The Martian

I read The Martian after watching part of it on television. The book has too much science porn. 

I'm not a scientist. If this were about a subject I knew more about, the level of "into the weeds" in it would still get too much at some point.

Plus, it got repetitive. People obviously enjoyed the book. But just saying as one of them.

Something comes up, he figures a way to deal with it, in intricate scientific detail, rinse/repeat. Please, can we get back to the other people? They even sometimes have to deal with intricate scientific details. They do not go into that much detail. Other stuff also happens.

It's appreciated that we get repeated reminders of the possibility of human error, unplanned occurrences that will screw things up, etc. But this got tiresome.

I liked the book as a whole once I got into a groove of quickly reading all of these details.  I have noted that it is harder for me to get into books in recent years. 

I completed this book in less than a day. So, you know, not all bad.

The human element is done well overall. Sometimes, I wanted to learn more about the other characters. The rest of the crew, e.g., seem interesting.

I suppose online there is fan fiction covering their adventures. We receive a few snapshots of their personal stories, including a single home-to-ship live communication. Three are married, and the other two have a thing going on with each other.

We know the maroon crew member's parents are alive; he's from Chicago and doesn't seem to have a significant other. Other than that, there is no backstory. One of the discussion questions addresses that. The book is largely about one guy, alone, and you do not get to really understand him too much. 

It was flagged in an earlier morning thread that a key science point was problematic. The author edited the book over time as he received feedback on scientific details (my copy has an interview with the author). 

He did not fix everything. Dramatic license and other factors do come into play.

He later noted he was aware of the issue. And, anyway, I saw one account that said it "may" be a problem. We don't know for sure.

The book tosses in a somewhat out-of-left-field comment about alternative food supply options. I wondered how long that would last.

Checking online, one commentary noted they left that part out. It is a cannibalism hypo. I can see why. 

They also left a few things out of Hail Mary, a recent well-received film also based on the author's novel. My copy provided the first chapter as a preview.

From what I saw, the Matt Damon film was well made. Good cast and so on. 

I cannot judge the science of it all.

I also appreciate the sentiment about how it is human instinct to help people, with some exceptions. A key plot point involves the Chinese Space Agency helping, with some sacrifice to their own efforts. 

Checking Wikipedia, the film tells you what Matt Damon's character will do when he gets back. 

The book ends with his rescue. So, you know, maybe there is a disaster later on, and the whole crew dies! 

The Stars Between Us

 

I enjoyed this film. The lead (woman) was in Guiding Emily (where she went blind), which was also very good. 

Developing A Scientific Temper

Gauhar Raza discussed his book, From Myths to Science: The Evolving Story of the Universe, on a recent Freedom From Religion Foundation podcast. It's a weekly broadcast on Thursday with one-half news, one-half usually some guest. 

He cited a quote from the Indian founding father, Nehru, in his book, Discovery of India.

The scientific approach, the adventurous and yet critical temper of science, the search for truth and new knowledge, the refusal to accept anything without testing and trial, the capacity to change previous conclusions in the face of new evidence, the reliance on observed fact and not on pre-conceived theory, the hard discipline of the mind, all this is necessary, not merely for the application of science but for life itself and the solution of its many problems.

The Indian Constitution has a section of "fundamental duties," which includes “to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform.” Among the other duties are "to protect and improve the natural environment including forests, lakes, rivers and wild life, and to have compassion for living creatures."

The fundamental duties are civic guidelines that apparently are "not justiciable." That is, they are not rights and obligations that are legally binding. Still, they provide a vision to follow. If some legal dispute arises, it also would seem reasonable to apply the law, if reasonably possible, without violating such duties.

As always, it is interesting to consider other national constitutions and laws. How do they govern and apply principles with some universal appeal?  

We should take more careful attention to such things, especially for a country that now challenges China as the most populous in the world.  

National Prayer Breakfast 

It's that time again. 

The National Prayer Breakfast, which as Stephen Colbert notes, threatens the separation of church and breakfast. It also has other issues.

Various groups encouraged politicians to boycott the event. Trump took the occasion to be horrible himself, including bashing Democrats, and selling how he is helping bring God back to this country. 

A time for politicians to join together and pray can be a useful event. It can be a benign one where they humbly respect their religious beliefs. It's possible. 

Trump goes another way and underlines why it was a tragic day in our nation when the people elected him in 2024. His profaning of religion included. 

"What is a Woman" (+ a 18th Century LGBTQ dispute)

I was checking C-SPAN and there was a segment entitled Agustín Fuentes, "Sex is a Spectrum - The Biological Limits of the Binary."  The guest was asked about Justice Jackson refusing a request to define "woman" because she was not a biologist. 

The person said this was mistaken. His answer noted that biology was a factor in determining the term. Ultimately, however, it was a cultural term.

Justice Blackburn, as is her wont in such hearings, was doing some trolling. Jackson, amid a lot of questioning, started her answer to the specific comment by laughing it off, saying she was not a biologist. Biological factors are involved here.

[I tried to find a full transcript, there being ones around, but could not find it. The video is out there.]

Judge (as she was then) Jackson, however, did not stop there. She added:

“Senator, in my work as a judge, what I do is I address disputes,” Jackson said. “If there’s a dispute about a definition, people make arguments and I look at the law and I decide. So I’m not —”

YES! The question in the context she will handle is legal. One damn throwaway comment should not determine our response, even if trolls LOVE (I have seen it) to sneer at it. 

Ditto Sotomayor's "wise Latina" remark. We can try not to be moronic children. I use that qualifier since many children are intelligent and are able to use nuance. For instance, many realize grandparents marry, even though they can't have children anymore. 

The term "woman" is a complicated legal term. 

In many of those cases, the courts did not limit the meaning of “sex” to genetic or anatomical characteristics present at birth or even to physical characteristics associated with gender generally. Instead, the circuit courts indicated that discrimination on the basis of a number of sex or gender-related characteristics, real or perceived, constituted unlawful sex discrimination.

See also a discussion of international law:

I argue the term “woman” as used in CEDAW means all of the above: biological, anatomical, genetic, gender performance, and/or gender identity—meaning any of the listed categories standing alone would be sufficient as would a combination of two or more categories. 

The legal definition of "woman" was relevant when same sex marriage was not a constitutional right. Different states treated trans people differently. A "woman" for marriage purposes might turn on chromosomes, what you were assigned at birth, or your status after a sex change operation. 

Jackson's off-the-cuff statement about not being a biologist was just that. It was not a carefully thought-out reply. It was a bemused statement that was part of a wider discussion. She ultimately (correctly) noted it was a legal matter.

The legal definition of a woman doesn't just turn on certain anatomy. Some people ridiculed the dispute. 

Duh, it depended on whether you have a penis. What about intersex people? One person was annoyed that I used "person" to talk about abortions (non-binary, intersex, trans), acknowledged the presence of intersex persons. They still wanted two boxes. So, what's the dividing line? 

Biology will factor in. Ultimately, she will apply legal definitions. There are disputes on the definition. She will have to look at the material and make a legal judgment. If the law includes a "third sex" (or more), as many cultures have over the years, that would factor in.  Sorry if it seems so hard, Senator.   

Vicious and Immoral: Homosexuality, the American Revolution, and the Trials of Robert Newburgh

Somewhat related, I read a book about a dispute arising from rumors that a British army chaplain committed "buggery" in the 18th Century.  

The book was interesting in various respects, but the whole thing was also convoluted. It dragged out for years and ended inconclusively. He spent a few more years as an army chaplain and then spent another 45 years in private life, largely in obscurity.  

I was not totally convinced by some of the attempts to connect the whole thing to the American Revolution. The book also probably could have been notably shorter. The disputes got to be tedious. 

The book is somewhat shorter than it looks since it has large margins. I read over half of it today.  

It was still a fascinating look into another era, including the mixed reaction to the allegations. A large part of the controversy was that the clergyman was seen as not properly masculine. His colorful outfit really pissed off one of his accusers.  

The book is by a historian who is openly gay.  

Saving Five: A Memoir of Hope

Amanda Nguyen's book is a two hundred page account of her escape from an abusive father, rape, and fight to pass legislation to provide rights to rape victims. She uses a fable, involving her at various ages, to discuss how she handled the stages of grief. 

[It was a good narrative device if somewhat heavy-handed. She mixes the fable with the rest of the narrative in a basic back/forth approach. It is also the source of the title.]

A particular concern is to stop the destruction of rape kits, which in Massachussetts (she was a student at Harvard) took place after six months. Nguyen was able to take a "Jane Roe" rape kit, but it would be destroyed if she didn't press charges in six months. 

She did not want to do that, since it would have opened her up to possibly years of rape investigation and trial. She did not want her career hopes (CIA and astronaut) interrupted for that. And, she feared both would deem her unsuitable in the process.

Nguyen does not provide a reason why the government wanted to destroy rape kits. There tends to be a reason for something, even if it is a bad one. Understandably, she focuses on her personal pain and stress from constantly worrying about obtaining another six-month extension. 

(For instance, for reasons of privacy, there was a policy of not sending emails. At one point, she spent $500 [in the mid-2010s] to travel to get a personal printout. OTOH, the hospital accidentally called her parents and revealed she was raped. Her abusive father, therefore, found out.)  

Still, an advocate needs to know the other side's arguments. One article, for instance, suggests it is a matter of space. The large number of rape victims, unfortunately, makes that somewhat conceivable.

Nguyen provides us with limited information about the rape, moving from before to right after. The book provides an emotional account of her going with a friend to get a rape kit and then for some reason she leaves. Nguyen is left alone with supportive staff, but they are strangers. Another friend's act of being there and cleaning the sheets is noted as very important.

She gets close to joining the CIA but decides to focus on passing what became the Survivors' Bill of Rights Act of 2016. The law was passed unanimously, which is a notable achievement. The book ends with the passage of the legislation so there is obviously much more that she accompolished since then.  

The book does not provide a full acount of her work, including as Deputy White House Liaison for U.S. Department of State. Nguyen also cautiously leave out some names, including of a senator and aide that treated her is an abusive way. 

(Is "Chad" even the aide's name? Seems like a stock villain name. Like, "really, Chad?")

The book ends with an Epilogue that she became an astronaut in 2023. The book was published in 2025. Her Wikipedia page notes her space flight ("Making Nguyen the first woman of Vietnamese heritage to fly into space") took place earlier this month. Yes, it was the one that also had Katy Perry. 

Whether or not she will access her rape kit and press charges is a decision for the future. The point is, she has kept the door open. “I’ve given myself time,” she says. “We’ve rewritten the law to give my future self that choice. I’m just so grateful I screamed and the world listened.”

The book is well written, with her fable taking up around a third. She never does bring a case against her rapist and readers might be upset about that loose thread. OTOH, that is the case with quite a few rapes. There is no grand moment of justice.

Nguyen also does not provide a full autobiography, which her Wikipedia page alone shows is more detailed than only suggested here. Simply put, it is not a complete "memoir," and a lot more can be said about her life. This is more of a limited view of some things.

One blurb is fitting: "Amanda Nguyen is a compassionate, clear-eyed guiding force" and "shows us how to reclaim the full spectrum of our lives, replete with pain, fury, creativity, and recovered dreams." A fitting narrative for the times. 

Trans Day of Visibility

 

Each year on March 31, the world observes Transgender Day of Visibility (TDOV) to raise awareness about transgender people. It is a day to celebrate the lives and contributions of trans people, while also drawing attention to the disproportionate levels of poverty, discrimination, and violence the community faces compared to cisgender (non-transgender) people.

This is an annual celebration. One year it overlapped with Easter, leading to the usual suspects making things a conspiracy. President Biden respected the rights of trans people. For him, they existed:

As kids, they deserve what every child deserves:  the chance to learn in safe and supportive schools, to develop meaningful friendships, and to live openly and honestly.  As adults, they deserve the same rights enjoyed by every American, including equal access to health care, housing, and jobs and the chance to age with grace as senior citizens.  But today, too many transgender Americans are still denied those rights and freedoms.

Trump goes another way, including alleging that trans people are not "physically or mentally prepared to serve" in the military. He wants to be Orwellian about "biological truths," including allegedly to protect women's sports (how about men's sports?). 

I will let Karen tell you about the "protection racket" here and the true goals involved.  The attack on trans are vicious and often just plain gratuitous. 

Not surprisingly, trans issues are repeatedly referenced on a blog involving religious themed legal issues. Nonetheless, religion is often used as an excuse to channel hateful and ignorant non-religious views. Remember too that "Christian" is not the same as "conservative fundamental Christian." 

Trump and other Republicans want to erase trans people. Trans people are the core legitimate target for many these days. Parents are threatened if they want to provide their children medically accepted care. 

Trans people are blocked from bathrooms reflecting their gender identity, blocking people who otherwise "look the part" from basic human needs. Nicole Maines can tell you how absurd that can be. 

A few trans athletes (sometimes not even trans) are wrongly labeled grave threats to sports. Harmful conversion therapy is accepted licensed medical care. Not unlicensed therapy at a church. Care provided by personnel licensed by the government.  

Erin Reed is a good place to go to keep up with current trans legal issues. She provides some optimism about the future. There is some reason to be optimistic. The attacks of trans people often is a result from fear. Trans people are visible. They exist.

That scares some people. Holidays often celebrate things that exist each day. Parents should be honored daily. That's hard. So, we have a special day for mothers, fathers, and grandparents. We honor certain "history months." We honor saint days.

Today is a day to celebrate trans people. Farmer v. Brennan (1994) recognized the needs of trans prisoners. Trans history goes back to ancient times. 

Some trolls continue to ridicule when Justice Jackson had trouble defining "woman" during her confirmation hearing. Biologists have problems drawing lines. Sex and gender is complex. There are not just XX/XY chromosomes. There are more than two genders. 

It is not surprising that an administration who is so scared about DEI (which is again a fine concept) is not a big fan of diversity. Our nation should celebrate it. 

Trans people exist. Even if you are not a big fan -- and you have issues -- there is no reason to be so gratuitously cruel as so many people are. 

Today's a day to celebrate and honor trans people. We should respect their particular needs as we should respect the needs of each one of us. And we should oppose all the patent bullshit done to oppress them. 

Happy Trans Day of Visibility. 

Foreign Students Are a Major American Resource

Secretary of State Marco Rubio said Sunday that Mahmoud Khalil, an activist who is being detained by federal immigration authorities, is "going to leave — and so are others."

Mahmoud Khalil is in the U.S. on an F-1 student visa as a graduate student at Columbia’s School of International and Public Affairs. Foreign students are a major resource. Paul Krugman:

Many foreigners come to America to study, attracted by the quality of our colleges and universities. In 2023, the most recent year for which data are available, they spent more than $50 billion. But if you were a foreigner considering study in the U.S. next year, wouldn’t you be worried that you might find yourself arrested and deported for expressing what the current administration considers anti-American views? I would. So, we can expect a hit to higher education, which, although we rarely think of it this way, is a major U.S. export.

A conservative legal blogger argued that their foreign visas can be revoked for exercising constitutional rights. He framed it this way:

Foreign students are here as visitors to study, not to be members of the American polity. 

I don't know the reach of the "American polity" label. They are not voting. They still can take part in debates and protests. Noncitizens are allowed to do that, including those here as students. 

Also, noncitizens advance the overall conversation in a way that helps American citizens. Immigrants add special value to the educational experience, including different perspectives and knowledge. 

That doesn't mean that we should prohibit them from expressing their opinions, 

Okay, so they can "express opinions." 

I would hope so. He pushed back against me in a comment but if we welcome them as members of college and universities, that is part of the program. People who go to college take part in debates and protests. It is part of the experience. 

Maybe, the visa requires them to be full time students. They still can take part in protests. If the United States wants to only allow them to take part in a correspondence course, so be it, but they did not do that. They welcomed them as full students. 

but, e.g., holding protests in favor of an enemy country during wartime, or, more controversially perhaps, prohibiting foreign students from using their status as such to try to influence American public opinion on behalf of organizations that Congress has sanctioned as enemy terrorist organizations, strikes me as perfectly reasonable.

I don't think it is perfectly reasonable to deport students for trying to influence American public opinion. Free discourse should be honored in educational institutions. Academic freedom is good. 

A visa holder can be deported if they cross the line regarding actual material support, not just influencing debate, of registered enemy terrorist organizations. This should be done carefully, which is something the Trump Administration has trouble doing.

===

Dr. Rasha Alawieh was approved for an H-1B visa last year to work in the Division of Nephrology at Brown University’s medical school – after studying at three US universities since 2018. She left the country to go to the funeral of Hassan Nasrallah. 

The funeral "was held in a sports stadium and attracted tens of thousands of people." That might be a fraction of the true number.

She returned to the United States but was blocked at the airport. Alawieh said she supported Nasrallah religiously, not politically. She was deported.

(There was controversy over the Administration not following a court order to not deport her before a hearing was held. Ultimately, the judge decided that the government did not receive the order in time.) 

The minimum concern here is that she was deported (some carp on that word but I have seen it being used by lots of news sources, including Fox News) without proper due process. There should be a way to have a hearing before she is forced to leave the country. 

Again, merely having views supporting a person who took part in terrorism should not be enough to deport someone here on a visa for an extended time, doing productive scientific work. Pictures of the guy on her phone and showing up at a funeral that tens of thousands also took part in is a dubious line. 

Still, maybe the facts will come out that justify deporting her. Again, my test would be concrete evidence of material support, not simply having "views" about the guy. I have my doubts. It still should be done in a more procedurally benign fashion. 

It is not quite akin to sending someone to Louisiana away from their pregnant wife, incommunicado for an extended period. Still, she was here for a long time with connections to this country. Not allowing her to return is still a seriously troubling matter. 

Foreign students and scholars are a major American resource. We should treat them carefully.  

And, there is also a wider war on academic study.

More Trump BS

CONGESTION PRICING IS DEAD. Manhattan, and all of New York, is SAVED.” Trump posted to his Truth Social. “LONG LIVE THE KING!

Trump probably thinks he is trolling people, including showing Time magazine with him wearing a crown. It does seem a bit much. And, he is acting like a king, down to becoming the chair of the Kennedy Center.

Congestion pricing is a long-negotiated policy to address traffic and promote public transportation. Gov. Hochul, who took a while before finally supporting a reduced toll, strongly opposed the Trump move. She's having some moments.

[She, however, said "no" on removing Adams.]

BTW, the Transportation Secretary (yes, I miss you, Pete Buttigieg) received over twenty "no" votes, but both N.Y. senators voted for him.

Hegseth’s biggest concession to Russia, though, was his warning that “stark strategic realities prevent the United States of America from being primarily focused on the security of Europe.” Also on Wednesday, President Donald Trump spoke to Russia’s president, Vladimir Putin, for nearly an hour and a half and came out echoing Putin’s rationale for his attack on Ukraine. Trump’s social media account posted that the call had been “highly productive,” and said the two leaders would visit each other’s countries, offering a White House visit to Putin, who has been isolated from other nations since his attacks on Ukraine.

Heather Cox Richardson touches upon Trump's moves against Western Europe, Ukraine (calling the leader a "dictator"), and helping Putin. MAGA requires supporting other nation's autocrats. 

Citing ‘Biological Truth,’ Kennedy Issues Guidance Recognizing Only Two Sexes

Finally, the new Secretary of Health and Human Services (sic), Robert F-ing Kennedy Jr., went along with Trump to attack LGBTQ+ people. When he ran, he said trans issues were not something he thought people were worrying about. But, now he's part of the Borg, so has to go along.

Next up: oh so much, including the "we have to go after our MAGA enemies" guy to head the FBI. 

Lincoln's Birthday

 

Some essays about Lincoln and Darwin too.

A Couple Books

I don't read many science books, partially because I find social science and history-type books easier to process. I do find various types of science interesting. It's a subject I should read more about. 

Thus, the fact I found this book so readable is particularly notable. The author is a philosopher and carefully provides an explanation of the concepts in a down-to-earth way. The book was originally written in Spanish. She translated it into English herself.  

The bottom line is that she argues many animals have a minimum understanding that creatures die and won't come back to life. They need not comprehend death in the complex way humans do. 

But, when some animals "act dead," for instance, it is logical to assume others understand what that means. Animals have various forms of comprehension. 

I welcome further books by this author. 

I re-read this book. A two-hundred and fifty or so page book is not going to comprehensively cover an over sixty-year period with another chapter about the other chief justices. His longer autobiography did not do that. However, it is a good introduction in his gentle individualistic tone. 

Don't expect too strong criticism of his colleagues as people but he disagrees with them on multiple issues.  At times, you will say "Oh come on, John." Overall, it's good light reading for amateurs and court watchers. 

Also, don't totally rely on everything he said. A blatant case is a reference to a case as being under the term of a chief justice when it was before his term of office.  I also disagreed with his "six amendments" book on various grounds. However, he does sound like someone it would be fun to discuss things with. 

Near the end of his life, Stevens changed his mind about Kavanaugh's confirmation after BK ranted and raved in his confirmation hearing. He later suggested some people chided him on that. 

Kavanaugh, perhaps given Vance's wife being his law clerk, swore in the vice president today.  Yes, I'm inclined to think James David Vance at least has the bare minimum to warrant being honored with that label. I still don't want to call him "JD." 

Book and Film: Math & WWI Nurses

The Secret Lives of Numbers by Kate Kitagawa and Timothy Revell is a discussion of "Math's Unsung Trailblazers." The book focuses on many non-white European males and is filled with illustrations. Kitagawa herself joined Japan's space agency. 

One review argued that the book made the math approachable to non-specialists. I am not a specialist though did reasonably enough in math. I found the math material at times somewhat hard to plow through. The basic historical materials were more approachable.  Net found it worthwhile.

There were some films from the early 1930s on TCM. War Nurse was one of the films with Anita Page. She started in silent films, did a few talkies, and then retired. She was in a movie thirty years later and then a few low budget films over thirty years after that!  

War Nurse is a serious film (with some light moments and romantic entanglements) about nurses during WWI. It does not avoid the horrors of war. Anita plays a young American nurse who eventually gets pregnant and later dies in childbirth (how convenient). She does a good job. 

There is a well done serious scene involving the hospital being bombed near the end of the film. It ends on a happy note when the beau of another nurse comes back and we assume they will both raise the child together.   

I thought the film as a whole was worthwhile. Some of the romantic stuff and so forth was a bit tiresome. The war scenes overall are the best part of the film. And, as a whole, for a 1930 film, it is quite watchable. 

SCOTUS Watch: Final Orders

The Supreme Court had its "clean-up conference" and released some final orders, grants, and statements/dissents.

The first link (relist watch) is a helpful way to cross-check the four grants. We have e-cigarette regulations, the standard to use when testing an Internet age requirement, First Step sentencing issue (two cases), and this fascinating issue:

When a noncitizen’s voluntary departure period ends on a weekend or public holiday, is a motion to reopen filed the next business day sufficient to avoid the penalties for failure to depart? 

The final order list before summer break also allows the justices to say some stuff about cases they did not take. Sotomayor and Thomas are the most vocal with Jackson (Sotomayor going along) having one. Kagan joined one involving life without parole for teens. 

Alito dissented without an opinion regarding taking a case involving "assault weapons." Alito has less than an average amount of opinions this term. It is quite possible that he lost two cases in the writing. 

Among the issues, Sotomayor has a statement regarding the dangers of faulty science being used to prosecute cases. A statement allows a justice to voice concerns or explain their stance while not dissenting from the Court not taking a case for full review.  

(Texas recently scheduled an execution arising out of a conviction that might be based on faulty science.)

So, the Supreme Court goes on vacation, the only official thing scheduled being three summer order lists to deal with stuff:

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 22; Monday, August 19; and Friday, September 6, 2024. Summer order lists usually consist of actions taken by the Court on motions in pending cases, petitions for rehearing, and other miscellaneous matters. Emergency orders, such as in applications for stays, will continue to be released as required.

Responses

AOC announced that when the House returns from its own recess she will have an impeachment resolution for the justices. I do not know the exact form this will take. Nonetheless, it is a helpful way to keep the issues alive. 

The Supreme Court should be an election issue. Such "theater" (as one response handwaved) is politics. 

President Biden also had a brief statement, which he made himself to the press, in response to the Trump immunity case. He reminded people of what happened on 1/6. He said that there should be a trial before the election but the Supreme Court (wrongly) made that very unlikely.  

Biden reaffirmed the principle (7/2/1776 is the day independence was declared) that we do not have a king. He agreed with Sotomayor's dissent, including the importance of dissenting from the majority opinion. 

The bottom line is that it is up to us:

Perhaps most importantly, the American people must decide if they want to entrust the president — once again, the presidency to Donald Trump, now knowing he’ll be even more emboldened to do whatever he pleases whenever he wants to do it.

President Biden looked energetic though when he walked away he looked a bit more frail. I think it was a good statement. A few were annoyed that he voiced restraint after the Supreme Court allegedly gave the president carte blanche. They didn't do that. Would they just let Biden do whatevs? 

We don't want a "good dictator." The people in 2020 showed that they wanted a person of character. Biden was correct to contrast himself with Trump on that issue. And, contra some comments I saw, it was not the time to bring up other things such as Hunter Biden or the debate. The statement is fine. 

The ruling was bad. It stripped Jack Smith of the ability to bring certain charges and made it harder to bring others:

It ruled that Trump is absolutely immune, and thus cannot be prosecuted, for any attempts he made to get his Justice Department to do sham investigations in order to show that the 2020 election was conducted illegally – the “big lie” that Trump and his allies have pressed since that election and that got him in legal trouble. Those dealings with the Justice Department were the only ones ruled by the Court to be totally protected from prosecution.

It decided that Trump has a tentative form of “presumed” immunity (which prosecutors can try to overcome) by attempting in January 2021 to persuade his Vice President, Mike Pence, to stop the counting of Electoral College votes that made Joe Biden the winner of the Presidency.

Again, certain types of evidence are also withheld from the prosecutor's toolkit. And, just what this will wrought is unclear. We are assured, for instance, that the Georgia case will largely be unaffected. To be determined! 

President Biden's statement is a relatively rare direct statement about the Supreme Court itself. This election is among other things about the federal courts. 

We are not just talking about nominations and confirmations. We are talking about oversight, reforms, and passing legislation to address decisions. For instance, yesterday's agency decision allowing more challenges can be addressed via legislation. 

Heather Cox Richardson in her Facebook chat about the Trump immunity opinion (Substack here) suggests everyone do their part depending on their strengths. One of mine is to provide analysis and details. An informed public is essential. One person complimented a comment of mine as "lapidary." I like that.  

Amee Vanderpool:

We need to reform the US Supreme Court by adding more judges to the bench and rotating the docket. This is a simple idea for a not so simple fix that will require a Constitutional Amendment at a time when we will be lucky to have a slim majority. This means we will have to elect Democrats, in mighty numbers, who are willing to pursue court reform, to do the job. Sadly, based on the political history of our country and the basic nature of human behavior, it will likely take even more to push the dial back to center. Buckle up, this is just the beginning of a very long road to reform.

I do not agree with defeatist people, including talking about the "end of democracy." There is a certain degree of privilege in such comments. How did African Americans think about that issue a hundred years ago?  

AV thinks yesterday's decision will help voters choose correctly in November. As we get ready to celebrate the Fourth of July (sit down, John!), let us remember our nation's values, and how people gave blood, sweat, and tears (not necessarily in that order) to fight and defend them.  

ETA: The latest news is that the sentencing in the NY case is now delayed until September to examine how the immunity case applies. Total bullshit but again don't tell me how the Georgia trial won't be affected. At least for Trump, very well will be. Ditto for any Trump officials involved. 

One Way Back by Christine Blasey Ford

I enjoyed books about the Warren, Burger, and Rehnquist Courts. I have had less luck with books about the Roberts Court. 

Perhaps, it is somewhat related to the fact that I read more contemporary material online about the Supreme Court. For instance, Linda Greenhouse's book about the year surrounding Barrett's entry is basically fine. I did not find much new. 

Some accounts say a book added useful background to the Affordable Care Act Cases. I found the discussion somewhat underwhelming. 

Ruth Marcus’s 2019 book, Supreme Ambition, about Brett Kavanaugh’s rise to power and the events that took place after Dr. Christine Blasey Ford accused him of sexual assault was another matter. I decided that reading that book would have too many disgusted moments. I would be screaming into the void too many times. I have enough stress as is. 

I will let Prof. Sherry Colb -- RIP -- do her usual excellent best to handle that book. She had two basic levels -- professorial and angry -- the latter upped a notch when she knew she had little time left. Her anger and disgust that her two daughters had to live with "Commander Sam Alito, At Your Cervix" would have led to some disgust, regardless.

As the National Women's Law Center noted:

The recent revelations that the FBI performed the most superficial of investigations into the claims against Kavanaugh is part of a pattern of failing survivors, from Anita Hill, to Dr. Blasey Ford, to Debbie Ramirez, to Simone Biles, and more than a hundred athletes. Three years after Kavanaugh’s confirmation to the Supreme Court, we have a new administration and an opportunity to chart a new course. Our leaders cannot continue to be complicit in enabling abusers. The Biden administration and Congress must show that they are invested in real investigations, not hollow, three-day reviews. They must show they value truth and the pursuit of justice, and institutions like the FBI and the Department of Justice must prove to the people of this country that they are here to serve the people, and not just the powerful, from those in our highest courts to those in our college campuses.

On this blog, I opposed Brett Kavanaugh's nomination to the Court of Appeals. He was the primary author of the infamous Starr Report. I felt Kavanaugh was a needlessly partisan selection. The Democrats blocked his appointment until the bipartisan "Gang of 14" reached an agreement. 

Others, including the co-hosts of Strict Scrutiny Podcast, are not impressed with his career overall. They felt he was a sort of "bro" hanger-on type.  He does come off as a bit of an asshole. Gorsuch has different asshole vibes, more of a patronizing ass type. Kavanaugh seems more needy. 

My opinion did not improve when he was nominated to the Supreme Court. For instance, he helped to delay the abortion of a teenage non-citizen. Of the not great options, I thought Amy Coney Barrett would least worse. She seemed to provide a somewhat different perspective. I think her time on the Court overall reaffirmed my limited support at the time.

We then found out that Dr. Christine Blasey Ford notified two members of Congress that he sexually abused her in high school. While drunk, he helped hold her down and tried to remove her clothes. She was able to escape but his laughter stuck in her brain forever. Kavanaugh handled this badly.*

Retired Justice John Paul Stevens originally supported his nomination. He changed his mind after Kavanaugh's ranting in response to the allegations. Kavanaugh's antics were hilariously portrayed on Saturday Night Live.  

Obviously, it is not a funny matter overall. Just how much so is shown in Ford's autobiographical account, One Way Back. She suffered years of harassment, death threats, and more for coming out. Someone without her professional reputation, financial means, and support would not be likely to handle it.

For instance, she hired expensive security guards, took a leave of absence, and spent months away from home in hotels and other temporary housing. Lots of people would not be able to do this, even with help from GoFundMe.

Manchin (who did not vote for Barrett) voted for Kavanaugh. Collins did so as well, after a vitriolic speech attacking her critics. Murkowski was the one Republican who did not vote for him. Her act of courage was a vote "present." 

Chuck Grassley, now 90 years old, later released a smear job. The FBI did a sham investigation, not even questioning Ford herself. I was angry for her reading the book (which she wrote herself; no co-author cited). Imagine how people who were victims of sexual abuse felt.  

The book has three photos. The first photo is of her leaping into an ocean. She is a big surfer. The second is her in a Metallica shirt surrounded by letters. She dedicates the book to people who send her letters. She says the book is in effect her answer to them. The third is the back profile picture.

Her husband's family was publicly vocal in their support. For instance, the actress Bridgit Mendler (Good Luck Charlie) is her niece on her husband's side. She tweeted support to "Aunt Chrissy." Her family was not. She notes she barely talks to her brothers, even at family events. 

Ford does not want to be harsh (she notes not being difficult is her thing) but hard to think there were not some bad feelings about how that went down. Her mother was frail after an illness but her personal opinions are mostly left out. 

Her father did not want her to come out. He desired to stay out of it. She notes her father's brief rather impersonal statement to the press:

I think all of the Blasey family would support her. I think her record stands for itself. Her schooling, her jobs, and so on.

He might be socially liberal, by her lights, but Ralph Blasey was still conservative. Likewise, she notes her father wrote to Kavanaugh's father (they belonged to the same country club):

I'm glad Brett got confirmed, so we can all put this behind us now.

Well, the fathers might be able to do that, but Dr. Ford continued to get death threats and so on. She cried when she found out (after he hairsplit about not sending a "letter" but then admitted he sent an email).  

It's simply hard to imagine the level of anger held against her for daring to release information that in the end did not change much for Kavanaugh. The level of ugliness on that side is appalling. The Republicans released a 400-page report that dwelled on such things as doubting she truly feared flying and enclosed spaces. No quarter.**

Some liberals continue to want to play nice. Do not do too much, including talk about expanding the Supreme Court, since it will lead to partisan revenge. What is wrong with you? Were they somehow gentle in the past? 

It is a well-written and down-to-earth book. We learn about her complete life, not just two moments. It is at times not easy to read. If I wanted to carp, she probably could have edited a few pages near the end. But, sure, do not ask me to write a book that is around three hundred pages!  

Some people who are survivors might have some trauma reading it. A few who have been harmed will be upset that they do not receive the support she did. "Ophrah Winfrey didn't call me! Where is my invite to her home?!"

She -- to use surfer imagery -- did "paddle out and took her chances." She felt it was her duty as a citizen. She dealt with a lot of shit and many have a lot to apologize for. 

It is somewhat amazing how much she felt a need to apologize and grant her imperfections. A reader might want to say to her that she is a wonderful accomplished human being who dealt with life's prevails a lot better than many others have. 

And, yes, we are still waiting for that time when "justice will prevail." Meanwhile, Kavanaugh is a justice of the Supreme Court. I doubt that will ever not rankle.  

===

* Dr. Ford offered the hypo of Kavanaugh not being a total asshole. He could have said that he did not remember doing it or even apologized for his youthful actions. 

She thinks he does remember doing it. But, if he had gone that route, she might have done some serious thinking. She noted two of her friends offered the possibility that some people do change. BK apparently did not. 

(Prof. Colb notes the book cited above has two other convincing accounts of him doing sexual predator-type things. The two accounts involve him drunkenly exposing his penis and having a woman -- at least once not consensually -- touch it. This time he was at Yale. Okay.) 

I also think the most egregious part of his actions was his response as an adult, a sitting Court of Appeals judge. There were numerous other choices. You did not have to go with a sexual predator. That has an "own the libs" feel to it.

His ranting and raving during the nomination process clinched the deal. 

** The fact only one Republican failed to vote to confirm (there were a couple votes margin; Jeff Flake or someone else could have at least gone Murkowski's route) just underlines the type of party they have become.

The idea that Dr. Ford -- in the heat of the #MeToo Era -- along with the Democrats were cynical partisans is bullshit. 

Sen. Feinstein mishandled the whole thing. She was already running for re-election (she should have stepped down) while she was in her mid-80s. Ford notified her congresswoman and senior senator early in the process. Feinstein for whatever reason wanted to bury it but it came out anyhow. 

Once it did, what exactly did the Republicans expect them to do, especially at that time? And, it is hard to expect such an allegation to stay hidden. Ignore a credible allegation from an esteemed professor and biostatistician? 

Books and Films

It was nice to see "Fake Melania" (Laura Benanti) on Stephen Colbert again. She started doing Melania Trump (noting the two looked alike) as a joke, but in time the "innocent victim" theme started to fall away.

Salman Rushdie was on the show recently promoting his new book (based on events that are also the subject of a pending documentary). I had not read any of his books, but support his right to freely do his art. The book discusses an attack from a few years ago in upstate New York. The book is around two hundred pages and is an approachable and honest accounting. 

I have enjoyed various writings by Kristen Ghodsee, whose expertise is Eastern European communism. I wrote a book summary of Red Valkyries: Feminist Lessons from Five Revolutionary Women. Her new book on utopias is somewhat longer than her usual books and it was harder for me to get into it. Following my "reading is not to be forced" sentiment, I put it aside. 

Galaxy Quest was on television and I finally got around to watching it. I did fast forward a few parts, including part of the serious portion where things are not going well for our heroes. It is an amusing and well-made satire of a Star Trek-like crew of actors who get involved in a real-life space adventure. Multiple Star Trek actors were tickled by the whole thing. 

I also watched Housecalls, which was a pre-Hopscotch pairing of Walter Matthau and Glenda Jackson, down to the Matthau character liking to sing classical music. Art Carney (who seems to be playing someone a bit older than he was at the time; he was around 60) played an old goat. 

[Matthau also was the presenter when Glenda Jackson won an award for her role years earlier in Women in Love.]

I believe I saw the film a long time ago -- one or two scenes seem vaguely familiar. Glenda Jackson is very cute and they make a good pair. Art Carney is also very good. Films often turn on supporting characters. 

The film starts off fun but sort of peters out after they start dating. There are over twenty minutes left and you basically just wait for the expected conclusion. Overall, it was enjoyable.   

The latest Showtime at Night entry is Sex and a Double Date (see here). A bestie has to find a date for a wedding. The bride finds a guy for her (a familiar face in these films) while she herself chooses a woman. 

Hilarity, or at least some softcore sex [these films somewhat annoyingly only show so much, even though it looks like the full scenes are more hardcore] ensues. Apropos of the lesbian content, the first episodes of the "L" Word television show (Happy Pride Month) were also on last night on Showtime. I generally enjoyed that show, liking some characters over others, but did not see all of the episodes. 

The bride sounds familiar and looks like a totally toned/fake looking (nude at least) porn actress. Her fiance looks a bit like a dweeb and plays that sort of character in other films. The bestie/maid of honor is also standard though she has pretty nice breasts. Her girlfriend has nice if smaller breasts and really long hair (if that is your thing).  

The sex scenes are pretty long (something like ten minutes?) though are not that exciting overall, again since we only see parts of them. The rules are: a lot of sexy talk (if hard to understand without subtitles, which often are amusing), shots of breasts, some ass, very little crotch, and no penis at all. 

It's an Adam and Eve film, so overall, it's respectfully done. Decent overall as far as these things go. 

Island of Terror

This week's Svengoolie film is a 1960s British horror involving cancer research gone wrong. New life forms endanger people on an island, including killing multiple scientists and costing horror veteran Peter Cushing's character his hand.

I saw this film in the past and caught parts of it this week. It's an enjoyable enough programmer. Two of the scientists (including Peter Cushing particularly in one scene) are rather blase about the lost of life. The other surviving scientist basically handwaved it as a cost of science. Wonder what he will say when he learns the creatures are now in Japan.

Saturday Watching and Reading

This week's Svengoolie film is one that I have not seen. The Sven stuff includes new material since it references not only Elon Musk but the upcoming eclipse. The show is now in a two-and-a-half-hour time slot. Some of the films are pretty short but overall this seems to work okay. 

The film is The Time Travellers, which partially inspired another MeTV late-night staple, Time Tunnel. The woman scientist at her desk keeping track of things is the time tunnel television show staple, the woman there is played by the daughter-in-law on Barnaby Jones. 

The film has our scientists travel from their cheap looking lab to the last 21st Century, which among other things has a type of transporter device. One of the people in this film was in the original Star Trek pilot, the creator was impressed with this film, including its special effects on a low budget. 

The mid-1960s film had one risque scene in a women's steam room-type location, where Svengoolie notes all the actresses were actually nude [we see a bit of side boob]. Overall, though low budget in some ways, the whole thing is enjoyable enough. It also has something of a trick ending though how the apparent "time loop" is created is unclear.  

===

It's National Poetry Month so Quiet Fire: Emily Dickinson's Life and Poetry is an appropriate read.  

The book is a young adult volume (listed as appropriate for grades 7-9 and ages 11-18, which doesn't quite overlap). I assume the two authors are present for this purpose, one as an expert on Emily and the other as someone who writes for children. The text is at times clearly written for this audience. A high schooler might find some of it a bit simplistic.

Still, overall, the book covers a lot of ground. This includes a discussion of poetic styles and GLBTQ aspects of her life and work. I found the whole thing a useful introduction/summary of her life and times.  

On a rather different subject, The Stuff They Don't Want You To Know is based on a podcast on conspiracy theories. The topics include aliens, chemtrails, and propaganda. The book argues conspiracy theories include some fact, including multiple governmental uses of dangerous chemicals to investigate the possible effects of biological warfare.  

Interesting collection in down-to-earth language with some good pictures. The Emily Dickinson book is also rather colorful with lovely smooth pages. Check both out! 

Brent Brewer Execution

Monday Order Lists regularly have a list of cases not granted for argument. The Supreme Court is required to take very few cases. They sometimes find a way even to avoid interstate disputes that would seem to be obligatory. The usual grant is to settle some dispute or when a federal law is struck down and the solicitor general asks for relief.

The October 30th Order List included a denial, as usual without comment, of a case involving Brent Brewer's execution. One liberal-leaning website strongly responded (it was also referenced on Twitter/X):

Brent’s case is an opportunity for the Supreme Court to do something about one of the most barbaric features of one of the legal system’s most barbaric institutions. The question is whether the justices feel like exercising their power before Texas’s race to kill Brent before Thanksgiving renders this opportunity moot.

The reference to "Thanksgiving" is a bit curious for an execution scheduled before Veteran's Day. Anyway, the problem with this plea is that the actual petition and this is noted in the piece, was "technical."  It dealt with something called a "certificate of appealability, which is addressed at the link. It seems there is a good case for it here but it also seems like error correction to rest it on that alone. I'm no habeas lawyer but it still seems technical to me. The Order List on Monday dealt with that too:

The application for a certificate of appealability addressed to Justice Barrett and referred to the Court is denied. 

This is often the case. The Supreme Court is not going to simply take a case to address some age-old problem, including one that they ignored in the past. When they do, it's notable. The Roberts Court, post-Barrett, also is wary about doing much in criminal and capital cases, putting aside some narrow areas of law. They will address some narrow wrongs, especially if something like racism can be flagged, but nothing broad.

The concern here is somewhat broad as well as narrow. Brent Brewer (through his lawyers) is arguing that his death sentence was a product of a flawed finding of future dangerousness. Brewer flagged that the Texas Criminal Court of Appeals a year after the expert testified (2009/2010) found the technique used unreliable. He also was aided by his already extensive time on death row where there was no evidence of such danger.  

The whole concept of determining future dangerousness has its critics. It has a feel of that Tom Cruise film about stopping future crimes. However, I am not clear that the whole concept is inherently problematic. 

The dangerousness of a defendant reasonably is factored into the conditions of their confinement. If the death penalty is ever reasonable, the danger of keeping someone alive is a reasonable factor. The problem here is that IF we use it, it has to be very carefully used. And, the process here appears to be flawed. At least, that would for me settle the question. 

So, the broad issue is the use of expert testimony while the narrow issue is if the specific testimony here was reasonable. I don't see the conservatives, or even two of them, being that excited to take a capital case to address that. And, again, the technical grounds of the petition did not even address that. It is not shocking no liberal justice at that point made a statement. 

The Supreme Court, when Brewer was already on death row over ten years, in 2006 overturned his death sentence. They held (5-4) that the jury did not have the ability to adequately consider mitigating evidence. He and his girlfriend committed the murder shortly after he was released from involuntary commitment after his grandmother found a suicide note. 

And, there was other potential mitigation such as the usual appeal to horrible childhoods. I am not trying to ridicule this necessarily, but it is a common citation. There is also an argument that nineteen is young enough to be a strong mitigation if not grounds not to execute at all. The "push the minimum to 21" movement, however, has not obtained much traction.  

The aggravation is suggested by this summary of the crime:

On April 26, 1990, then 19-year-old Brent Brewer and his girlfriend, Kristie Nystrom, approached Robert Laminack outside his flooring store in Amarillo, Texas and asked for a ride to the Salvation Army. Laminack invited the young couple to get in his truck; Nystrom took the front seat, and Brewer sat in the back. While en route, Brewer grabbed Laminack and began to stab him in the neck with a butterfly knife. Laminack begged for his life while obeying Brewer’s demand to hand over his keys and wallet. He was wounded in the carotid artery and jugular vein. After losing consciousness, he bled to death.

Brent Brewer's lawyers flagged another issue:

In Texas, jurors are told they must unanimously agree that a defendant will pose a future danger. They’re also told that they can only determine someone won’t be a future danger if 10 of the jurors agree. This led Michele Douglas to believe there was no point in being a single holdout against future dangerousness. But what jurors weren’t told: If even one juror disagrees with the death sentence, the court must impose a life sentence instead. 

So, there are some reasonable due process concerns here. I am sure people can dispute them. But, they are not frivolous. 

The wider concern -- and this factors in when a governor and/or whatever entity weighs the evidence and judges if it is a suitable case for mercy/commutation/whatever -- is the overall public need in executing this person. A nineteen-year-old, who had mental health issues, murders someone. They warrant punishment generally speaking (few cases are so severe that guilt is totally erased). 

He had it. He has been in prison for over thirty years. I question if this is a "worst of the worst" crime that warrants the now twenty or so executions a year. The murder was heinous but so are many murders. What is uniquely heinous, especially given his overall situation, to justify this? The deciding factor appears to be dangerousness. Which is rather dubious.  

We saw above that there was room even for the original juries to deem him not warranting the death penalty. Now, after thirty-plus years on death row, what is the legitimate public purpose? I cite yet again Justice Breyer's dissent in Glossip v. Gross on both the problem with decades-long spans on death row and the chance for error. The error already helped to extend his time though that only left room for more errors to be flagged. 

I oppose the death penalty basically in all cases. I might find a few, such as Timothy McVeigh, where the constitutional and/or moral arguments are halfway reasonable. This case is not simply a travesty, such as an innocence claim or where the trial is horribly wrong. However, it is quite bad in its own fashion. Multiple problems and a dubious decision to execute.

Anyway, the lawyers went through the motions to try again after the Supreme Court refused without comment. On the day of the execution, we had the same result. The liberals have decided it somehow is better basically never even dissent without comment. An actual statement is even rarer. I'm not there. But, not clear what it gets them.

Texas, over thirty years later, executed Brent Brewer. 

==

For the sake of completeness, a more mundane (well, at least, less lethal) order was dropped without comment. 

The Senate Judiciary Committee also seemed ready to vote on subpoenas for two Thomas people, the Alito person deciding to cooperate willingly. Then, for some "scheduling issue," perhaps aided by Republican delaying tactics, the vote was put off. 

Dick Durbin, chair of the committee, can drone on, but what has he actually done? Another financial issue was addressed by another committee. He sticks with blue slips, helping to delay district court judges, especially in red states.

Like the liberals silently going along (with reporters sure to note they didn't "publicly dissent"), I reckon he thinks he is acting appropriately. I dissent.

World Series & Other Stuff

Texas Rangers, ending a drought, won the World Series in five games. Arizona came out tough, getting to their ace in Game 1. 

Unfortunately, former Mets journeyman and now apparent ace playoffs closer Paul Sewald turned into a pumpkin. He blew the save. Arizona bats came out in force late in Game 2 to make that a laugher. They lost a close one and then their bullpen game did not go well this time.  

Down 3-1, Arizona tried to make at least a series of it. Nonetheless, it is hard to get out an ace twice. This time he bent but did not break. Arizona's starter finally gave up a single run. Arizona's shot at a late comeback was basically ended when Sewald threw in another egg, four runs being given up in the end. 

So, overall, Arizona did somewhat better than their record suggests. If you want to try to look on the bright side. I did not really see much of the series. If I did, it would have been a mixture of nailbiting and turning off that game where they were losing 10-0 (wound up 11-7 with two late garbage time innings) early. I wanted them to win but am not that upset, except that I would have liked a more competitive overall result.

==

I wrote some thumbnail reviews of books on my Substack page. 

==

This refusal to grant relief to someone who is not only likely innocent but who the victim's own family accepts should be released is a travesty. 

The problem is not merely "Republicans." You can find Republican governors who would act differently. Yes, even in Texas once in a blue moon. The Texas courts recently held up an execution and not on innocence grounds. They have their moments. 

It also was just bad taste that a few people made it personal. It is quite easy not to like Sarah Huckabee Sanders. Nonetheless, making fun of her weight or appearance is tasteless. You are left with that unpleasant feeling where you want to defend someone you rather not defend. 

The system in place, including where even very strong cases for relief are blocked, is very problematic. Yes, there are many frivolous appeals in the mix as there are frivolous lawsuits of all kinds. Life and death warrant allowing an opening. Commutations and pardons are supposed to be one outlet here. They are an imperfect one up to and including the presidential process in place.  Yes, Democrat or Republican, that needs to be reformed.

I also continue to think that people should not be in prison for thirty years except in a tiny number of cases. Not this one, even if the guy did murder someone.  Charles Manson? Yes, I can see keeping him locked up. Ditto a small number of very dangerous defendants. Someone who committed a heinous crime? Not for that reason alone. Decades in a little cage is enough. 

These snapshots of injustices also bother me in a different way. They provide a chance for people to say "How horrible!" and "The system sucks!" or "Police are bad!" The system (whatever it is) has problems. However, it rarely totally sucks. Police engage with people thousands upon thousands of times a year. They have a legitimate job. 

These takes nearly never address those things. When they do flag a "good arrest" or whatever, they still don't note (even in small print or in a footnote) that "at times the police have a role."  It's a bit like when people hate lawyers, except when they need one.  

[I grant some hate them there too.]

===

Daylight Saving Time is a bit stupid. I think we should probably just end the thing. It isn't way up there. We are used to it. 

But, not having to worry about changing the time twice a year would be nice. Am I one of the few still still has a digital clock where you have to go all around to "fall back"? One also skips a few minutes at a time so it rarely is the right time. Both are of limited use but still use the radio at times. I actually have one on my phone too but that needs a headphone. 

Anyways, remember, "fall back, spring forward."  

Odds and Ends As Spring Ends

Today's the last full day of spring and various things happened.

==

I finished Starstruck: A Memoir of Astrophysics and Finding Light in the Dark by Sarafina El-Badry Nance.  She is a thirty-year-old scientist who has advocated for multiple issues, including science and women's health.  

She had the same protective double mastectomy after being found to be prone to certain cancer as people like Christina Applegate.  The book also talks about her troubled relationship with her mother, anxiety issues, and an abusive boyfriend.  Her life is so full already that it didn't even include her Sports Illustrated swimsuit pictorial.  A viral tweet where she talked about the importance of failure also is not included.  

It is well written (no "as told by" apparently) and covers a lot of ground. Each chapter has an opening science discussion.  

===

The Order List today was nothing much of note, including one case granted for full argument.  Justice Jackson didn't take part in deciding one matter and didn't say why.  It seems like she was involved in the case in the court of appeals.  Only Kagan so far (with Alito and Jackson the two I recall having a chance) in recent weeks decided to flag why.  

A federal appeals court will get another chance to decide if a state can deny a Planned Parenthood affiliate Medicaid payments for non-abortion related care, thanks to the US Supreme Court. It is an application of a near-unanimous recent case, showing the implications might not always be positive.  Two opinion days Thursday and Friday.

Julie Rikelman, of Dobbs advocacy fame, was confirmed as a First Circuit Court of Appeals judge.  This took over an hour.  It is rather ridiculous how many minor offices go through this process.  It is appropriate for a position like this to get Senate confirmation. Still, it shouldn't take this long.  It should just be a simple vote on the record.  

==

It might shock you, but a close family member of an elite politician has benefited from his family connections.  Oh, I don't the wife of Mitch McConnell or the son of Antonin Scalia.  Surely not Jared Kushner or Ivanka Trump, both of who held official jobs in the Trump administration.  

Hunter Biden, who did not, and who the Republicans might be wary about after Trump's impeachment-related attempts to use him to help win a presidential election (he lost, just to be clear).  A Trump-appointed U.S. attorney has been on this case for FIVE years.  WITCHHUNT! 

What did this result in? Two minor tax charges and a gun charge which he can avoid if he promises not to violate the rules.  Darn threat to the Second Amendment.  I can see why Republicans are crying foul though it is basically a mix of just wanting it hard enough and their usual vibe.

The "partisan Justice Department" that indicted Trump since he just couldn't stop criming is so crooked it is prosecuting Biden's own son. But, it's a sham, of course, since the charges are so minor.  Not that even then would it be likely a non-Biden would get charged criminally. Roger Stone (pardoned after being prosecuted in the Mueller investigation), for instance, avoided criminal charges for tax wrongdoing.  

I should have noted originally but will add now, that a major thing this whole thing shows (and people have noted this) is President Biden's humanity.  He has repeatedly said he loves his son, who basically is the "troubled" one (one person reminded us of his early tragedy of surviving the crash that killed his mother and young sister) in various respects.  

This is normal behavior, and though he wears his emotions on his sleeve at times as much as Bill Clinton (though it comes off as less fake), it isn't even truly novel among presidents. Still, it underlines why he is such a comfortable choice.  

==

Meanwhile, those who just want to find a reason to bash Garland, even after (they assured us it would not happen) Trump is indicted, have some fodder.  But, those who respond to such things point out that the case is stacked and there are reasons for their approach.  And, to the degree the FBI (head by a Trump pick) has issues, we know that.  Not the same as the "DOJ" or "Garland." 

As to the link, my response is that granting the importance (obviously) doesn't really change the argument the approach taken made sense (see also).  And, maybe there is some argument about the need to speed things up somehow, but the blame to me is systematic. For instance, Congress ignored emoluments, and 14A, sec. 3 legislation potential when Democrats still had control.  

I have not gone into the weeds in this thing, to be completely above board, but I'm still not on board with the Garland bashing.  I will repeat that if you don't like him, blame President Biden.  And, We the People too.