Some Books

I have had mixed experiences with books recently. I have had better luck lately. A variety of books with different subject matters are worth noting. 

Walter Isaacson’s new book, “The Greatest Sentence Ever Written,” takes as its focal point the document’s second line: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”

An apt entry for the 250th anniversary of our independence. The book is tiny -- it is around sixty-four pages -- and half of it isn't even directly about the sentence. He includes an essay about the importance of supporting the common good. He also includes multiple documents, including a first draft.

I also liked Edward Larson's, best known for his book on the Scopes Trial, book on 1776 overall. 

I found this author because she has a new book. This is an older one that was at the library. The "Jenna" book club references Bush43's daughter. 

It covers the life of its character from 7-18 (for whatever reason, the plot ends about a decade before the book was published) or thereabouts. It is not a young adult book, but it reads like one. It is in her voice. 

Her father is unreliable, her mother is trying to survive with two children from different fathers, and Sam likes to climb. We get some plot from when she is younger, but a chunk takes place when she is around 15-18. 

I liked it overall, though it probably went too long. 

I found a picture of this book and the next one, which were read over fifteen years ago. I listened to this one (don't recall doing so) while reading it this time. 

I did listen to The Devil in the Junior League, which is a summer read that I put on the side panel (btw, one image appears to not show up on some browsers). A good performance -- appropriate Southern accent (though one person said it wasn't Texan ... I didn't notice the difference -- IITW took place in Texas btw) with a nice sound effect simulating phone calls and use of a microphone. Got a kick out of it -- sometimes, it doesn't take much to amuse me.

The author had a bunch of romance novels. This one was inspired by her own life (she moved to NYC from Texas). It was a fun story of a twenty-something whose comfortable life falls to the wayside, but she manages to find a way. 

One thing that originally attracted me to the book was that I watched a LGBTQ film (It's In the Water) that took place in a similar milieu. That is, a junior leaguer stepped outside of her comfort zone, this time accepting her lesbianism. 

Blechman’s forte clearly is in his character studies of these and other pigeon enthusiasts. His account of the historical pigeon, on the other hand, is a bit mottled by his lack of footnotes or bibliography. One can neither check up on details nor expand one’s knowledge. The engaged reader, of course, wants to do both.

The book covers various subjects (including Darwin, beauty contests, food, and target practice) but emphasizes pigeon racing. It is well written. Pigeon enthusiasts might want a bit more about the birds themselves. 

The bird racing was familiar. My dad raced birds. He fit the m.o., coming from a working-class ethnic background. We had a coop on the roof. 

He had one of those clocks that were used to track when birds arrived. I'm not sure how he started. For whatever reason, he eventually stopped. 

Midaq Alley (Arabic: زقاق المدق, romanized: Zuqāq al-Midaqq) is a 1947 novel by Egyptian author Naguib Mahfouz, first published in English in 1966. The story is about Midaq Alley in Khan el-Khalili, a teeming back street in Cairo which is presented as a microcosm of the world.

I found out about this book because it was adapted into a film (taking place in Mexico). The book is a tad risqué (involving homosexuality, prostitution, and other mature topics) with various human dramas taking place. Good translation. 

Mahfouz was a leading Egyptian novelist who repeatedly used "alleys" in his works. I don't read much fiction, especially "classic" novels. Overall, I enjoyed it, though now and then the exposition went on a bit too long. 

I never saw the film. 

Ted Danson, during his appearance on Stephen Colbert, recently referenced that he has a podcast. There are lots of podcasts out there. 

I checked it out. He has some interesting interviews. 

I listen to a few podcasts. I often get bored with podcasts. Strict Scrutiny Podcast, concerning the Supreme Court, which is a prime interest of mine, often goes too long. 

But I listened to both parts (about two hours total) of the interview he had with his wife. They met while doing a film together. They acknowledged the film didn't do well. 

The marriage did. It has been around thirty years. 

Ted Lasso

Ted Lasso began as a character in a witty advertisement campaign for airing British football in the United States. Ted Lasso and Beard (looking a bit different) are both in the segments. It became a beloved Apple TV series. 

People love the empathy. Ted Lasso is signed as a sort of Major League (which gets named dropped -- dropping cultural references is a big Ted thing) revenge by an ex-wife to ruin her ex-husband's team. 

This American coach seems to know nothing about the game (honestly, he couldn't get the job -- you need a license that shows your skills). That was a major part of the joke of the ad campaign.  

Appearances can be deceiving. He's a great coach as a coach. And his right-hand man knows something about the game. Plus, the kitman (equipment guy), Nate, turns out to be a bit of a "wunderkind" and helps, too. 

Ted Lasso, as a person, is what is essential here. He becomes beloved, including by the owner (as her goddaughter says, she is a "boss bitch," and that is a term of endearment), played by a tall cup of water who is best known for her stage work. And his goofy charm also (at first) hides a lot of pain. 

Her ex, the one main character who is allowed simply to be bad (and not 100%), is Giles from Buffy. Well, the actor. There is a great cast, multiple people who also did well in other, rather different roles. Keeley plays a serious role on the Fargo (another show which gets a lot of kudos) television show, now with a Minnesota accent. 

Various characters go through plot arcs. Nice guy Nate has a heel turn when he thinks he is not being given enough credit. It's an excellent cast, and each has a chance to shine. Multiple characters are also musically inclined, like the actors who play them. 

But the show's niceness keeps it from wanting (nearly anyone) to be truly mean or hurt. They all get smoothed out, though no one gets a totally happy ending. 

The show begins around thirty minutes, with some longer episodes. A couple of extra episodes were added to the second season that basically stood outside the normal plotline. A therapist, who is a good character, comes in Season Two. Season Three episodes were longer, over an hour. 

The characters, writing, and humor continue into the third season. I don't think the longer episodes, especially later on, were a good thing. It probably eventually drew things out too much. A short episode in multiple cases would have been tighter. 

Also, the show became bland, since everything just worked out. A player comes out to the team, and nothing happens except that one player was mad because he didn't trust him. He gets his dream of kissing his boyfriend after a major win, and there is no reaction shot from anyone. 

There were multiple examples of this. It felt good because it was nice, and the characters we wanted to do well got nice things. 

People did get hurt -- Keeley's girlfriend turns on her. But then she gets a soft landing when Rebecca gives her the money to run the business. She can afford it, especially after she sells nearly half the team and gets a LOT of money. 

The season would have been better with ten shorter episodes. Or ten shorter episodes mixed with two special toss-ins. (I thought the S2 Beard episode was a bit too weird and drawn out. But it's okay to have a sort of WTAF episode.) 

It is somewhat comparable to Gilmore Girls when the show didn't want Rory or Lorelei to move on. Rory becomes, well, she becomes a bitch, but she cannot truly be punished. She's Rory! And Lorelei continues to pine for her teenage boyfriend. 

The show got tiresome, though the last season was okay. It didn't want to have the courage to break the characters a bit. Lorelei/Rory's boyfriends were also dubious. At least, it didn't become 75 minutes long.

Ted Lasso wasn't that bad. It retained many of its good qualities even in the last season. It was still ill-advised to expand the episodes. 

I'm glad Nate got a girlfriend and all. But it was a bit weird just to have him return to the team to his old job. Wasn't there a way to have him remain a coach on his new team, but one who was a better person? 

Overall, I enjoyed the first three seasons. The DVDs have no extras. That's weird. Could they not even obtain the rights to the Ted Lasso advertisements? Provide a behind-the-scenes segment? Have one or more people do at least one commentary track? 

A fourth season, after a lag, has been announced. Wikipedia references that Ted Lasso will coach a women's team. It looks like the key cast (maybe not the teammates overall?) are coming back, including Roy FUCK! Kent. 

Will I actually get the app to watch it, or wait until it comes out in DVD? Time will tell. 

Bush v. Gore 25th Anniversary: The Beat Goes On

And Also: Jim Ward, whom I know best from the Stephanie Miller Show, has been ill for years. He died this week. He had a long career in voice work.

SCOTUS Update

A look at the media advisories page on the SCOTUS website will show two recent additions about seating for January arguments. The cases involve transgender athletes and executive removal of officers in independent agencies. 

We already saw this week what is in the cards regarding the executive removal power. The only question is how far gone the opinion will be. How far gone it is from text, history, tradition, and overall good policy. 

The Supreme Court and transgender issues are also a matter of harm reduction. The results won't be good. But some good will come if there is some room left for opinions like this. 

Bush v. Gore 

Bush v. Gore was decided twenty-five years ago. I wrote about it years back. It was an act of judicial hubris. Things have not gone much better since then. 

A 5-4 act of judicial hubris. Yes. 

Four justices dissented. None of them, even if they might have felt something was wrong and would have offered up a compromise solution if they had their druthers, concurred in judgment. 

Anyway, the opinion was a symbol of an overheated view of the Supreme Court. A divided Congress and other factors likely meant Bush would have won in the end. But it would have seemed to be less of a stacked deck. And maybe each institution (Congress, Supreme Court, state government) would have operated a bit more like it should have. 

December 2000 also appears to be such a simpler time. Many thought a just result would be a Gore presidency, including when analyzing the likely choice of Florida voters. Partisan election officials (and the candidate's brother as governor) didn't help. 

Among other things.

This led to my first passionate excursion into online analysis of current events. I strongly opposed the Bush Administation. It seems almost a golden age (not quite, I know) next to now. 

SCOTUSblog

Yes, the new ownership of SCOTUSblog brings with it some unfortunate stuff. The analysis has a more conservative spin, including talk of an "interim docket." You can check the link for more.

I would be careful not to just throw the website into the trash pile as a useless entity. The continuing coverage from Amy Howe and others, including Relist Watch, does not seem to be notably different.

Maybe people can point to concerns there, too. Nonetheless, along with useful docket pages and other material, the website is still a good resource. 

Upcoming 

No late Friday SCOTUS news (as of 8:30 PM!). There will be an Order List on Monday. Two executions are also scheduled. There might be some SCOTUS-related news there, mostly likely a pro forma denial. 

And The Dragons Do Come

Sim Butler is an Alabama communications professor with two daughters. One is trans. "Kate" is around 15.

He uses a pseudonym, though early on noted she originally chose "Marina" as a feminine name. It's unclear if that means they did not use that name.  

Sim Butler discusses raising a trans child, including general information (about sports, health issues, and so on) and personal narrative. His state's passage of anti-trans legislation, including making him a felon if he provided health care to his child, led the family to leave the state.

(The state government's current mentality is suggested by this review of the book, which appears to be written by a conservative-leaning website that focuses on state news. The discussion keeps on, for instance, talking about "his son.") 

There is a depressing quality to that which is familiar. Becoming Nicole was written ten years ago. (The subject wrote her own book recently. She is now in her 20s.)  To be able to provide the best care for their daughter, the parents basically lived apart, so she could go to a supportive school.

Kate and her family received support from family, friends, and their liberal minded church when she first came out. Things went less well in first grade, though the school assured them things would go okay. 

A new teacher led things to go sideways. They went to another school, which required the author to get another job to afford to pay for it. What about people without similar resources? I ask rhetorically.

The author loves his home state, but is a tad bit naive, though he grants he is protected as a white, economically privileged individual. Alabama, in recent years, has had other conservative complications. The book, for instance, doesn't talk about reproductive rights. The author is liberal.

Butler references his grandfather, who was a sheriff for decades, ending around 1990. He vaguely references that, at first, a quick search suggested that the grandfather was not a "heavy" as compared to other officials during the Civil Rights Era. 

He then suggests maybe he was being a bit naive without going further. Yes, that seems to be true. Butler doesn't press the point, but perhaps figured he had to talk about his grandfather since he was a public figure. A jail was named after him, after all. 

The parents' fighting the dragons helped Kate have a safe space to develop. Her gender dysphoria, before having a chance to live her life in a way matching the gender she knew in her mind, led to various negative consequences. 

She was much happier when she was able to be her true self, including in a safe and supportive school environment. Which, perhaps a bit amazingly, did exist in Alabama in her early years. 

(Conservative politics in the state eventually targeted her supportive middle school.) 

She still worried about publicly being a girl (it led her to dislike organized sports) in such contexts. She worried about how others might see her. Non-trans boys and girls also sometimes have comparable gender issues. What is a "normal" gender identity? 

The book ends with the story incomplete. We live in anti-trans times. There is a reference to anti-trans legislation being proposed in their new, more purple-leaning (unnamed) Southern state. Kentucky? Georgia? Kate, however, seems to be doing well. 

The epilogue references Martin Niemoller and his famous "First they came for" quote. A useful comment, especially given all the targets these days. 

Trans people are a leading target these days. A majority of states have anti-trans legislation. 

The Supreme Court upheld anti-trans legislation, refusing to even acknowledge it as anti-trans. Shades of Plessy v. Ferguson, saying any feelings of discrimination are only "in their head"? 

Nonetheless, trans people continue to exist, and they and their families and communities keep on insisting they should be and can be happy, have support, and be treated as individuals. Parents play a leading role. 

I am somewhat amazed at how parents do it. Me and my siblings surely were no prizes. Oh well. 

Check out the book. Recommended. 

Order List + Another Order

The Supreme Court disposes of lots of cases without comment. A few people want them to explain everything. That would be a tad silly. 

They dispose of thousands of things, including not granting patently meritless claims from (to use a legal term) kooks. My rule is that they should do it for executions and when they overturn the court below.

Some of the orders do have interesting details. Others are more trivia answers. That can be interesting too.

Friday's Order

They disposed of, without comment, an "order in pending case" on Friday. It was "application for a writ of injunction presented to Justice Kagan and by her referred to the Court is denied." 

The case concerned a desire to have a vaccine exemption for a student because the vaccine was somehow a product of an abortion. The Supreme Court didn't say why, as noted, but these requests are rarely provided. The merits are not the issue here.

Still, of course, the subject matter catches one's eye. It turns out that decades ago that fetal tissue was used to start a cell line that was involved in the production of the vaccine. It is not clear why the abortion occurred.

It's not like someone performed an abortion for scientific experiments. Once the abortion occurs, it is unclear why a fetal tissue sample can not be used. And, as noted here from a Catholic perspective:

As a practicing Catholic, I think the moral balance of indirectly benefitting from an abortion that occurred 50 years ago in order to take a vaccine that will prevent further death in the community is a no-brainer – especially considering that so many of the over 620,000 American deaths have occurred in the most vulnerable and marginalized in our society. We need to focus on saving lives right now. We need to care for our neighbors. 

The level of indirect involvement that is cited to demand an exemption, repeatedly to harm third parties (e.g., deny insurance benefits or make it harder to obtain them), is not only infuriating, it is immoral. And, bad as a matter of free exercise law. 

Order List 

The Monday Order List is the last scheduled thing on the schedule until November 3. (Happy Birthday, Bobby, who won't read this.)  Two executions are scheduled before then, so we shall see about that.

The Order List included various housekeeping measures. Notably, Alito (cert denial) and Gorsuch (habeas, the claimant cited for abusing the privilege of free cases) didn't participate in two of the denials. 

The Supreme Court has added three new cases -- involving arbitration, gun rights, and bankruptcy. All three are relists. 

The Second Amendment case involves prosecution of drug users (controlled substances). A sympathetic claim though (1) what drugs (2) how strong is the constitutional claim? The claim is notable too because Hunter Biden's crimes involved this matter. 

Another notable thing: the justices decided to wait to determine if Little v. Hecox is moot. The trans student in the case asked the Court to do so. They will wait until after oral argument (this is fairly normal). 

Funding

The Supreme Court announced that its funding has run out, given the current Republican government shutdown. Yet again, the public information office released a statement but did not post it on the website. 

They have a press release page for that, you idiots. There is a notice on the website:

Due to a lapse of appropriations, the Supreme Court Building will be closed to the public until further notice. The Building will remain open for official business.

So, sorry SCOTUS haters, this won't stop them from skullduggery. The public is just denied entry. 

On that subject, here's the December calendar. 

Supreme Court Watch: More Orders

I expected a long "clean-up" order list with a bunch of statements and dissents about a variety of cases not taken from the usual suspects. We had less of that this time. Monday's Order List only had a few such things.

(Last year, we had a fifty-three-page final order list. This time it was twenty fewer pages with Sotomayor and Thomas each discussing two cases apiece.)

Today's final scheduled order list before the summer lists was only four pages long, akin to a list after a normal conference. The big news is that they took two cases involving trans athletes. Another case involves regulating where offensive protests can take place. 

The Court did not grant an appeal of a state court opinion protecting the right of minors to have an abortion in some cases without their parents' permission. The challenge raised parental rights claims. 

Alito (with Thomas) wrote a statement that said it provided a bad vehicle for appeal. Nonetheless, not taking the case should not be inferred to agree with the ruling below. The implication is that parental rights claims (at least here) still might have merit. 

Parents of trans children might be an exception. 

Coming Up

For your planning purposes, summer order lists are scheduled to be issued on Monday, July 21; Monday, August 18; and Friday, September 5, 2025. 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.

There is no scheduled upcoming conference, but it is likely to take place at the end of September. Meanwhile, they are taking a break, though they are still officially able to do business. 

As Steve Vladeck has discussed, before around 1980, the Court truly was in recess, and individual justices had to act in their individual capacities. That is not the case now. They will hand down scheduled orders and can provide others (including for the two executions scheduled this month) as required. 

Trump-related stuff will continue. Stay tuned. 

ETA: The Supreme Court had two order lists, one on Monday and one on Thursday. I was tricked into thinking we were done for the holiday weekend. 

We were not. Another "clarification" of a previous Trump-enabling decision dropped.

Kagan concurred -- she didn't like the first decision but thought the request logically followed from it -- while Sotomayor (with Jackson) dissented. 

The unsigned order references the "provocative" dissent without adequately answering it. 

Happy anti-tyranny day, I guess. 

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. 

Sports Sunday

Long football day with another London game that was played in the morning. 

New York fans had games in the three football windows afterward. The Giants were overmatched (the backup QB came in for much of the fourth quarter), not scoring a TD. A star player that went to the Eagles shined in a 28-3 domination.

It was a close game in the first half of the Titans/Bills game. Then, the Bills scored 27 unanswered in the second half. Talk about one-sided adjustments.

Jets had the Sunday Night game with Russell Wilson coming back from injury for the Steelers. Somber moment mid-third quarter with a serious Jets injury that delayed things. Wilson eventually got going. The Jets kicker again missed an easy field goal (blocked). 

The Jets stopped scoring -- I think it was karma for a dubious earlier call that gave them two points. Well, fans could switch to watching the Mets. Maybe not. 

Aaron Rodgers had a couple good drives and also parts of drives (ending on turnovers or stops). They scored 15 points; none in the second half. They gave up 37. 

Not good, Bob. 

Maybe, Jets/Mets fans should have checked on the Mets. There was no magical ending. But, a four-game losing streak is pretty sad, and this one wasn't close.

Mr. M. didn't have it and had to be pulled out early. The bullpen gave up a few. The closer was in the game in the fourth inning. No shame to falter against the #1 seed in Game 6 of the NCLS. 

(The Guardians fell to the Yanks in 5.)

It still was a respectable 7-4 (with many people left on base) in the seventh inning. Dodgers had a bullpen game but they have a tough bullpen. The Mets went with Senga over Buttó. That worked for an inning.

Mets turned into a pumpkin. Oh well. 

Bonus: New York Liberty wins first WNBA championship. Don't watch, but congrats. 

I Felt Myself Slipping

 

Ray was born and raised in central Illinois, and was drawing as soon as they could hold a pencil. They knew from a young age that they wanted to tell stories, and after years of growing up on manga and webcomics, they pursued further art education in college. They have been making comics since 2013, telling stories of identity, interpersonal relationships, and mental illness. Their quiet narratives emphasize the minutia of life, giving meaning to the mundane and balance out themes of trauma, grief, and toxic relationships with radical empathy, queer joy, and healing.

I saw this graphic novel on the NYPL website.

The story is interesting and has at least some autobiographical aspects. For instance, the author has experience in gymnastics. The "they" pronoun shows a queer-consciousness. 

The book also takes place in the 1990s, which is not really necessary to the plot. It also is arguably a bit anachronistic to the degree that things like having two dads are taken totally in stride. OTOH, if the author is partially writing from experience, it clarifies some.

The plot is summarized in one place as "teen gymnasts in a small city in Illinois navigate friendship, love, and loss." One is deaf and has two dads, one who died in a car accident. The other has an "androgynous, punky style" [I did not quite realize it was a girl at first] and comes from a biracial family.  She also has some problems with her self-confidence.

There is some suggestions of attraction between the two girls. Nonetheless, the book is more a case of friendship. There are no amazing developments. It also focuses some on the gymnastics routines.  

It is a quick reading book with interesting art, which should build your hopes for human nature. 

Gov. Walz and Trans Equality

Gov. Walz's support of trans people has been used by Trump supporters as a target of attack. Others think his GLBTQ allyship is a good thing. 

The fear of trans people arose recently in a controversy involving an Olympic athlete that is not trans but people thought was not female enough. Chris Geidner and others also have kept track of nationwide attempts, including in litigation, to target trans people.

On a basic level, and not in a good way, this concern for trans people, including knowing if someone is trans, is weird. The latest thing is an asinine "Tampon Tim" hashtag arising from legislation he signed supplying free menstrual products in grades 4 to 12.  

The legislation arose from teen heroines who spoke about a need. I discuss a book concerning the wider issues of menstrual equity here. 

The immediate issue here was that some Republican legislators supported an amendment specifying the products would be supplied in women's and gender-neutral bathrooms. The sponsor of the failed amendment supported the final bill. Gov. Walz signed the legislation. He didn't craft it. 

The final law recognizes that trans and non-binary people menstruate. These people might not only use women's and gender-neutral bathrooms. 

Also, the legislators overall decided the amendment was not necessary. The law now, to quote one article, "requires school districts to develop plans to ensure all students who menstruate can access free tampons and pads."

(The article notes that Gov. DeSantis vetoed funding in his state.)

I did not go into the weeds here but the general principle here is that you do not need a special provision that in practice will target trans students. You should support a general policy that can be applied as needed.  

This principle can be applied to handling health care for trans people. States do not need to have laws targeting trans people, denying care, and/or putting special barriers in place. 

Sometimes, there will be some tricky line drawing, including in school locker rooms. The proper rules for men's and women's sports also will in a few cases not just be "common sense." 

Nonetheless, the anti-trans approach that currently is often the norm for Republicans (if not across the board) is offensive, bad policy, and in many ways (though the issues are pending)  unconstitutional.  

ETA: People are starting to try to have "gotchas" about Gov. Walz, including an offensive and dumb attempt to argue a guy who was in the military for over twenty years tried to resign to avoid service in Iraq. The timetable also shows it's misinformation.

People are also trying to parse what he says. A segment on voting intimidation and misinformation included a passing remark on "hate" speech. 

In context, it sounds like he was talking about hateful intimidation of voters and so forth. Any inference he supports some open-ended ban on hate speech is unfounded. But, perhaps, it is a lesson on how Walz should be somewhat careful in his remarks. 

On the general point, even a conservative-leaning free-speech scholar found his remarks reasonable. 

Mets vs. Orioles

Buck last night said that "though people would not think so" Megill's was a step forward. The NY Daily News take is a common one: 

Megill lasted only 4 2/3 innings, exiting after giving up five earned runs on nine hits and striking out three.

The headline talked about his "struggles."  A manager often emphasizes the positive, but this is not a total sham job.  A back-end starter, call-up or not, will give up hits against the Baltimore Orioles.  He did not walk anyone.  Peterson did go a scoreless three, which was a glorified "opener" role, showing of late he has shown some improvement.  

Still, not exactly a charming game, though the optimistic will wait and see how Megill does against a team not sure of a juggernaut.  The top three in the line-up had all the offense until a hit in the ninth.  Nimmo, back from a few days out, tried to stretch a single into a double.  Just another "trying too hard" moment.  The no-name pen did okay with two runs.  

[Alonso does not truly seem "back" given his recent play.]

Nimmo and Marte (off all year) were back, but not for long. This was the Sunday line-up:

LF Jeff McNeil

SS Francisco Lindor

1B Pete Alonso

RF DJ Stewart

C Omar Narvaez

3B Mark Vientos

DH Brett Baty

2B Danny Mendick

CF Rafael Ortega

—

LHP Jose Quintana

This didn't go well on Mets Twitter.  There are a few moves that can be justified.  You are going to play your backup catcher sometime (he also got a hit in his first at-bat).  

Marte is obviously struggling.  Nimmo likely is not 100%, so he was rested for a day game after a night game.  Baty needs at-bats too.  Yes, you would like to see Alvarez, but is he hitting too well lately?  He seems to be not throwing out runners lately either.  He's the one person that you might want to see in the line-up but a day off is not stupid either.  

DJ Stewart clean-up is a bit curious though he has some potential.  The team is short on outfielders, so if Marte and Nimmo aren't playing, who else will play?  People want to see certain prospects but they are deemed not ready yet.  I think the struggles of Baty suggest speeding people along there is not a great idea.  And, partially for that reason, with "the beard" out and McNeil playing the outfield, yes you are going to see Mendick.  

So, yes, we are stuck with that line-up.  The fact one of the two reliable starters is available was helpful  You play some of your scrubs when you have a good starter.  Sunday games also normally have more of them.  Overall, the lineup is understandable, even though you want your best lineup out there in the middle of a long losing streak.  

Key players are hurt, struggling, or not ready yet.  The rotation is weak after two trades and you are not going to replace key arms until the off-season.  This is not really "tanking" but if you don't want to watch it, fine. The starter is the main draw.  But, there has been a lot of that this year.  

Scrubs have shown some life lately, including the Nats and Kansas City.  The Tigers beat the Rays last night.  So, the Mets -- as I have noted before -- should be able to show some life, even against the big boys.  Today?  Mr. Q. did very well.  A pair of single-run innings thru six.  It is "what if" if the Mets had their full rotation from the beginning along with Diaz.  

And, even then, at least one of those runs came off questionable defense. But, you are stuck with that at least at third base, which is a growing pains slot for both Baty and Vientos.  One was an inherited run given up by the pen, but even then, you come in with a guy on first and third, that's not a bad result. Toss in Ottavino, that's two runs in eight versus a top team in baseball.  Unfortunately, no runs for the Metsies.

Time for the stud closer. Score one for the Mets future with Vientos getting a double.  Baty couldn't advance him.  Nimmo pitch-hit with one out.  Fly out.  No advance.  Vogelbach.  Fan favorite! (Haha.)  Strikes out. Can we DFA him now?!  Oh well, the pitching was impressive.  And, the Baltimore starter only went 4.2.  So, Q. really won on points.  That counts, right? 

Seriously, the batters did show some life today (after Buck criticized them according to Gary Cohen), but Pete Alonso especially didn't show up at key spots.  If this team was clicking, and maybe if it had a real DH available off the bench, this was very well a winnable game.  Against a stud team.  

So, 0-6 is not a reason to feel good about yourself.  And, multiple players had bad moments.  But, this game did have a "moral victory" feel somewhat.  Anyways, I'm an Orioles fan, so basically happy they won.  

==

I'm not a soccer person but women's soccer has a lot of fans.  Not a lot of scoring in the latest tournament with multiple games where no scoring took place.  Rather boring after a while in my view.  

It ended on kicks, which is rather unsatisfying.  Guess hope Sweden does well.  Got to love a chance to play an Abba song.  

==

I noted that I'm on Bluesky thanks to Chris Geidner. He has a "substack," a media platform that sometimes has some good content from people of his ilk.  Geidner and Steve Vladeck both have good legal content.  

I signed up but don't know how much content I will have.  One useful thing is that it is easy to post an audio file and I actually don't sound too bad when I posted a bit of my voice. The sing-song quality is also sort of purposely affected.   

Trump Federally Indicted

We also slowly (the big confirmation happening yesterday) got the news that indictments are coming against Trump regarding mishandling documents. TPM has the basic right stance to take while [many] Republicans rant and rave:

But it’s worth resisting that feeling, stepping back from it. It grants Trump too much. If you brazenly commit crimes again and again there’s a good chance you’ll get charged with a crime. That’s normal and commonplace. It is as predictable as night following day, the order of the seasons.

Trump has gotten away with too much over the years. He basically saw civil penalties -- now and then -- as the cost of doing business. Enough occurred involving civil rights violations, personal wrongs, and so forth to warrant deeming him persona non grata. Our nation took a different path.  

This has made some people mad and cynical.  I'm in the mix here to some degree. The whole editing of the emolument clauses out of the Constitution as if it is the Third Amendment or something.  The ability to stonewall and obstruct and not even have Mitt Romney vote him guilty for that impeachment content.  

And so forth.  

But, things did happen.  His charities, "college," and business were targeted successfully.  And, he was found liable for sexual abuse and defamation. More civil suits are forthcoming. And, the criminal charges have begun, including in New York City, where the attacks basically are everything but "he didn't do it."  

Everyone knows he did.  As David French, a conservative sort, noted he is not above the law: 

It would place presidents outside the rule of federal law and declare to the American public that its presidents enjoy something akin to a royal privilege. But this is a republic, not a monarchy, and it is right to make Donald Trump answer for the crimes he is accused of.

There are some who were disdainful of the ability and desire of the Garland Justice Department (a few still sneer at his nomination to the Supreme Court) to prosecute. The time that passed did bother me but justice is slow. Normal serious crimes can take years.  This was a multi-part criminal conspiracy also involving lots of others.  Very well its novelty is a result of dubious things like Ford pardoning Nixon and one party refusing to take part in justice.  But, we are stuck with the complications.

No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof. But Congress may by a vote of two-thirds of each House, remove such disability.

Gerard Magliocca is still on his 14th Amendment, Section Three kick, which you know, is a matter of "why not both?" He argues:

Note that these objections do not apply to Section Three of the Fourteenth Amendment. No executive pardon can be given for a Section Three disqualification. The proceedings cannot be delayed because a decision must be held before elections are held. And Trump would either be found eligible or not by the Supreme Court. Just saying.

He argues that the criminal prosecutions will encourage him to go all in to be elected president. And, it won't hurt his cause.  GM doesn't say it but the cynic might think it better for Trump to be a candidate with a cloud than someone else.  But, on that front, it is not clear. Maybe, Trump is the best candidate the Republicans have (sadly for them/us on some level).

[ETA: I can expand on this ad nauseam, more so than I have, but two things. If Trump isn't going to win anyway, the disqualification is of limited value. Two, it often is seen as a sort of punishment. And, a big approach is to say "How dare you take it away from the voters."  On that front, that "alternative" here is not quite even that at all.]

This doesn't erase the importance of prosecuting him. It isn't a one-sided thing.  His getting away with his crimes puts him above the law. It encourages others in the future to follow that theme.  A prosecution also regularly helps prosecute other people and bring to light various things.  The limited risk of his chances increasing is only one part of the equation. And, the risks are debatable.  They also can be reduced if we as a society understand our own civic responsibilities here.  The fight is worth it.  

The possibilities of delay do not generally stop us from prosecuting crimes. It took too damn long for him to get civilly found liable for sexual abuse. Was that not worth it?  

And, how does GM's method help here? The process will take time. It will be subject to extended appeals (we saw that in the emoluments matter; he ran out the clock).  And, there will be arguments it won't even be "ripe" unless he won.  Or, it will be up to Congress, a political question, for them to decide when counting votes.  

Finally, there is the issue of pardons.  First, the 14th Amendment has a mechanism to remove the insurrection (and Trump is not guilty of only that) related barrier to office.  At any rate, if the people vote into office someone who wants to grant him a pardon, we are in a bad place at any rate.  Moving aside from the possibility it will be a result of anti-democratic forces (see 2000 and 2016), it also is what the "people want." So be it.

Granted, you can say that a conviction followed by a pardon does vindicate the rule of law, but this is probably not what the prosecutors pursuing Trump have in mind.

GM was against the second impeachment (on weak grounds as I noted at the time) and put an artificially high barrier to conviction in the first. He is the sort of "Never Trumper" who always finds a way, even while assuring us he is against Trump.  

Take this. Why wouldn't the rule of law be vindicated?  Would a person who supports the death penalty not try to obtain a death sentence since the next governor might commute it?  Why isn't investigating and prosecuting, to the extent everything is in your power, doing all you can to vindicate the rule of law?  

There are always problems and chances of failure long term.  Prosecutors in general focus on their jobs, not what might happen if someone else comes into office.  It's asinine to try to find reasons like this to have a narrow focus on your hobby horse. 

Trump is guilty of a range of crimes. He is not above the law.  The provision should be applied to him but it alone is not enough.  And, the prosecution will help with the application of the provision. It's a joint thing. 

He isn't charged with insurrection (the indictment was dropped today after I first wrote this; it has more counts than previously suggested) here.  But, there is a separate investigation for that (maybe it's related somehow?)  and criminal prosecution would be a way to determine if "insurrection" for 14A purposes occurred.  

The provision does not require a full-press criminal prosecution. Every single person subject to it from acts arising in the Civil War didn't first have the protections of a criminal trial.  But, it is going to be one of the various questions that would arise when applying it to Trump in the 21st Century.

GM supported (as do I) a House bill that provided a civil procedural process that gave the Attorney General a chance to seek a finding that it is applicable.  The report of the 1/6 Committee flagged the issue.  But, there was no sign of much concern over the matter.  The legislation isn't likely now.  

The prosecution would be useful here, including an overall feeling that someone is guilty of mishandling national defense information is "insurrection-y, "especially after the House charged him with it, 57 senators agreed, and others basically did so and let him off on other grounds. So, yes, let's do both.

There seems to be a game going on at times when assurances of consequences amount to smoke.  Oversight is resisted since impeachment is an option.  Then, impeachment is deemed problematic somehow, but prosecution is said to still be open.  At least after the term of office is done.  But, then, something else.  The 14th option is yet another way to find a way not to do anything really, claiming otherwise.  

We are getting consequences. Some major sentences in the 1/6 prosecutions. And, now Trump is feeling the heat.  It's time.  Not enough especially after a lifetime of getting away with it.  But, we have to do the best we can. 

The Indictment Itself

A standard approach is to try to minimalize, even if as a whole something is bad. It is a standard strategy and how we handle our lives in various moments.  Everything seems bad, but we can focus on something specific.  Doesn't seem too bad, really, right?  We can adapt to it. 

This is a standard technique used by Trump, defenders, and enablers.  It is repeatedly a sham.  It is a sham in the civil suits. It is a sham in the New York City prosecution. And, it is a sham here.  You will hear it at times. The "real" thing should be election-related (1/6 or Georgia). 

And, then something will be wrong there.  Don't believe it.  His wrongs might be different but each is wrong.  He surely shouldn't get a break. And, this is serious too.  National security is involved.  He was given a lot of rope.  He obstructed the government repeatedly.  This is a trend. At some point, you cannot just let him get away with it.  

And, he and his family have for a long time done business with people and businesses against the well-being of the United States.  This underlines why he had no f-ing business in power. Ditto for people like George Santos or Marjorie Taylor Greene or any number of people we are stuck with.  

People running against Trump up to a point granted he crossed a line though they all in some fashion still supported him and still are willing to do so in various respects.  So much that GM basically assumes they will pardon him if he himself (whose election is taken as a possibility, calmly cited without comment on its basic travesty) isn't elected. 

[The one thing I skipped in my summary last time was the Saudi Arabia union with the PGA Tour.  It might not be final. We know about Kushner and that country. Then, there is China, the Soviets, and more. This is something that factors into prosecutorial discretion.]

There is one more thing to toss in here.  There is the basic irony of Hillary Clinton allegedly being unfit for mishandling documents. Exactly what she did wrong there was a bit hazy, but it received lots of press.  The former head of the FBI (now with a mystery novel!) played his part.  The richness of this given who was running against her has been cited by various people.

(Compare Bush43 whose family values reputation put against Bill Clinton was not really a sham. From what I know, the guy was not a womanizer. It's true that on a wider level, Democrats were better for family values.) 

A link to the indictment with NYT annotations is provided. It is one of those "narrative" indictments that tell a story.  We have such things last Trump's comments on the importance of document security and excerpts of conversations.  These documents should get more attention.  It's a nifty way to explain what is at stake.  

(Here is a link without a paywall.)

Matt Harvey Retires

Matt "Dark Knight" Harvey was going to be the leader of a new generation of Mets starters. Well, this being the Mets, it was a rocky road.  On and off the field.

The Mets had various problems (as they continue to have) with their starters, including Matt Harvey being out because of an injury.  Then, like David Cone back in the day for the Yankees, he came back and shined some more.  But, we had the probably misguided attempt to stretch into the ninth during the deciding World Series game, and it went downhill from there.  

Harvey never really came back to form though he gutted it out with the Mets and various other teams.  He was credible for the Reds. Then, the Angels (with that Disney money) dubiously gave him 11M for a year.  Not so credible.  The struggle then was to find a few innings here and there where he looked good.  Harvey finished off on a nice note with some good innings representing Italy for World Baseball Classic.

That would be after a suspension when he admitted to drug use.  He has now retired from baseball and I wish him well.  Pitching asks people to do unnatural things.  Some pitchers more than others.  Baseball generally has a dark side too, the things that make you a celebrity superstar having the possibility of giving the bitter with the sweet.  

[Mets managed to win tonight vs. the Rockies, a 1-0 win with some nail-biting in the last two innings.  They were swept by the lowly Tigers though Verlander finally did pitch, two early homers and no offense (he faced the true ace of the staff, but the other two losses were less respectable) burnt them.]

I am not a Sports Illustrated swimsuit guy myself.  More power to Padma Lakshmi, a fifty-something "culinary personality" who was a model in her younger days.  I'm not sure about the quality of that bikini but it does celebrate her body pretty well.  

I'm middle-aged myself though at times do not feel it.  But, yeah, watching Friends, I'm more the age of Richard and Monica/Ross' parents than the friends.  People age.  I do think there are a variety of people in their 40s, 50s, and yes even 60s, who look pretty good.  On air and off.  

I do think the women on that show started to look ... well weird ... toward the end.  Courtney Cox definitely had some bad plastic surgery (she also was pregnant the last season, rather obviously so at some point).  Other actresses from the era still look pretty darn good.  Those three do make me wonder.

[Christiana Applegate is my age and she's always Kelly Bundy for me though she also was great as Rachel's sister.  She has MS and is gutting it out with her usual guts and gumption.  Or something.]

How about that cover model?  Well, nice butt, but a bit skinny on the top.  Nice hair.  There are sports where bathing suits make sense but are not quite "sports" related.  On the other hand, she does seem like someone who might be very athletic.  I can see her at the gym or at a swim meet.  Impressive too with someone around all that food.  Congrats again.  

Brian's Song

I saw Brian's Song (or at least part of it) some time back. It was on one of the movie channels and I caught a bit of the film again. It was a well received t.v. movie (1971) and is actually pretty short -- less than 75 minutes. It's a tear jerker, a way for men to cry (heck it's mixed with sports), and the interracial friendship still had some bite then.

I checked it out of the library and the DVD has the leads provide commentary. There is also a featurette with the real Gale Sayles (played by a young Billy Dee Williams, pre-Star Wars, in the film with James Caan playing Brian Piccolo). Something like forty-minutes is sports related, include Sayles dealing with his first injury (a second shortened his career and he went into academia and business), the last thirty or so minutes focusing on Brian's illness.

It's a crisp film. Well acted, with various familiar faces (the wives were in some things), and superior fare for a t.v. movie. The dramatic music was a tad too heavy-handed.

LGBTQI+ Pride Month

I, JOSEPH R. BIDEN JR., President of the United States of America, by virtue of the authority vested in me by the Constitution and the laws of the United States, do hereby proclaim June 2022 as Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Transgender, Queer, and Intersex Pride Month. I call upon the people of the United States to recognize the achievements of the LGBTQI+ community, to celebrate the great diversity of the American people, and to wave their flags of pride high.

Pride Month is timed in honor of the Stonewall riots, which took place at the end of June in 1969.  The full acronym seems to be ever expanding (no "A" for asexual or something?), but the riots provided a taste of the diversity of the movement. For instance, trans people were surely involved, even if today they are treated as an appropriate target in multiple states.  

The riots were a reaction to continual harassment and mistreatment.  The specific spark was yet another police raid to a mob controlled bar.  But, there was a wider meaning to the whole thing.  The bar was one of the few places certain people could openly associate and be themselves.  And, even there, they could not truly be safe from often dehumanizing police attacks.

The Biden Administration (following in the footsteps of the Obama Administration)  has taken special care to emphasize its support of pride. This includes both who they appoint (including a member of the Cabinet and the current press secretary as well as multiple judges) and its policies.  Meanwhile, it took until 2019 for the Trump Administration to announce pride month, and in multiple ways it opposed LGBTQI+ rights. 

There has been some signs in recent years, on a bipartisan basis, that society respects the pride banner.  Individual Republicans and at times as a group in power respect gays and lesbians and trans people in various ways.  Multiple Republican governors in recent days have at least opposed the breadth of anti-trans measures, including by vetoes.  All the same, there is still a clear division between the parties on such issues. 

This month honors the complexity and diversity of sexuality.  History has always shown that humans cannot be put into clean little boxes here.  It might be noted that in some general fashion certain basic classifications are in place across cultures.  This does not mean, to be clear, such "basic" lines are the only valid ones.  But, some very basic lines can be seen. 

But, even there, there tends to be complexities and exceptions.  And, even such little things as hand-holding and other signs of affection being more accepted among men in some cultures reflects the differences.  Gender particularly has various cultural differences.  And, then, we can see specific differences in people themselves, including sexual characteristics.

Complexity can be confusing, complicated, and at times a bit scary (or some "c" word meaning that).  We can admit that and work together to find common ground and respect each other.  And, as we do so, we can respect the accomplishments and abilities of everyone involved.  This can be true even if we do not always accept everything about each other. 

As noted on this week's episode of Gay USA, a weekly LGBT (as noted at its website) news show that I have personally watched for approaching twenty years now, a fitting symbol was put in place recently to honor pride month:

After years of advocacy spanning across two presidential administrations, LGBTQ activists and federal park officials joined together to raise a Rainbow Flag on federal property at Christopher Park on the first day of Pride Month.

(You can see a photo of the long serving co-hosts of Gay USA at that link. One occasional fill-in host is the activist/bird watcher, who became nationally known for an infamous Central Park encounter.)

A rainbow flag, showing all colors, is a fitting symbol for the diversity honored this month.  We have gone far -- in the 1990s, the specter of same sex marriage was so horrible to consider that the federal government singled it out for burdens.  This is so even though the idea was not truly novel even then.  I found a paperback book on weddings published in the early 1970s, which has a few pages of same sex weddings.

We still have a ways to go, again noting how multiple states (including Florida and Texas) are going after trans children, particularly in athletics.  There is reason to fear that this Supreme Court will go backward though it is unclear how far.  We still have gone quite far.  We should remember that, especially when the times leads some to be quite bleak.  

For now, as another Joe, I say let us honor and celebrate LGBTQI+ and the diversity and complexity of us all.  

ETA: This blog post cites a recent state trans bill to "save women's sports" or some such.  It is the sort of thing being tossed out there -- some specter of trans athletes ("trans" many might say) threatening women's sports.  

In practice, you have a few trans students, fewer playing sports, and we are talking single digits regarding any with any real special skills that would matter.  Meanwhile, you have others who have some special athletic ability or some other non-trans related body type that is atypical particularly.

For this "problem," there is a blunderbuss approach that invites abuse.  A few (two in particular) in comments try to small print the whole thing, which is bending over backward for something that doesn't warrant good faith assumptions.  It not really much different than burdensome rules against non-existent problems of "voting fraud." 

Such people are annoyed in part at what they see as overheated rhetoric, which is invited by the people involved. This includes the latest Republican tactic at hearings in Congress to ask people to define "men" and "women" or ask things like "can men have abortions."  I find screeching annoying myself, but you know, at some point it's understandable given the trolls involved.  And, even there, regularly they are right on basic points. 

Steroids Are Wrong etc.

One thing Scott at LGM harped on over the years was the stupidity and hypocrisy of efforts against cheating in sports (such as the Pats issues), especially steroids. Paul Campos has been on this for years, as this 2006 article shows. I think they both are wrong, but at some point, it's pointless to pushback. People have strong views and debate is not going to be had.

Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character, and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played.

Membership in the Baseball Hall of Fame, based on the criteria itself puts forth, is not just a matter of athletic ability, full stop. A rapist, for instance, need not be admitted into the HOF. The "integrity" and "character" rules here have some bite. No matter if it is not consistently applied. That is the road to nihilism. 

This argument has a lot of force, but, in the context of professional sports, there is also something hypocritical about it. We are perfectly happy to, for example, allow athletes to destroy their bodies.

When this sort of slippery slope rule is put forth by libertarians, the LGM crowd is likely to sneer at it. Here, suddenly it seems to have some bite. Still fails.  There are limits.  Lines are drawn.  

The claim that what they did was wrong because they may have acquired PEDs without legally required prescriptions is an obvious red herring.

Why is it a red herring?  Prescriptions are a means to provide limits here, including guarding against abuse and dangerous unregulated actions. This includes for more at risk players including minor leagues or even in high school and college ball.  Toss in the handwaving if people aren't put in the HOF because they lied to investigators and so forth.

Then, there is the statement that it wasn't even cheating at all since baseball "had no policy against the use of PEDs prior to the 2003 season."  

I saw some form of that argument over the years and overall discussions repeatedly do not clarify the exact details in an easy to examine way.  This is often the case when dealing with issues and I welcome those who provide carefully crafted summaries.  Wikipedia helps here, including providing links and general details you can use for further research. 

Anyway, that's WRONG.  There WAS a policy against use of PEDs (performance enhancing drugs) before then. What exactly it is I do not know.  It was in place. People who said players were "cheaters" were not just deluded.  The basic change there was TESTING.  Caps can be annoying.  They have their uses.  

For instance, this ESPN summary notes that "steroids have been banned in MLB since 1991."   Nineteen Ninety One.   So, we are left with details. What steroids.  How to prove their usage.  The spirit of the rules. etc.  The arguments about the "sanctimony" of opposition here move back and forth from details ("no policy") to specifics and "the rules are so arbitrary."  Regularly, rules in place is not the issue either.  

Anyway, like Doug Glanville and various others, I am not somehow appalled that Bonds et. al. are not in the HOF.   Specific choices are going to be closer calls in various respects, but especially given the overall criteria will not just be about steroid use (see my reference the other day to David "Big Papi" Ortiz), the calls will involve various criteria.

Like the current effort, however incomplete, dealing with domestic abuse, "everyone does it" or "we are inconsistent" is not an answer.  We can toss that out about everything.  Brian Flores' race discrimination lawsuit?  Well, sure, but hey, discrimination goes on in a bunch of ways. We allow it.  It would be arbitrary to just benefit him here!   

But, steroids isn't race discrimination!  Obviously.  They are a matter of fairness.  Some people do not want to harm their body using dangerous substances (again, there is not some "if you put yourself in harm's way, you can't complain about anything" rule), while others are pressured to do so because PEDs are assumed legitimate in some fashion.  And, the people who are harmed most often are marginal people, often of a certain race.

Its said that the accomplishments of athletes who use PEDs are tainted because their feats are a product of their drug use rather than the hard work necessary to fully develop natural athletic talent. But this claim is based on a misunderstanding of how PEDs work. No PED in and of itself enhances athletic ability: the value of such drugs is that they allow athletes to train harder, to build greater muscle bulk and endurance and to recover more quickly from the stress such intense training causes to their bodies. 

I don't see the "misunderstanding" here.  The results very well are a "product" of drug use.  It allows them to "recover more quickly," which makes it easier for athletes.  The drugs also leads to better results, given the alternative -- given the limits of human endurance -- will lead to less results.  People who use the drugs very well, at least in various cases, still work hard.  But, they are quite reasonably deemed tainted. 

The fact it is somewhat more complicated than some frame it (which is standard -- people simplify when they summarize things -- and the usual suspects selectively patronizingly call them on it) doesn't change the basic bottom line here.  Again, certain things are allowed here.  No shit.  

Other things are not.  If a secret pill, e.g., allowed people to throw 125mph, we can ban it.  Talking about how so arbitrary (condescension on high) that might be since we allow people to drink coffee etc. does not change that.  The same applies to performance enhancing drugs.  

Individual cases might be complicated or mitigating factors can be involved.  A few months of steroid use might not be enough for a voter to block a Hall of Fame admission.  A recent case of an Olympic hopeful who used marijuana to self-medicate was very unfortunate if you look at the details.  But, studies have shown marijuana affects (in various ways) performance.  The rules in place are there for a decent reason.  

Scott at LGM at times compares sports and criminal drug policies. They are not the same thing.  Requiring athletes to follow now clearly in place policies, including testing, and penalizing them financially when they break them, is not akin to locking up some poor black person or denying them college funds.  Comparing A-Rod to that is fucking asinine.  

Anyway, read again the rules for membership in the Hall of Fame. And, no, it isn't some special sacred thing.  It has some symbolic value, surely, but there are more important things.  People still can be great players if they are not entered into the HOF.  

The entrance rules still involve more than winning a lot of games and so forth.  And, rightly so.