the division.

The warm-water Dolphins got an extremely cold game. The weather in New York City has not allowed snow to form. Kansas City (not in Kansas) had wind chills below zero. The Dolphins scored once (basically on one play). Not a path to victory. They did get a turnover at the very end down 26-7.

(only on Peacock except for local viewers apparently; good game for the platform version of UHF, I guess) 

Packers vs. Cowboys

The Dallas Cowboys have done very well at home, even if it took some bad officiating to help them win against Detroit. The Packers are somewhat lucky they even made it to the playoffs. They played well early and then slacked off. 

The Packers started off strong with an opening touchdown drive. A turnover late in the first half made it 27-0. Dallas scored at the buzzer (helped by a good runback and a bad call) and added an FG. 27-10. A bit of a game? 

The Packers didn't stop scoring. Up 32-16. Sweated a bit when they relaxed late. Only 48-32 before the two-minute warning. No shot at a third (two failed) onside kick attempt. First #7 seed (fourth year) to advance. You have to "love" it (QB Love was perfect before a dubious attempt to ice the game, giving Dallas a little more time).  

Rams vs. Lions

The Lions finally found themselves division winners. The other teams struggled, even though it looked like the Vikings (like the Bengals having many QBs) might swoop back from their losing ways. They hit a wall. The Packers won enough to get to the playoffs. The Lions appear to have arrived. 

The Rams struggled some, including while Matthew Stafford (QB) was hurt. This match-up looked promising, especially since the QBs once played on each other's teams. Plus, now the head coach of the Rams is no longer the league's youngest coach with the new hire in New England.* 

The Giants barely lost to the Rams. I thought the Lions probably had the edge. The first half of this one was the most competitive game so far. I really don't care about these teams though the Lions have been waiting for a while to get here. Plus, the young guy head coach of the Rams annoys me. 

We saw the winner's next opponent on Monday. The Lions won by a point. The game turned out to turn on a defensive effort. The Rams held up early to an FG turned out to be the difference. The second half had nine total points. 

The Lions' margin of victory was a third-quarter field goal of the length the Giants failed to make to clinch the victory in their own game. Mid-50s (sometimes even more) field goals are possible with elite kickers these days. They sometimes are the difference. 

Steelers vs. Bills

The Bills came into this game on a high note, trending well, even if the last game showed some of the QB's reckless ways. The Steelers' hope was another one of those games along with the weather and their own defense. 

The Steelers, under veteran leadership with their long-time (and bad reputation on a personal level) QB having retired, managed to eke out a playoff spot. And that came with help. 

Steelers turned a 21-0 game into a 24-17 game but then the Bills scored on the next possession. Good try. 

Eagles v. Buccaneers 

The Eagles had a fall akin to the Dolphins, if under somewhat different circumstances. Road woes prevented Dallas from securing the division. Then, the Eagles went on a slide. They barely managed to win one game versus the lowly Cardinals and Giants (1-1). This meant a road game.

Tampa won a poor division partially on the back of a flawed journeyman-type QB, who used to do those cute commercials about living in the stadium. Not this one. Baker Mayfield has been around. You would think that they would have an uphill battle versus the Eagles. 

They would have if the Eagles were not such a messed-up team right now.  Eagles lost 32-9. 

An end of a bunch of mismatches (except for one), though not always in the expected ways. The first game was competitive for a while. The Steelers teased their fans a bit. 

Lions, Packers, and Texans excited their fans. Bills and Chiefs took care of business. Tampa did too, more or less, against an Eagles team that fell off a cliff weeks ago.  

---

* Yes, Mr. Hoodie was not just good because of Pretty Boy. Still. Since Tom Brady left, the team could have been better. They did manage to get to the postseason one year. This year they were pretty bad (the defense was okay). 

It looked like things might be okay. He also managed in the middle of the Brady years to almost get to the playoffs when Brady was out. He lost a tiebreaker. It was one of his best years of coaching to do this with a young (now mostly forgotten) backup. Yes. The Jets were good back in the day.

It hasn't gone well for multiple seasons now all the same. Time to move on.

On The Cusp of the Iowa Caucus, Can We STOP This Please?

Some liberal "Trump is horrible!!!!" liberal retweeted something about how people don't like either leading candidate for president. 

The tweet also claimed Biden's record is horrible. The person noted the "both candidates are bad" message is the one he supported. Also, the part where when Trump is clearly the candidate, Biden will step aside was answered with an "I hope so."

It was a ridiculous comment that is not in the realm of reality. Biden's record is not horrible (the tweet was from a Republican, so you have a mix of bias and bullshit, since the economic situation alone suggests things are not truly horrible). Biden has no intention to step aside. 

It is far from clear (even with 2023 polls saying Haley would triumph as she is about to be a distant second, maybe, in Iowa) that even a non-Trump will make it closer. That's more conceivable if they can sell they are different, even though they consistently were Trump enablers and shared the basic policies. Plus, I'm unsure about Republican voters (and some others) strongly supporting a non-white woman candidate. 

The original tweet argued that if someone new ran, they would win. The hope of the "somebody else" is akin to the dream of the backup QB. Well, it worked, until it didn't, with Joe Flacco and the Cincinnati Bengals.

This is a guy who almost cried hoping Michael Bloomberg was the nominee of the Democrats in 2020. Nobody else could save us! 

He also wants the Democrats to support removing the insurrection disqualification from Trump. If they did that the Republicans "would have to" go along. He might want to stick to being a law professor.

There is also this:

This is incredibly facile, I grant you. But if you are wondering why young people don’t really feel in touch with Joe Biden, understand that the man was born in 1942. He is 81 years old. He was first eligible to vote in 1963. If an 81-year-old was president in 1963, he would have been born in the Arthur administration. And Biden is about as relevant to the issues young people hold dearly today as someone first eligible to vote in 1903 was to Joe Biden as a young voter.

This is someone who thought Sanders would win in 2020 and is also an Elizabeth Warren supporter. He noted she shouldn't run now either. How about in 2020? Who else was going to win in 2020? 

You had a bunch of old people and also-rans. Biden was just who we needed -- a safe, reassuring presence. There is really not a great difference this time. Along with the fact Biden can run on his record. Starting from scratch with a new candidate is just risky. It also is generally not done. First term presidents able and willing to do so run again.

Anyway, I am not a "young person" and neither is that writer. He's around my age even if he sounds like a grumpy old man. Who would these young people feel in touch with? Let's say Biden was 60. His age would not be an issue. Would young people under 40 "really feel in touch" with him? The life experiences of people who were born in the 1960s (the edge of the baby boomers) are quite different. Facile indeed.

Let's take Bush41. George Bush Sr. was not an old man when he was president. He was sometimes labeled "out of touch" including the assumption (not true) that he was not aware of how supermarket checkout machines worked or something. 

I don't think the average young person felt him very approachable. I think he was a patrician type not seen as a "regular guy" type. Age was not the issue there. His son apparently was the guy you wanted to drink a beer with (putting aside the guy was dry by then). People had other issues with him.

Biden comes off as old. This is not only because he is fairly old. Trump is a bit younger. He comes off as less decrepit. 

Sanders is about the same age. He comes off as a grumpy old man with more energy. There are various pols in their 70s that seem younger than Biden. But, they are not much more "in touch" with young voters. This is adding to the "incredibly facile" part.

How out of touch is Joe Biden? Many young voters are likely to be attracted to him. He is a kindly grandpa who supports good things. What exactly does Biden think about or what life experiences does he lead with (other than perhaps dreams of working with Republicans, putting aside what he has as president) that young people feel is not relatable? 

I don't see it. He sometimes might make a comment that seems out of date but so does the parents of a teenager. Again, the guy can be twenty or thirty years younger and still seem "out of touch" to a young voter.

One comment suggested that people are trying to ignore that his age is an issue. This is a strawman as well. No one really says that. They are aware that it would be nice if someone younger was president. 

A Generation X president would be nice. They just think that it is low in the order of concerns. They also realize that we really cannot do anything about it. Changing horses midstream would have been risky, even if halfway likely to happen. The chances -- all things being equal -- it actually would have helped is far from clear too.

What is the point of people to keep on referencing his age? Has it -- as compared to late-term Reagan -- actually affected his job? Oh, he now and then, among the thousands of things he did, seems to have had a senior moment. The guy had moments all of his career. That's just bullshit. 

Oh, something might happen to him. We have multiple high-level people (including the assumed Senate Majority Leader if the Republicans win) over seventy-five in government. We rarely worry about that. Is Kamala Harris THAT bad or something?

A thing that pops up on that blog regularly is sneers at "the Blob" (the latest thing from those who brought you "the Village") or the MSM (including potshots at the NYT specifically) with the current line that aids and abets Trumpism. Why do these things not do the same? It helps send a different form of the 2016 "both are horrible" bit. Once you do that, good luck adding "But I'm not saying they are the same!" 

Over and over again there are sneers at Biden, who has done a lot of good things, including as noted by Erik Loomis himself (the author of that facile bit and a labor guy). "I'm not saying he's too old but" is akin to another guy who repeatedly said he's too old "but the other guy is so very horrible." 

The first person wanted MICHAEL BLOOMBERG as the nominee. Now wait! He's a true blue liberal! Really!

The blog also likes to post a lot of bad news. You would not know that good things happen that much. This includes good things the Biden Administration has done. A recent post that noted it was very impressive he bit the bullet and got us out of Afghanistan is one exception. 

Need more of that type of thing. Ditto media coverage such as MSNBC that is not so much about Trump. Other things are happening.

It's okay, especially in a blog generally read by fellow travelers, to talk about things about Biden that concern people. The criticism, to repeat, is not about that. (There are avenues where leading with that is a problem. Liberal op-ed writers focusing on that a lot are a concern.) It is that you have to have a sense of perspective about these things. 

Maybe "incredible facile" comments are best left unsaid.