Mets Get Another Yankee Castoff

Well. The Mets did sign Juan Soto.

First off, it's ridiculous money. I suppose people will quantify it to show otherwise. I stick to that. 

$51 million a year for fifteen years with an opt-out after five years that is overridden with more money is ridiculous money for one player. Someone who is not a five-tool player or anything as compared to Franciso Lindor. He's a future DH.  

A big thing here is symbolism. The Mets have arrived! They beat out the Yankees. Okay. Well, the Yankees aren't the Yankees of the old. 

Soto's move to the Mets underlines the point. It shows that the owner is willing to do what he can to make the team great, which is nice.

The signing raises the stakes. Last season, the Yankees felt like "World Series or Busts." They were a bust when they got there. The Mets, with a patchwork pitching staff, came quite close to getting there. 

Now, Mets fans have a rightful expectation that the team should make the playoffs each year and, in fact, get far along. One sports reporter argued that the Mets are still not as good as the Dodgers. 

This is fair since they have a generation talent along with a lot more. So, $765M will get you second place in the playoffs or something? 

Many people that the billionaire owner would eventually seal the deal. At the end of the day, it's about money. The Mets play in New York City. They are a credible organization these days. The Yankees are nice but again the Mets almost got to the World Series. So, he can win here too. Why not? 

I am somewhat surprised. Yes, I am also not as EXCITED as some people. It's done and it's silly not to think it will help the team win. It is a sign that the ownership will do stuff to make that happen. And, what else will the guy spend his money on?

The local football teams are a mess. It's nice that the Mets, including with David Stearns (President of Baseball Operations) someone you can trust to run the operations side, have a promising future.  

Let's go Mets. They need some more parts to settle the Pete Alonso situation. But it has been a rather exciting off-season so far.  

Odds and Ends

2024 Elections and Beyond

I provided some more election thoughts, including what the Democrats should do in the future. A major concern is not the Democrats. 

It is how non-Democrats (we can toss in media institutions) accept Trump as credible. Once you do that, it's like he wins half the battle. 

Democrats should not rest on nail-biters. Any long-term solution includes obtaining some additional support in red states and a more than trivial non-Democratic contingent. The added bit about an Obama speech, which partially talks about coalitions with those we disagree with, factors in.

Mets

The current big story is a battle to see who will sign Juan Soto, who is asking some ridiculous amount of money. I realize that is how it goes. Studs get the big bucks. Figure the Yankees need him to stay more. 

My thought has always been that I am fine with him staying with the Yankees. The team needs too many parts to focus too much on a gigantic long-term contract. Plus, philosophically, such contracts bother me. I grant for the billionaire owner it is "only money," but I hold to that. 

Meanwhile, they are filling in details ala 2023/4 with two reclamation project type starters, one who is a reliever that they plan to convert to a starter. The latest Yankee cast-off with Severino going to the As.  

Last season's results suggest we should trust the process. I'm betting they sign a reliable starter, find a good reliever or two, and the betting man (woman) would say Alonso stays. They signed a reliable outfielder who is a cheaper version of another they have. If Soto isn't signed, figure they find a more reasonable big bat, which would be my preference. 

Jets/Giants 

The NY/NJ teams have a combined 5-21 record. 

They both had a shot to at least go into overtime today in the final seconds. The Giants' comeback was stopped when a mid-range field goal was blocked. 

The Jets for the second time at the end of a half screwed up and set up a chance for Miami to get a long FG. The Dolphins won the toss and scored the touchdown.  The Jets' defense failed when it mattered.

The first time, Rodgers failed on a third down throw, leaving time on the clock for the FG. The big blemish the second time was a special team's failure. 

I'm at the point where I basically want both teams to lose. I am actively negative about the Jets and Rodgers. It would be nice, I guess if the Giants and their backup QB (Tommy Cutlets is not playing now) have a mercy win. They had a shot today. 

The postgame report for the Giants game was sympathetic. They don't have much talent on the field with their injuries. The defense played well. The backup (Drew Lock) started slow but kicked into gear late. He might be "the best shot to win," but he is not showing too much really for Tommy Cutlets fans. 

The Jets also had various good things happen but they keep on finding ways to lose. Okay. So, Rodgers played well overall (with key questionable plays) today. Finally. Who cares? 

He showed he is not the long-term answer. Put in the backup and show a message to the team that they are not just doing the same old, same old. They might even win a game or two still. The Jaguars, for instance, are not good. But, that's not the point. 

The team has the talent, I guess, that they might have won a handful of more games if they played better. The Giants are more of a mess. Someone flew a plane over the stadium with a message saying just that.  

Both lost a lot this season.  

Petticoat Junction

Two episodes of Petticoat Junction on MeTV are part of my Saturday television regime. I have a series of shows and films (e.g., Hallmark Channel at 8 P.M.) to check on. Petticoat Junction is on 5 A.M.

If you re-watch and re-read, you pick up things. I see this on Friends, which is syndicated on multiple channels, at times in bunches. Scripts have continuity errors. Certain things don't make much sense.*

Let's put aside that two of the sisters changed actresses. The brunette was played by two actresses and the blonde by three. And, other than being the daughter of a creator of the show, the third being a red-head seems off. How does that work genetically?  

The more notable thing is that the actress who plays the mom, a central role in the show, died mid-series. They then took her out of the theme song and except for once (a brief reference) never talked about her again. She was "away" while being sick. She came back, died off-screen, and then Orwellian-like, it was like she was never there.  

I understand this given the desire not to make a light television show too dark though seems like it would have been okay to reference her death. Did fans like them doing it that way? 

The mom was central to running the hotel, especially her cooking skills. Uncle Joe clearly was not too useful. The oldest daughter eventually was away regularly doing her music career. 

We occasionally see evidence the daughters are cleaning up or the like. One thing rarely shown from what I can tell is their eating together. 

I saw a late-season Thanksgiving episode. Who made the dinner? The youngest originally was a lousy cook. She eventually got better after she got married. The others showed some ability to cook. Did they share cooking duties for guests? 

I'm not overly concerned. It is just something that came to mind and made me go "Hmm."

===

* Friends is comfortable watching that can be enjoyed over and over again. I still have various issues with the series. I also think the series kicked into gear mid-second season and dropped off mid-ninth.  

I can go on and on here but I'll just cite one thing. There was one episode where a pregnant Rachel was really horny. Okay. So have sex. It was a thing earlier that she repeatedly had sex on the first date. 

Is there some rule about pregnant people not being able to have sex? She was about four months along and not huge or anything. She's Rachel. People a lot less hot have sex late in the pregnancy.  

She was horrified when Phoebe brought some virgin nebbish over to satisfy her. The show has multiple conservative moments like that including ...

Rachel goes on a date early in her pregnancy and for some reason finds it necessary to tell the guy she's pregnant. It was a first date with a soap opera star. Why the need to be so honest and ruin things? 

She later notes that while pregnant she can't date. This flows into a charming subplot involving Joey. All the same, why not? She's Rachel. People will still date her while she is pregnant!  

Thinking about such things is one of the fun things about re-watching and re-reading. It also remains annoying. People can do the same thing with some Jane Austen novel or something too.  

The Indian Card: Who Gets to Be Native in America

Recent census data shows that many more people are putting down they have Native American heritage as compared to the number of people in officially accepted tribes. The Indian Card: Who Gets to Be Native in America by Carrie Lowry Schuettpelz examines the situation.

Carrie is an enrolled member of the Lumbee Tribe of North Carolina. Congress recognizes them as "Indians" but not as an official tribe. The arbitrary way the federal government has handled Native sovereignty has a long history. This book covers that, the author's personal story, and some extended look at some other Native Americans' experiences.

The author worked in the Obama Administration. It is somewhat strange that she does not reference the current (Native American) Secretary of the Interior. I talked about President Bidens' apology for Indian boarding schools here.  

The author does not provide a deep dive analysis in the book about the numbers. It is more a personal account and a summary of the history of Native American relations with the United States. The author is 1/4 Native American (her last name is German). How "blood quantum" should be involved in deciding who is a member of a tribe is addressed.

The book is well-written for the average educated reader. Some books these days are translated into young adult editions. I think this might be one that would be suitable. There are no pictures, except for an author's photo. That is somewhat disappointing.  

SCOTUS Watch

Ethics

Jodi Kantor co-authored another inside look at the Supreme Court. The subject is ethics, which will continue to be an issue while Republicans refuse to address it since their people control the Supreme Court.  

The article provided an interesting examination for the general public. Court watchers realize that the justices are divided ideologically on this question. The article includes some new details, including how Gorsuch made his voice known about the problems of ethics rules. 

The letter from Supreme Court Clerk Scott Harris did not explain why Gorsuch was recusing himself, saying only that "consistent with the code of conduct" he had decided not to participate.

Gorsuch has also decided not to take part in an upcoming environmental case. A request was placed for him to recuse given links to a billionaire involved in the case. It would have been helpful if there was more clarity on why he recused. Conservatives, as I have noted before, do not follow the practice of the liberal justices of openly citing specific ethical guidelines when officially not taking part in a case.  

Some people, especially conservative-minded types, worry about the leaks involved in these news articles. If the institution could handle The Brethren, I think the limited details provided here won't mean the end of the institution. Leaks provide a safeguard when powerful institutions are involved. Gorsuch worries about federal power. 

Maybe, he should be consistent when his own federal institution is involved. To the degree he is open to recusals when appropriate, I appreciate it. 

Ethical guidelines cannot simply be about self-regulation. It is not for other courts. Mark Joseph Stern rightly is not too impressed by Gorsuch's actions. Nonetheless, self-regulation is not without value. His recusal suggests that pressure still can encourage the justices to act. 

Oral Arguments 

The Supreme Court has two weeks of oral arguments in December. The cases largely do not involve "hot button" cases. The one exception involves trans rights and medical care for children. 

A historical moment was the argument by the first openly trans advocate in front of the Supreme Court. The argument (as expected) did not bode too well for the challengers of the Tennessee law. 

The liberals were strongly against it. Gorsuch, who was likely to be an important swing justice (Bostock), didn't ask a single question. Roberts, the other conservative vote in Bostock (a statutory case) sounded doubtful about the challenge. 

As will regularly be the case, liberals are left to be hopeful about Barrett's vote. Barrett was surprised at the idea that there was a long history of anti-trans legislation. Seriously? I would think it was in the briefing somewhere at the very least.  

I was wary about this whole thing with this Supreme Court. Chris Geidner argued the federal government was correct to appeal it, including because the law is particularly bad. Maybe. Who am I to say, I guess.

The other thing is that as seen by people waiting overnight in the cold for limited seating, watching the oral arguments is useful. Live audio is nice; video would be better. Other courts manage both binding ethics rules and televised oral arguments. 

We are left with a few observers, including those with press credentials to give us a visual accounting. 

Other SCOTUS News 

I'll let Amy Howe summarize one order:

The Supreme Court on Tuesday appointed a former clerk to Chief Justice John Roberts to defend a ruling by the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit in an immigration case after the Biden administration declined to do so.

Friday's conference will lead to an Order List on Monday. As is normally the case, the justices dropped an order in the afternoon stating the cases (three, involving two issues) they granted for review. One is somewhat notable -- it involves the power of U.S. courts to try a damage case involving terrorism (PLO).

There will be one or more opinions announced on Tuesday. Last time that meant a one-sentence "our bad" opinion noting it was a mistake to take the case. 

I think there will be a real opinion this time though it won't be a barnburner. SCOTUSBlog flagged the news but the regular reader of the SCOTUS website would be left searching out the calendar.

A simple press release on the relevant page would be a more logical approach. 

New York Legal News

I grant I might pay too much attention to national news. New York has legal news as important as dealing with each miscellaneous SCOTUS order.

New York City, for instance, recently decriminalized jaywalking. Now, that does not seem to be that profound, especially since people tend to jaywalk without worrying about arrest. 

Nonetheless, jaywalking laws have been used as a reason to stop and frisk people. Evidence suggests they are arbitrarily applied. And, they have little safety value in practice. The law goes into effect in February.

Deborah Rhode wrote an interesting small book about adultery explaining its history and problems with prohibition. NY was one of the remaining states that had a criminal law (rarely enforced) on the books. 

New York, perhaps surprisingly, can be conservative about change. It took a long time to become a no-fault divorce state.  New York has now decriminalized adultery.  Note that bigamy is still not allowed.

Missouri Executes Christopher Collings

Christopher Collings was convicted of raping and killing nine-year-old Rowan Ford in November 2007. Her body was found six days after she went missing, naked in a McDonald County cave. An autopsy determined she died from strangulation. Collings confessed to the crime. Rowan’s stepfather, David Spears, also pleaded guilty for his role in her death and has since been released from prison. Collings is currently being held at the Potosi Correctional Center, awaiting his execution scheduled for December 3.

An article that provides the basics regarding an upcoming execution likely led many people to believe it was the correct result. I have consistently not shied away from stating the crimes in my accounts, contrary to the common trope that opponents do. 

You can read more (picture) about the horrible details. The defense focused on avoiding the death penalty:

The prosecution sought the death penalty after highlighting the aggravating factors of the case, while the defense opposed the death sentence and asked for life imprisonment by highlighting that Collings was diagnosed with both severe disorganized disassociative attachment disorder and intermittent explosive disorder, and had a dysfunctional family background and tragic upbringing.

The prosecution accepted a lesser plea from the stepfather because they had less conclusive evidence that his role was as significant as Christopher Colling's actions. Nonetheless, there is reasonable justification to think the stepfather (who has more responsibility to the child than a stranger) still had a significant one. 

The Supreme Court in mid-November rejected one motion. Another longshot appeal argued the defense had the right to evidence that would have allowed them to challenge a key witness regarding his confession. Not worthy of SCOTUS review.

I don't mind that they didn't grant the Hail Mary appeal. Most of these appeals are not certworthy. This does not mean a statement or explanation is not warranted. The state is taking someone's life. And, sometimes, the appeal has some merit. And, there is still radio silence.

I have often cited Justice Breyer's argument against the constitutionality of an execution handed down long after the sentence. Twelve years (they were sentenced in 2012) is relatively reasonable as these sorts of things go.  

I do think execution after over fifteen years from the crime is somewhat questionable. Granted, executions twenty or more years afterward are a clearer case.  

A child kidnapping/rape/murder is the sort of "worse of the worst" crime that objectively warrants the death penalty if the death penalty is allowed. 

The mitigating factors included alleged mental health conditions. Perhaps. If he was another case of a victim who later victimized, it would be a tragic old story. It underlines that subhuman "monsters" do not exist. Just humans who do horrible things.   

The prosecution had reasons for giving the stepfather a plea deal. Still, he was not just a small cog in the crime. He is out of prison while Christopher Collins dies. Both should have had long prison terms.

One is now free while the other was executed by lethal injection. Two more executions are scheduled later this month. Happy holidays?  

==

A bad system will have incidents that are less horrible than some others. The system as a whole should end. Such is the case with the machinery of death.

Nonetheless, Arizona, led by a Democratic governor, plans to start that machinery once more. 

The Trump Administration (a travesty that I have to write that) is quite likely to do so at some point too. It's just a question of how. 

Hunter Biden Pardoned

The average person would not be prosecuted for the crimes that Hunter Biden committed. They also wouldn't have been targeted by political hitjobs for years. He was never part of the government. He -- like a ton of people -- got some benefit from his name.

President Biden kept out of it and said he would not pardon him. Now that Trump won the election, and said he would appoint a conspirator theorist who supports going after political enemies as the head of the FBI (he has to fire Chris Wray first), Biden did pardon him. Who will think of the children? 

Roger Stone paid off his taxes and avoided criminal prosecution. He was separately pardoned by Trump for other crimes.  Jared Kushner's dad was pardoned by Trump and is now due to be ambassador to France.  The people who say NOW Trump will misuse the pardon power are total bullshit artists.  

Biden was right to pardon his son. It was both the humane thing to do as a parent (if we don't want that to be a factor, make presidents into robots) and on the merits. The situation has changed from when he made his promise. It is fatuous to ignore reality and act like he violated some great act of principle here. People make promises based on possibly changing facts.  

Why do it now? I suppose he wanted to do it before the mid-month sentencing. I'm not fully sure why.

It could have been swept under the rug more if he had done it later. Maybe, the FBI director announcement helped clinch the deal and/or talking about it over the Thanksgiving holiday.  Kash Patel, the FBI director, the supporter of going after enemies brings this portion of the pardon announcement to mind:

In trying to break Hunter, they’ve tried to break me – and there’s no reason to believe it will stop here. Enough is enough. 

People whining about him lying or being unprincipled want him to throw his son to the wolves. Bullshit. 

The criticism is overall lame. Some critics accept this specific pardon but think he should have pardoned more people.  That is a separate matter. You can play that game all the time. There are specific facts here that make it personal. The pardon is in part a check against congressional abuse too.  

If he provided a one-off for his son while not pardoning similar crimes, there would be some call for criticism. He is not. The specific facts of the case are not run-of-the-mill. Also, as he said, he waited until after the case was prosecuted to pardon.  

The federal pardon power is possibly too broad. Several states put more limits on the power of governors.  OTOH, the pardon power is not used enough in some respects. There should be a more streamlined approach. Biden should also commute all the sentences on federal death row.*   

Hunter Biden's pardon provides the chance to think about the issues more broadly. Still, the media coverage that makes it some big troublesome act as compared to any number of past dubious pardons is stupid. Meanwhile, it continues to normalize Trump.

The people -- thankfully quite a few -- who said this was not a story or "who cares" or "good for him" are on the right track. The children will be okay.  

==

* I will add a few general remarks.

Some critics provide a wide attack on the pardon power as an outdated "royalist" concept. 

I think that is somewhat overblown. First, it has limited value in dealing with things like public disorders. Second, the executive handles prosecutions and prisons. Pardons provide a check to abuse and mistakes. The problem there is at most as to scope.

A tweak of the pardon power, again is theoretically possible, including setting in place some sort of commission. Also, maybe, it can be explicitly noted that self-pardons are not allowed. Also, no secret pardons. I don't think either is allowed now.

What about limiting lame-duck pardons? Why? What is so special about them? We have presidential term limits. A second-term pardon is already a type of lame-duck pardon. I do not think a president will be overly restrained because of fear that it will affect other elections. 

One way to address the concern -- selectively applied -- of pardons in the last days of an administration is a general time limit. A pardon or commutation only will become official in "x" days, providing a chance for others to point out problems that might warrant revocation. Let's say thirty to sixty days.

A constitutional amendment is unlikely. We can still talk about these things. One or more of these proposals can become norms, perhaps helped in some fashion by advisory legislation.  

Vamps: A Bit of a Clueless Reunion

Amy Heckerling is well known for a few films, including Clueless and Fast Times at Ridgemont High. Alicia Silverstone was very good in Clueless but did not have any more top roles (though a few decent ones, including a couple years as the voice in a cute animated series called Braceface). 

Heckerling's film directing had lost her mojo when this film was made. Why not try to get some help from past films, especially Silverstone and Wallace Shawn who had a supporting role in Clueless? Fans of the earlier film will also enjoy a cameo by the pizza-delivering person.  

Vamps (2012) also has some other familiar faces, including Sigourney Weaver as the "stem" who turned the two BFFs (AS in the 1840s and Krysten Ritter in the 1990s) into vampires. Both (like many other vampires) rely on animal blood so don't worry. They are nice vampires. 

It is a somewhat bittersweet comedy. Alicia Silverstone's character is tired and feels time passed her by. 21st Century culture does not appeal. Maybe, a little message from the aging director. She meets an old flame and her bestie falls for Van Helsing's (vampire hunter) son.  

It turns out that a turned vampire can get pregnant but the pregnancy will not survive in a vampire. Unless they turn back into a human. Goody decides she lived (so to speak) long enough and helps her bestie kill their stem, even though it means all the turned vampires will become humans with their true ages. Goody dies and Van Helsing has a half-vampire granddaughter. 

The question then becomes what of all the other people the stem turned. Van Helsing killed her assistant. The implication seems to be that she did not leave any other people alive. A stem can do that or just totally kill their victims. You would think there would be more out there. Oh well. 

The film has enough talent and good production values to be a decent watch. I watched the whole thing, which is notable for me these days. Alicia Silverstone, in a role that is sort of her Clueless character all grown up and mature, is a major reason. I cared about her character. 

The film is meant to be a horror comedy and has some amusing moments. Where the stem hides out is somewhat clever. Overall, it's a good free download or something on a boring afternoon. 

Which it was for me.