Who shall be the candidate?: Dean? (seen as trustworthy/passionate and good bio) Clark? His stance on the war with Iraq is defended here. The defense leaves a bit to be desired -- believing (wrongly?) that Iraq had dangerous WMDs, he supported the resolution to give the President bargaining leverage that with "patience and diplomacy" would have got the UN on to do something about it. On the other hand, if he was given the choice in Congress (that is, let's play pretend) to actually vote for the war in the Winter of 2003, he would not have done so. This seems to be a variation of the standard line: "I supported giving the President authority, but didn't like how he handled it, and boy am I pissed (shocked) about it!"

In reply to one request for my opinion of Wes Clark, I offered some caveats: "I don't know about Clark ... he's having some trouble gaining traction, though some are pretty impressed by him. His personality is a bit rough, his lack of domestic political experience (and for some, his military career) is troubling, and he did come kinda late to the (Democratic) party. I'm not really comfortable with him yet, but he's intriguing, his foreign policy bona fides are real, and in actuality he has handled the politics of the military and so forth enough to make his lack of domestic experience somewhat besides the point. His stance on the war kinda was tricky, but maybe you are right that he can sell it best out of all of them."

Currently, I'm boning up on some party history. After Christmas, I plan to go into "primary mode," so I am better able to decide who to support come March. Clearly, I have some work ahead of me ... and, no, Dean's current frontrunner status is not the only deciding factor for me. Not for someone who was one of three who supported Anderson in the grade school poll in 1980. I will probably therefore toss out various thoughts on some candidates over the next few months.

Did The FU France/Germany/Russia?: Many, including somewhat surprisingly the conservative de facto administration organ aka The Weekly Standard, was upset when the Pentagon released a policy barring those who did not support the U.S. invasion of Iraq from getting reconstruction contracts (the actual teeth of the bar was unclear). A primary reason was that it might hinder our attempt to get such nations to forgive or restructure Iraqi debts, an effort that arguably is starting to pay dividends. Or maybe not.

Does this mean the pressure was a good idea? As replies to that suggestion noted (see first link), it's unclear if the "pressure" was the reason for the French making noises about choosing to play ball. Also, I wonder how such heavyhanded tactics (mixed in with the President sneering at concerns international law was being violated) will affect future efforts, in this area or others. Bullying often works, but there are dark sides to it.

Supreme Court Wrap-up:

Energy Policy Task Force: The U.S. Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether Vice President Dick Cheney must release White House papers about the energy policy task force he headed two years ago. The investigative wing of Congress, the General Accounting Office (GAO) attempted to obtain related information, the Vice President sued, and the lower court put forth a dubious argument that GAO didn't have standing because Congress had to be directly involved. This ignore a law that gave them the power to investigate, the fact Congress was informed (including relevant committee heads), and did not object. Anyway, partly because the Republicans were now fully in power in Congress and pressured them to do so, the GAO ended the lawsuit. I discuss the matter in more detail here.

Meanwhile, the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch (yes, the same group that targeted President Clinton) were trying to get similar information. The lower court in this case held that they had the right to see some of the information. Thus, the Vice President directly raised an issue only brought up in passing in the GAO opinion (decided on other grounds), namely, executive privilege. This is the principle that the executive branch has a certain degree of privacy so that it can do business without someone always potentially looking over their shoulders. It is not absolute and was a weaker argument when legislative oversight was at issue (the GAO case). And, at some point, there must be limits when private organizations are involved, especially when it is being used in a partisan way.

But, the broad attempt by the administration to uphold secrecy, even when outside groups potentially served a major role in policy making crosses the line. I fear the nuances of the law giving outside groups a right to look at the information sought as well as concern for executive privilege as a protection from excesses of said groups (one case this term involves a lawyer who wanted autopsy photos of Vincent Foster because he feels there was a government cover-up) will allow the administration yet again to stonewall. Private groups these days often serve an important role in keeping the government and private business (e.g. civil rights cases) honest. Even though the GAO's investigation should have been able to cover this ground, if we are left with the Sierra Club and Judicial Watch to do part of the job for them, so be it. And the case provides a possible avenue to clarify the rules for future efforts of the kind -- important case.

Guilty By Association: Maryland v Pringle involved drugs (in an armrest) found pursuant to a traffic stop, after a consensual search probably growing out the officer spying a wad of money in the glove compartment while the driver took out his license and registration. All three of the inhabitants denied knowledge, they all were taken into custody, and Pringle eventually confessed (and got ten years). The Maryland Supreme Court reversed because it held there was no probable cause to hold that he personally had control of the drugs, so the seizure of Pringle was unreasonable as well. The US Supreme Court unanimously reversed in a ten page decision largely concerned with boilerplate (the facts of the case took about half of the brief decision) ... the police had probable cause to take them all.

This is troubling stuff. The presence of $763 in the glove department and drugs not in plain view but still accessible to all occupants is all that was needed to take into custody two people who were ultimately not charged. The Court argued that the fact they all denied knowledge was a factor in their decision. It is totally conceivable that one or both of those ultimately not charged actually did not know anything. If they did, technically, they could be charged as accessories. Anyway, it surely is likely in some cases not everyone in a car will know contraband is in it, even if they had access to it in some fashion (let's say it's under the seat cushions). Tough luck to them ... and not one justice dissented or even warily concurred to this practically dismissive opinion.

This is totally outrageous.

Saddam Captured: It was pretty shocking, really, to turn on the t.v. this morning, and actually be surprised at the news. On some level, it isn't too surprising, since the chance of him being found was not really inconceivable. All the same, I personally thought he wouldn't be taken alive. If I was him, well, on some level, let's say, I wouldn't think he would want to be. Did he have any warning? What will he share? How will his trial be handled (imagine his defense counsel)? Time will tell. Today was a good day ... what it will all mean is unclear, but it's a good day.

Film: Something's Gotta Give is the new Diane Keaton/Jack Nicholson comedy with Amanda Peet and Keanu Reeves (as a doctor!) in support and Frances McDormand having a much too small role (great actress ... see her in all her glory in Laurel Canyon). I did not care for it. It was in my opinion, if not those with me (who have somewhat different tastes), forced and not very funny. The movie also had those "hmm, well the plot requires this to happen" moments, some so blatant (as is the movie's theme) that you are almost spoonfed them. A symbolic example is one found in most advertisements -- when Jack accidently walks in when Keaton (or her body double) is nude. Keaton overreacts in response as does Nicholson. The movie also drags. Sad really, since the stars are likeable, and they all deserve better.

Politics: An interesting thread on Dean vs. Kerry's position on the Oct. 2002 Iraq Resolution starts here. Of particular interest to me personally was the breakdown in communication between me and a Kerry supporter ("zinya"), especially as the thread continued. [See also here.] It is a clear case of what I call being on "different wavelengths," but it's healthy to get these things out in the open. Furthermore, it is a basic issue splitting the Democrats these days -- being on different pages, even when reading the same books, so to speak. If one adds to the fact that many are not fully informed about all the issues involved (no easy task), some are misinformed, and so forth, it's a bit of a mess. Clean-up on aisle five!

Talking about messes, aside from the NY Giants (better left unmentioned), there is a big mess outside. The weather worked well for the NY Jets, who were eliminated all the same, but one takes what one gets. Still, it looks like we here will have a slew of snowstorms, followed quickly (today, the same day) by rain or warmth, so soon enough it's like it never really happened. Now, if only it snowed the right day ... the family homestead put up the tree and all, and the presents are coming in the mail, so the big day is clearly rapidly approaching. Let's hope the weather works out.

Comics: I post a funny one below, but to mention another strip, the return of Opus is a bit sad. Bloom County was a funny strip that is fondly remembered, but at some point the cartoonist felt it went its course. Calvin and Hobbes went that route as well, so one has to accept such things. Berke Breathed, however, decided to return with a replacement starring Opus and his dyspeptic cat friend. It was pretty lame and looked cheap. Now, Opus alone seems to be the star of his new strip. I don't care for it, also thinking it looks cheap and pretty lame. Am I being too critical? I have my moments, but no, I don't care for it.

Welcome ... Paul Martin, new Prime Minister of Canada. One issue he has to face is relations with friends to the south, including in response to the new policy of barring opponents of the war with Iraq from reconstruction contracts. Though the President appeared to remove Canada from said list (France/Germany/Russia are the usual scapegoats here) in a recent discussion with Martin's predecessor, they technically would be included. Their slew of comedians, a major export of that country, can have a field day with such stuff. A recent statement critical of the policy:

"But instead of being smart, clever, or magnanimous, the Bush Administration has done a dumb thing. The announcement of a policy of discriminating against French, German, and Russian firms has made credible European charges of vindictive pettiness and general disregard for the opinion of even fellow liberal democracies. More important, it has made former Secretary of State James Baker's very important effort to get these countries, among others, to offer debt relief for the new government of Iraq almost impossible. This is to say nothing of other areas where we need to work with these governments."

-- Weekly Standard editorial

One need not look to the Democrats or anti-war partisans to find the administration being called the opposite of "truly wise," "clever," and "deviously smart," or criticism of the "diplomatic damage done by the Pentagon's heavy-handed and counterproductive action. " On the other hand, for good or ill, this administration is not quite as ideal for conservative true believers as some might think.

[The magazine also has an interesting article "sort of" defending trial lawyers. This is not as strange as it sounds -- libertarians are big believers of deregulation, replacing government regulation with tort liability. Within the proper bounds, therefore, clearly lawyers have their place in their ideological universe.]

Film: I don't know much about art, but did see various art related movies, including Pollock, Artesmia (also a play), and now Girl With A Pearl Earring. This final one is based on a popular book, which I did not read. All the same, I enjoyed the film based on this fictional account of the making of a famous Vermeer painting for two reasons: the leads (Scarlett Johansson, who might get a nomination for one of her performances this year, and Colin Firth) were very good and the setting was well portrayed. The whole thing is done in a low key way that worked for me.

Stupidity Defined: "Loop and Cox, member of the Delta Omega Chi fraternity, admitted to snatching and killing the beloved koi, which was donated to the school by a professor in 1995. At the time the fraternity was being filmed for the MTV reality series "Fraternity Life."

It was widely rumored that the fish was barbecued and eaten. Loop and Cox, who had no prior records, reportedly expressed remorse for murdering Midas, who was worth more than $800. "

Conflict of Interest Defined: "Mr. [James] Baker is senior counselor to the Carlyle Group, a global investment company that has done business with the Saudi royal family. He is also a partner in Baker Botts, a Houston law firm whose client list includes Halliburton. Baker Botts has an office in Riyadh and a strategic alliance with another firm in the United Arab Emirates, and it deploys Mr. Baker's name and past government service on its Web site to solicit Middle East business." [NYT editors explaining today how Baker has to distance himself from his old ties to be able to be perform his new Iraqi economic czar duties properly]


Happy Birthday ... Jennifer Connelly.

Update: A good companion piece for the interview I linked recently on the subject is this review of David Hamburg's No More Killing Fields.

News: Calpundit (Dec. 10) had a couple good things to say about the Halliburton oil prices [compare this to questions raised by the Pentagon] and the value of "a big public 'fuck you'" (his words) to France/Germany/Russia in regards to contracts, while the administration was trying to get on their good side on other Iraqi matters. Today he discussed James Baker's appointment to Iraqi economic czar (my label) and musings on how the President might be setting up an exit strategy in time for the '04 elections.

Andy Pettite, who had a very good 2003 World Series (he lost Game 7, 2-0, and nearly pitched a shutout the first game; past history showed a tendency to have only one excellent game, one not so good -- this time he had one excellent game, one darn pretty good), signed with the Houston Astros. Though it will be amusing to see him hit every fifth day, his is a sad passing for Yankee fans. He was one of the few remaining stars from the beginning of the Torre Era, stars with skill and likeability besides. These days both qualities are somewhat lacking with even those with skills not being as likeable (Mussina is a quiet star; Wells' Fifth Game doings is hard to forgive, Bernie Williams seems to be slipping, etc.). New blood will come, but none will quite be akin to seeing Andy up their, eyes steely, and ready to get the team out of yet another bad stretch.

[Many local wags are complaining that the owner was so concerned about getting a big bat and not in retaining his services. The x factor he brings the team is hard to beat, but concern for hitting (heck, fielding might be added, since arguably one of the two runs in that 2-0 loss was by a fielder miscue) is not too surprising. The World Series was not lost because of pitching ... the Cubs showed that the Marlins' pitching staff was hittable. The Yanks made them look just the opposite. Now, maybe Gary Sheffield is a troublemaker, but damn did he look good on the Braves last year.]

The Quiet American is based on a Graham Greene novel and portrays a morality story concerning early American involvement in Vietnam (early 1950s). The movie is a tour de force for Michael Caine, who was nominated for an Academy Award for his performance. Brendan Fraser also shows his acting chops in a rare dramatic role. I personally found it hard going early on, perhaps not in a mood for its slow moving style. On the other hand, I found the audio commentary (the two actors and various other people involved in the movie took part) excellent. It was not like others I listened to in that it was more a story of how the film was made, not a discussion of the action as it went on per se. It was very informative and enjoyable anyway. Other extras including reviews of the book (all in some part negative -- the movie seems to have improved upon it, if the reviews are any way to judge) and a timeline of historical events.

Campaign Finance "Reform Law" Upheld: MCCONNELL v. FEC, the ruling concerning the McCain/Feingold campaign finance was handed down today. It was broader than expected -- except for one provision, the only thing struck down was the total ban on donations by minors. The biggest surprise was that the "issue ad" provision regarding unions and corporations (including nonprofits, such as the ACLU) not being allowed to broadcast ads sixty days before a general election (or thirty days before a primary/caucus election) that refers to a candidate (see here on how this will affect the upcoming campaign season). The only way around this is via a cumbersome system of forming a PAC (political action committee) for such purposes. The sentiment was that this part of the law was court bait, which might have been a major reason some voted for it.

The dissents (technically partial dissents) in various ways do a good job of explaining why the 5-4 (in most aspects) decision was misguided. The case showed how on some issues it is the more conservative justices that are more libertarian. A primary concern was how unions and corporations are treated like second class citizens in regard to speech rights. The inclusion of unions should be a warning sign to liberals, even if the inclusion of nonprofits did not. Likewise, given that the importance of money to First Amendment rights (e.g. rejection of laws that totally ban criminals from profiting from telling their stories or issues related to religious aid cases) is accepted in other contexts, cheapening speech rights because money is involved should not be so cavalierly done. Speech is not "free" in some sense; it costs money. Finally, one selectively narrowly tailors limits to speech and association rights to one's peril.

[Kenneth Starr, a lead advocate against the law, took part in an online chat, which is posted here. He reminds us that the law basically shifts money away from parties and unions/corporations to interest groups (and the press), which are not regulated as much in various ways. Thus, money continues to be a factor, but money controlled by more "unaccountable and shadowy new interest groups." Also, some "as applied" challenges are yet to come, so much more campaign finance law is yet to be made! Cheery news.]

Political speech is at the heart of the First Amendment. Why is it limited here? The primary concern is supposedly "corruption," though the dissents aptly argue that not only is the interest not targeted in the required narrow way, the term is too broadly defined. Speech that assists "access" or leads to some degree of "favor" might be troubling, but attempting to limit it is more troubling. After all, racist speech, violent speech, misleading advocacy, and so forth all lead to some negative results. We still go out of our way not to limit it, including donations to such organizations that promote it, or advertising that furthers it. Line drawing involving contributions to individuals is hard enough. Try to limit party expenditures, advertising, and so forth, and you really are in trouble.

Money doesn't like a vacuum. The newest campaign finance law attempted to close loopholes left up in an early one, and so forth. Putting aside such cynicism, regulation can be defended. For instance, requiring Dean to raise money from a broad base of Internet donors has its benefits. All the same, the right of free expression is broadly protected in this country, so much that the Constitution speaks of "no law." Something is wrong when a law this broad, a law that brings under its terms a whole slew of First Amendment interests, is treated more leniently than a law that bars burning crosses on private property. The law was rightly treated suspiciously because singling out one point of view is dangerous. A bit more suspicion should have been applied here in interpreting another law that facially looked like a good idea at the time.

[This last point is made clear by concern by a key supporter "that the Court reached the decision too easily." The author discusses cites an article by Brad Smith in the 2002-2003 Cato Supreme Court Review against such regulation. Smith also wrote a book on the issue that is well worth reading. The link supplied is useful as well in that it supplies links to key documents related to the case. It also is well worth checking out for its usual discussion on various election law issues.]

Ringley, a self-described former computer geek who works at a non-profit social service agency in the Sacramento, California, area, says in her mission statement that she wanted to create a "window into a virtual human zoo."

Jennifer Ringley, a pioneer in the "webcam" industry, announced her site will shut down at the end of the year. "Paypal confirmed that they were closing her account because the frontal nudity on her Web site violates the company's acceptable use policy." One more example of how prudery inhibits free enterprise and expression in this country. And, I say that only somewhat tongue in cheek.

Interesting News: Rep. Bill Janklow (SD) was found guilty of manslaughter, which was just a matter of time given his history of reckless driving. NY federal judges protested against a new congressional attempt to yet again limit their sentencing powers, this time even violating the privacy of judicial decision making to do so. The measure was yet another late add on to a noncontroversial bill that turned out to be controversial and ill advised. As is giving a big f-up to France, Germany, and Russia for not joining the coalition to invade Iraq by barring them from rebuilding contracts. Way to go assholes!

Tomorrow is my mom's birthday, so HAPPY BIRTHDAY MOM! It also is Human Rights Day (Human Rights Week begins today), while the 15th is Bill of Rights Day. I just got a new pocket Constitution (has the Declaration of Independence, Articles of Confederation, justices of the Supreme Court, and various trivia ... great deal for $2.95); I guess it was a timely purchase.

A final (?) thought for now on the Locke v. Davey case (see below). I recently saw both sides provide statements to the press on C-SPAN, and the state lawyer provided an interesting fact. Not only does the state constitution of Washington bar state funding to religion (explicitly providing a broader bar than the First Amendment), it also has been interpreted to read that free exercise cannot be burdened (even by general laws) unless there is a compelling state interest. This too is broader than the First Amendment (as interpreted). Both provide a different way to protect religious freedom, debatable or not, claims that the state in effect is discrimination against religion are a bit problematic. After all, in a way, the state protects religious freedom more.

Interesting News: USA Today has an interesting article arguing that Saudi Arabia was a prime contributor to terror organizations. [James Baker was recently appointed as a sort of Iraqi economic czar; Baker has connections to Saudi Arabia via his work with a lobbyist group.] The report that Al Gore will endorse Dean is big news, though it seems a bit premature to endorse this early. Lieberman (for those who forgot, he was Gore's running mate) now seems that much closer to being a goner, though. As for Kerry, see here for an early response.

An article on past suicides at the Marriott Marquis hotel was sure to include this detailed account: "In January, a Mississippi woman leaped to her death from the roof of the 49-story hotel. The 47-year-old woman struck an advertisement on the side of the hotel and landed on a Mr. Peanut billboard." Details like that really allow the reader to form a more accurate picture in their heads of the events reported.

Another important issue is the ongoing Snapple controversy in NYC over the choice of making it the official drink for city schools. As one city official noted, it was not just about money: "Snapple has a brand that can support, and in some instances enhance our image ... [A]n analysis of how people feel about Snapple ... show[ed] that Snapple and New York City share attributes like uniqueness and originality, but where New York is seen as unapproachable, Snapple is depicted as friendly." I also personally think Snapple drinks often have an "off" taste (especially diet ice tea) and darn if many also think that about New Yorkers. And, I sure do miss that Snapple lady! Maybe, she become a school matron?

Finally, in the NY sports front, the deal by the NY Mets for Kazuo Matsui seems promising, especially if one does not have too high hopes for an apparently good but not quite superstar caliber player.

"When I voted for the war, I voted for what I thought was best for the country. Did I expect Howard Dean to go off to the left and say, `I'm against everything?' Sure. Did I expect George Bush to f--- it up as badly as he did? I don't think anybody did.''

- Sen John Kerry, Rolling Stone interview

"[O]n Iraq, he praised the president's case as 'eloquent, powerful and convincing.' ... But he is stunned by the Bush administration's mishandling of the aftermath, he says."

- Sen Joe Lieberman, NYT profile

Now the Kerry quote is getting some flack from the White House because it is deemed too insulting, which is silly, though it might make him sound like he is trying too hard to sound tough. My problem is his claim that somehow we are to believe everyone was clearly shocked by how the President handled things, what he did with the power given. Sen. Lieberman's quote focused on the aftermath, but it is somewhat comparable. Meanwhile, Sen. Clinton complains that though she supported giving him the power, the President basically fucked up the responsibility that came with it, just without using that word.

The trouble is that many people, including experts, did warn that things might go badly. Likewise, many did not trust the President and his administration, even those sympathetic to the invasion. Finally, even many of those who supported the invasion were a bit wary about how it was being promoted. Thus, though surely the votes of Kerry and Lieberman were defensible (wrong, I think, but that's another story), their after the fact horror is a bit hard to take. Sen. Kerry is especially annoying -- he not only wants people to accept his vote, but accept that it was surely right, since who would imagine that the President would foul things up so much?

Moi, to name one of the less important ones, except to the degree that people like I will decide whether or not to vote for the guy. And, some wonder why people are so cynical about his defense of the vote. They know what power it gave, they knew who was given said power, and a likely result of such power. For him to suddenly claim to be surprised and ask us to accept that said surprise is the only logical thing is much more offensive than his use of the "f" word.

Football Blahs: Could it get any worse for the NY Giants? Sure can ... not only did they lose 20-7 against the lackluster Redskins, they lost their QB in the process. This did allow the backup to be sack bait, thus allowing a Redskin player to break a record. The NY Jets had a first of sorts ... fans looking back in nostalgia for '03 Vinny, given Testaverde led the Jets to their first win by soundly beating the Bills. The Bills this time around basically soundly beat the Jets, especially in threats to the QB. Though a Denver win (against Kansas City) meant the winner's (slim) chances to get to the playoffs slipped, the Jets are done. This was likely to come sooner or later, but the hope was it would come a bit later than this.

The Jets still play have the struggling Dolphins (and New England, in search of playoff position now) while the Giants (bound to win again at least once, right? right?) have various playoff hopefuls left on their schedule. So, the job of spoiler is open for grabs. The Jets (5-8) also still have 8-8 to aim for, while the Giants (4-9) can perhaps hope for a win. Or perhaps a well played game. Would you believe a game decided on less than two touchdowns? Some experience for their backups?

Yeah, some days it is hard to watch football.

House and Senate Republicans must assume they will never again be in the minority and vulnerable to payback. They are mistaken.

-- George Will, troubled by the "anything to win" mentality of those now in charge.

A two prong attack has to be made on their sentiment. (1) Showing why they themselves do not warrant such power and (2) Reminding people that our basic values (democratic and otherwise) are being violated. The lesson has to be taught in various ways, and those who voice distrust with those in power might be deemed hypocritical or results oriented, but the lesson isn't any less important because it is a hard sell.

Surprise of the Day: Stokely Carmichael grew up in my neighborhood. I recall being told that around the time I was born or thereabouts (this would be twenty years or so after he moved to this area) someone with a black wife had to basically hide the fact to get an apartment next door to me. Carmichael lived more on the outskirts of the area than I did (though he went to school where I currently vote), but he did join the area gang of the era (only black member, apparently). Times have changed, but it is interesting that I don't recall the neighborhood making a big deal about honoring his memory!

Regis Philbin also grew up nearby, though not quite in my neighborhood. There's a lesson to be learnt from those two men growing up miles apart.

Some political talk: The Florida Democratic Convention is going on as I type, so this is a good time as any to post a few political thoughts about Kerry, Bush, Dean (et. al.), and Edwards.

Eric Alterman met with John Kerry and put to him THE question -- how can you defend your vote on the war? He gave a passionate defense and later added "And Eric, if you truly believe that if I had been president, we would be at war in Iraq right now, then you shouldn’t vote for me." And, aside from the argument that on various grounds he has a greater chance to win than frontrunner Dean, I am still left with: "yes, Senator Kerry, but based on your admitted misjudgment of the administration, you voted to give the President the power to go to war. It is this misjudgment, as much as the perceived political motivations behind it, that is giving you so much trouble."

"Voting, as I keep having to say over and over to you silly Nader voters, is not therapy; it’s choosing between available alternatives." Point taken, but my question still holds. We needed judgment like yours last year, and honestly, it turned out to be less than stellar on that ground. Kerry is struggling as a candidate, which starts to become a self-fulfilling road to ruin, but it helps when on principle one remains on his side. Both combined make me wary ... after awhile it does get a tad bit depressing. It's like going to an ice cream parlor that has loads of flavors, but all of them leave something to be desired. So what one do you pick?

---

Snow continued to fall ... I staid in a lot, suggested by the material posted on the Slate fray, but also went out for some errands. When slogging through snow as the wind blows hard in your face no longer becomes fun, I believe it will be a sign that I'm truly old. It does help when you don't have to shovel or drive in this muck. Lol.

Winter Wonderland: As New York City experiences its first snowstorm of the season, it might be fitting to quickly approve of Bad Santa, the misogynist holiday movie not for the kiddies. The movie about a drunken, self-hating safecraker whose m.o. is to be Santa at a mall and then rob it at the end of the season is not totally outrageous in a sense. The drunk Santa image was seen briefly in the film The Apartment, and the idea that clowns are really sad creatures is a comparable one.

Still, the lengths Billy Bob Thornton and company takes this has to be seen to be believed. Both "Santa" and the kid who latches on to him are not lovely examples of humanity. Also, as a fan of The Gilmore Girls, Lauren Graham as a barmaid with a Santa fetish is not too surprising. First, she has played individuals a bit off in the past (including a memorable run on Newsradio as a slightly insane effeciency expert), and Lorelai is clearly pretty naughty herself. Looks great in black too.

This would make a good movie for those out there whose Christmas consists of a frozen dinner next to a small table tree, those who at times feel like that person, or just those who like dark movies that are both hilarious and on some level uplifting. You know, in a "I beat the shit out of some kids today ... but it was for a purpose" sort of way. For those who want their holiday movies totally depressing, however, one needs to look elsewhere. After all, the movie does fit a sort of traditional mold ... it's like they had to retain some degree of loyalty to Christmas movie basics, but have some twisted fun in the process. The end result is worth the price of admission.

Reading the Opposition: Tucker Carlson's little book entitled Politicians, Partisans, and Parasites: My Adventures in Cable News is an amusing read with enough meat to suggest that bow tied wearing misguided souls like Tucker have something to teach us. One lesson: yes, liberals, even the likeable conservatives that seem like fine people actually do believe you are wrong. On the other hand, the cheap shots at Clinton (is there one thing good about this guy?) and Monica (he was attracted to her?) are tiresome.

Aside from such comments (obligatory, I guess, and meant to annoy people like myself), there were a few questionable statements such as the (in passing) comment that the nation's capital "isn't very corrupt," confusing statements promoting the use of hemp with marijuana, and wondering how the President could have possibly criticize victims of the Holocaust during the 2000 post-election struggles [how about the Jews who felt they accidentally voted for Pat Buchanan, some of whom were Holocaust victims, many of whom were ridiculed for claiming the ballot was confusing?]. Also, there is a blurb in the back by Reverend Al Sharpton, who Tucker Carlson did compliment, but in a rather backhanded, "he's ridiculous but in a fun way" sort of way.

I listened to Rita Hayworth and Shawshank Redemption, the source of the movie Shawshank Redemption, which was pretty much loyal to the book, though it condensed the time period some (and added the scene involving the record player). The audio adaption was unedited and was finely done.

Making War Unnecessary: An Interview with Dr. David Hamburg was an interesting read, and not as utopian as the title sounds.

Howard Dean ... blogger? He again is getting flack for his seemingly off the cuff statements, this time concerning holding back his state papers, and later having to "explain" himself. This makes him look stupid, and political to boot (his staff: politics as usual! oh no ... isn't that Kerry?), which is bad. Dean sounds to me a little like a blogger, who just types what s/he is thinking at the moment, leading to flawed prose that would have been much more smooth if some thought would be put into it. Of course, this also causes something to be lost in the translation.

Howard Dean has to keep his bloggist bona fides, but learn to still have the common sense and skill needed to succeed. Also, he has to resist the urge to totally edit himself after the fact, resulting in him abandoning the good parts of his "speak my mind" comments as well as making people forget the previously basic statement he previously made as their mind is dulled by cover-up spin. Tricky business, but who says beating sitting presidents was supposed to be easy?

Coal: A Human History By Barbara Freese was an interesting little book by an attorney general of Minnesota, whose study of the substance for the state's environmental concerns led her to write this book. A book on coal of all things has the potential to be dull, but it turns out to be a fascinating story that reaches from hundreds of millions of years ago to the current day. She starts to summarize more when she gets close to the present day and basically skips over the whole (and fascinating in its own way) issue of the derivatives of coal such as artificial colors (one book on this subject is Mauve) and sweetners. All the same, it is a good read, focusing on coal's role in the human history of Britain, the United States, and China. The book ends with a hope that we will one day move past this problematic energy source.

Religious funding and federalism: To add to my discussion of the Locke v. Davey case, another issue raised is federalism. Some legal theorists argue that the Establishment Clause of the First Amendment was primarily a state power matter, removing from the federal government that right to control a best left to the states. This would mean that the Fourteenth Amendment, involving individual freedoms, would not necessarily mean that states have no power to "establish" religion. If so, Washington might have the power to decide that it wants to be crystal clear that it wants to separate itself from religious institutions. This would include a broad ban on funding.

The problem with this argument is that there are other clauses to the Constitution. For instance, the Equal Protection Clause, not around when the First Amendment first was ratified, complicates selectively burdening religious groups. On the other hand, equality was still an honored principle back then, and the Establishment Clause was not deemed a violation of it. Also, by not funding religion, one has an equal restriction ... the alternative provides state benefits to certain religions over others.

Furthermore, free speech and free exercise might show their faces here. Again, however, those who put forth the state rights view of the Establishment Clause often tend to believe states should have some flexibility that the Congress does not have in carrying out protections found in the Bill of Rights. Allowing states to try different ways to honor religious liberty, including arguing funding religion burdens it by forcing one to fund the promotion of religions they do not support seems reasonable.

There are ways around this, of course. The point, however, is that the seemingly simple views of many on Davey's side turn out to be a bit more complex than they might seem. The same applies the other way around -- once states cannot fund religious practice, where is the stopping point? How about lottery tickets, one person asked. On the other hand, not every case that wounds up in the Supreme Court is simple, right?

Marci Hamilton has a good article on the case here, including the statement that "the Establishment Clause singles out religion and calls for its selective treatment." I'd add, though in other places she is loathe to, "as does the Free Exercise Clause," but the sentiment holds true all the same.

Voluntary cannibal victim? Clearly, this is a case of libertarianism gone amok.

Supreme Court Wrap Up: Two drug related decisions were handed down today; I discuss them here. Locke v. Davey concerns Washington's state constitutional ban stating that: "No public money shall be applied to any religious worship, exercise or instruction." Joshua Davey wanted to use a state scholarship to study in a religious affiliated school to advance his desire to become a minister. The state refused, he sued, and won in the lower courts. The oral argument was held today. See here for my take .... more to come when the decision is handed down. [Update: I got a few interesting replies to my "take" and answered them as well; also, I clarified one ill advised turn of phrase.]

[Information about this and other cases currently at issue in the Supreme Court can also be found here.]

---

The Medicare Bill led to a debate over the soul of the Democratic Party of which I took a part in, see here and here. It also involved a lot of pressure on doubtful conservative legislators, including apparently a thinly disguised threat on the political and business interests of one of their sons. Though the efforts of Republicans to obtain party discipline has shown to be particularly harsh these days, I wonder just how rare such a thing truly is. How many members of Congress were in effect bribed for their support in the past?

One interesting issue is the effect the Speech and Debate Clause has on an attempt to prosecute (somewhat unlikely, given the Bush Administration's role in all of this). Does it protect the congressman involved, who appears to want to keep quiet about the whole thing? Clearly, Congress can investigate, given the clause is largely a separation of powers measure and does not overrule other congressional rules (for instance, a senator cannot vilify a fellow senator with impunity just because it is done during a speech or debate). Also, it only applies to members of Congress and to some degree their staffs. Finally, even the similarly absolute First Amendment is not read absolutely.

The clause appears to have some relevance, especially if it is read broadly (see the discussion and relevant opinions/dissents found in the first link above). All the same, this does not mean Congress cannot investigate, especially (as is possible) forces outside of Congress had some role. Likewise, the target (a family member) makes this somewhat worse than a run of the mill quid pro quo situation. Anyway, it is clearly fair game for critics of the party, and those who want to put some limits on the "anything goes" nature that too often is the name of the game in politics today.

The Jets ... still have life. Not really playoff chances, but life, and Chad Pennington is the basic reason why. They came out for MNF and won against an elite team like the Titans, who did look like they had an off game. The defense is working ... better late than never, huh? And, there was an interesting ending, when it looked like the Jets would just run out the clock. They had a couple of running plays (this from a team coached by someone who is famous for returning a fumbled snap for a touchdown in such a situation?) and had a false start. Then, perhaps seeing the time was running out anyway, the Titans got called for encroachment. Since there was under forty seconds, this defensive penalty meant the end of the game. Bit weird there.

Current Events: The CO Supreme Court overruled a mid-decade redistricting plan, which is discussed by a story and a blog which I post/link here. Of special note, is a article by Jeffrey Toobin mentioned in Rick Hasan's blog concerning how gerrymandering is threatening democracy. Sen. Daschle was on Booknotes last night; for a transcript, see here. Sen. Clinton went over to Iraq for a quick fact finding mission, which I discuss here and here. I also caught some of her remarks on C-SPAN; she is starting to grow on me.

As to the Boondocks strips involving dirty laundry on the dining room table ... I was notified that this was a reference to exposing "dirty laundry" in public. If he is correct on this (his knowledge of black culture and overall good judgment makes me respect his opinion), my take is that it is a reference to his criticism of Condi Rice (the plan now is to get her a boyfriend so that she will soften up); it might even be that the fact it was the youngest boy's underwear is a reference to the cartoonist's youth. Perhaps, he was criticized by his "elders" for airing out the dispute among the black community concerning Dr. Rice, especially in such a "disgusting" way. Pretty neat metaphor, huh?

Football: Well, it seems that the NY Giants will have a new coach. This has been the talk for weeks, but after the embarrassing loss against the Bills, it seems to be almost certain now. The pathetic style of play can be compared to the efforts of two other games. A late turnover doomed them, but San Diego had a respectable game against Kansas City (11-1, compared to Buffalo's 5-7), the game ending with a touchdown (Doug Flutie had an expression on his face like "yeah, yippee") ... 28-24. The Jaguars (3-9) beat Tampa Bay, managing to do two things the Giants did not: avoid embarrassing themselves in front of a national audience and beat a basically bad team. This involved such hard things like having a defense, avoiding too many costly mistakes, and showing some life on a consistent basis.

Reagan Docudrama ... critics yawn: CBS cancelled the docudrama on the Reagans after conservatives put forth a major opposition campaign. This weekend it is shown on Showtime, which I do not get. All the same, the critics are mostly bored with the whole thing, wondering what all the fuss is about. As to the infamous AIDS line, removed in the final cut, see here.

Will try this new style for a bit ... see how I like it.

"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding." ... As discussed here, even former Bush Administration officials are concerned with the lengths the administration is going regarding enemy combatants. The good intentions leading to bad results also applies to the situation in Iraq, leading Thomas Friedman to be in the uncomfortable of not just opposing his wife, but also his good sense on this issue as discussed by Jack Balkin.

"But here's why the left needs to get beyond its opposition to the war and start pitching in with its own ideas and moral support to try to make lemons into lemonade in Baghdad."

This is the central fallacy of his stance, one shared by others who oppose the administration on much, but not on the intervention in Iraq itself (oh, they often don't like the method, but the cause appeals). The suggestion the "liberal left" is single mindedly opposing the war and the Bush Administration is just wrong. Earlier in the column he wonders why protesters are only targeting Bush, not Bin Laden. I reckon they might realize that protests influence democratically (sic) chosen leaders like Blair and Bush more so than terrorists. Overall, however, those who oppose Bush's (and targeting strawmen like British anti-war protests is a tad bit ridiculous anyway) path are talking about alternatives.

Where in his column are his quotes from Democratic candidates, not a noncandidate like Sen. Biden, who rail against the President (without supporting withdrawal) for being counterproductive in the war against terror, while providing alternatives? Nowhere. Or the analysis by those against the war in articles, blogs, message boards, and so forth about what we need to do now? Or the anti-Bush brigade that has " beyond its opposition to the war" and dealing with the here and now? Nowhere ... it's quite easy for Friedman to dream his little dream when his only opposition is so lame.

[See also, Mark Kleiman, who addresses those unable to "acknowledge that even some of the people who opposed the war did so because they thought there were better ways of fighting terrorism. It's even possible they were right." He also suggests that someone truly serious and smart would have used Bill Clinton (supportive of Prime Minister Blair) to promote the war. Nah, wouldn't fit into their "our way or the highway" politics. Kleiman also provides a link to an editorial that rejects the value of the largely ignored Feith memo leaked by the Weekly Standard.]

As Balkin notes, his final statement leaves a lot to be desired: "For my money, the right liberal approach to Iraq is to say: We can do it better. Which is why the sign I most hungered to see in London was, "Thanks, Mr. Bush. We'll take it from here."

Now, let's accept that leaving now would be bad -- this is not the slam dunk both of them suggest to any degree given that self-determination involves letting those on the ground decide their own fate. Of course, it is a bit too late to care about that now, I guess. The ultimate problem is what the heck do liberal dissidents supposed to be "thankful" for? They rightly think the administration took a risky path in a slipshod and corrupt matter which continues to look somewhat bleak (see BTC News for ongoing coverage), symbolized by the quick and top secret nature of the President's Thanksgiving visit there (nice gesture, exaggerated by supporters). For this, they are to give thanks?

The ultimate problem is, of course, "we" are not going to "take it from here." The President will (at the very least) control things for the next fourteen months, continuing the rough path that is now being taken. I am all for more input from the loyal opposition on how best to handle things, but I'd also appreciate some recognition from critics like Friedman that this group does realize the gravity of the terrorist threat. They just do not agree with him on the way to deal with nor are they trustful that those currently with the responsibility of carrying out such an attack will do a good job. Why Friedman is as trustful as he seems to be (he surely is not supportive of the administration's abilities overall) and so dismissive of those not as naive as he too often seems is a bit unclear to me.

On the other hand, as Justice Brandeis noted long ago: >"The greatest dangers to liberty lurk in insidious encroachment by men of zeal, well-meaning but without understanding."

PS: Friedman noted: "Ultimately, only Arabs and Muslims can root out this threat, but they will do that only when they have ownership over their own lives and societies. Nurturing that is our real goal in Iraq." Thomas Friedman has to explain in a bit more detail on how an outside force coming in to depose its leadership, having major say on who its leadership will be and the nature of its constitution building procedure as well as any number of domestic relations for the indeterminate future, and stationing hundreds of thousands of its own military there is the best way to carry this out.

Hyperbolize ... at first, I thought this word was a neologism of my own creation when I used it for the first time (at least, I think so) recently. It had a great sound to it, and I was quite impressed with myself. Silly rabbit. See here.

Maureen Dowd just introduced Tom Brokaw, who is up for some award or something. She graduated college around the time I was born, but damn she looked great. Dowd was in the black dress and had a cute haircut that partially covered her eyes. She started off with a Bush joke ... Robert Novak didn't seem to appreciate her remarks, but I did. Lol.

The reality of this subject is that no one gets off that easy. Some of the acting may not be the best and many of the points aren't made with a soft touch, but damn, I can't think of another film about addiction with a more accurate view from the inside. Not that I'm saying I would know, uh...forget it.

The film kicks off with a study of just how much maintenance is required for Alix to support her "illness". "Requiem for a Dream" may have nailed the ritual of hardcore drug use, but "Acts of Worship" nails the need and desperation in a far more naked way.

-- from a review of Acts of Worship, based on the filmaker's own experiences.

This is basically my sentiment of the film. Though I saw the film not too far from the Lower East Side (Manhattan, NY) setting, I cannot validate its realism. All the same, it seems pretty true to life. All the same, the movie is a bit hard to take because of some amateurish acting and writing. It especially hurts the intriguing subplot of the recovered addict who tries to help (her photographs of addicts impresses the art world, but on some level, she cannot quite accept her success). And, some of the messages of the film (including the source of the title) are not exactly handled with finesse. Still, the movie retains a sense of hardhitting truth to it that makes you stick with it.

Thanksgiving ... was better than expected. Family is often best handled in small doses.

"As a member of the Sons of Confederate Veterans, I have been to their gatherings. I spoke at the 2001 SCV convention in Lafayette, La. The Military Order of the Stars and Bars presented me with a battle flag and a wooden canteen like the ones my ancestors carried."

-- Patrick J. Buchanan, defending the Confederate Flag.

I did not realize Mr. Buchanan's deep rebel roots. It does amuse me how deeply patriotic sorts such as he do so much to defend those who committed treason against the U.S. government. [Well, surely, they did so technically, right?] I am actually sympathetic to the overall tone of the article, but isn't there a certain disconnect to displaying the flag of a defeated nation (aka the Confederacy) on the statehouse of a state in the United States of America? Y'all fought that battle already, bravely it's true, but you lost it all the same. I reckon some of the states in the Southwest should fly a Mexican Flag underneath the Stars and Stripes, since they too fought the good fight, against foreign invaders that supported slavery and conquest.

But, then again, we don't usually display the flags of countries we fought against on property of a state of the United States of America, even if they did so courageous, and their descendants still live among us. I understand the cultural messages the article speaks of, but (maybe it's the Yankee in me) it still seems a tad bit strange.

....

An interesting argument in support of Wes Clark. BTC News today also had a couple interesting links to contrasting analysis of this intriguing candidate.

Boondocks ... I have no idea where the current storyline is going. The last few days involved a pair of dirty underwear being on the table. I find the childish trend of this sharp and funny comic strip a bit troubling. The storyline about finding Condy Rice a boyfriend went on a bit too long and was probably unwisely revived. This current storyline really is making me start to wonder ... I forgave you for the disappearance of the biracial couple (some "oh he didn't write that!" hilarity there), but where the heck are you going with this? Do you not like being on the editorial pages of certain newspapers or something?

Kate and Leopold was on TV again tonight ... good romance, great leading man.

The Republican Collapse: "It's really gotten close to the point where the only reason for limited-government types to vote for Republican presidents is that they occasionally appoint judges who believe that the Constitution restrains federal and state regulatory power; Republican-appointed judges even tend to have a broader view of the restraints the First Amendment places on government than do liberal judges. [horrors!] But the spending record of Republicans in the Bush years is just appalling. The latest on this can be found here." [David Bernstein]

After a 6AM Saturday, three hour arm twisting, vote, the new Medicare reform package was passed in the Republican House by a few votes. Today, it passed in the Republican Senate 54-44 (Lieberman and Kerry, opposition, not voting), the deciding votes Democrat dissenters. A look at the tally shows that a few Republicans did not vote for it, opposing (benefit to the President's re-election campaign aside) this large raise in governmental spending. If fiscal security and (surely not, not in leadership at least) fair play is not shown by the opposition, what exactly leads one to want to vote Republican? Morality? Supporting the f-ed up foreign policy of the President? Throw me a bone here fellas.

Meanwhile, the government added to the charges of the Guantanamo Bay chaplain suspected of illegally assisting the detainees there. Apparently, he committed adultery (or at least had sexual relations with someone other than his wife) and viewed and stored pornography on a Department of Defense computer. Are we trying to send some sort of message here, guys? Of greater note, perhaps, is the fact the government will allow him to return to duty at a base in Georgia as long as he does not come in contact with Guantanamo Bay detainees. To be continued?

Love Actually ... is a bit shameless. The acting overall is very good, but only some of the stories work above the "this is just laying things on a bit thick" level. It averages out okay with a few quite enjoyable subplots, including a pair who fall in love while working in a porn movie. On the other hand, instead of watching a subplot rip it off, why not just watch About the Boy itself?

Happy Birthday ... Christina Applegate.

Football -- Stars Hang On: This weekend had plenty of exciting games, where the underdogs gave the stars scares. The problem for those who wanted to see some upsets was that time and time again the star scored at the end of the game to tie or win (and each time the star won in OT). Among this group was (a bit ironically) the Jets, who played one of the few teams worse off than them, the Jaguars. The exception (other than Chicago, who beat the slipping Broncos) might have been the Ravens (who lost 9-6 last week), who manufactured a late Fourth Quarter drive, after being down seventeen points (tying things up at the end of regulation), winning in OT. On the other hand, Seattle is not exactly one of your elite division leaders. Still, allowing the Ravens to score over forty points is a bit sad.

And, sigh, we have the NY Giants. The Giants (4-7) might have did their fans a favor by basically eliminating themselves by losing the game against Tampa Bay (5-6), who now (given an easy schedule) have kept their slim hopes alive. The Giants lost another game in their now predictable fashion; the second Monday Night Game wherein they embarassed themselves. The final was 19-13. Let's see. From what I saw, the First Half and much of the Second (glutton for punishment, I), they had at least two Red Zone turnovers (one ending the First Half, after another impressive drive went for naught -- this happened over, and over, and over again this season) that could have gave them at least six points. As we shall see, that could have meant a 19-17 win for the Giants. On the other hand, one of Tampa Bay's scores occurred because of three penalties by the Giants that gave them around half of their yardage.

The worse came at the end. Hoping to clinch the game, Tampa Bay took a time out before the two minute warning on Fourth and inches (instead of letting the time run out and play the down after the warning), and couldn't convert. This gave the Giants some precious time and the ball. They managed -7yd. Two minute warning and Fourth Down. What to do? Well, with the ball on your own three and fourth and seventeen (or so), going for it is risky, especially if you are the Losers (oh, I mean the Giants). A safety, a move that the Pats used to their advantage a few weeks back, is an idea. You can go for the onside and even if you don't get it (likely), you have a time out to stop the clock. You'd have something less than a minute left. What do the Giants do? The safety ... but they waste thier remaining timeout, after having the warning to think about it. No recovery. Time expires on downs.

The fact the final was as close as it was suggests that Tampa Bay is not much better, but this game is typical of the Giants ... UGLY. Bad is one thing, but these guys show just enough to make you think they should win (you know, they are due), and then they get ya. It's like a sadistic game of rope and dope. I'm just glad I'm not a big basketball fan ... watching the Knicks do a version of this many times a week would be just too much.

In honor of TMQ, the ESPN football guy fired for putting his foot in his mouth, I offer this.

Obit: Edward Schempp, Who Fought School Bible Readings, Dies at 95. His lawsuit went to the Supreme Court and was a basic reaffirmance of importance of barring state action from religious practice. The decision held that:

Because of the prohibition of the First Amendment against the enactment by Congress of any law "respecting an establishment of religion," which is made applicable to the States by the Fourteenth Amendment, no state law or school board may require that passages from the Bible be read or that the Lord's Prayer be recited in the public schools of a State at the beginning of each school day - even if individual students may be excused from attending or participating in such exercises upon written request of their parents.

Though the case is arguably about a certain select practice, the principle protected was much broader. This was suggested by the presence of several concurring opinions, representing the views of justices from various faiths. As summarized by the majority:

"The place of religion in our society is an exalted one, achieved through a long tradition of reliance on the home, the church and the inviolable citadel of the individual heart and mind. We have come to recognize through bitter experience that it is not within the power of government to invade that citadel, whether its purpose or effect be to aid or oppose, to advance or retard. In the relationship between man and religion, the State is firmly committed to a position of neutrality."

How this is to be applied remains controversial, but the overall principle should not be. And, pending events only make this all the more clear ... the alternative, selective assistance of certain religious faiths is the road to ruin. So is the basic message of our Constitution and our basic principles as a nation itself. The fact they are often honored in breach is not enough to dismiss them as naive platitudes. And, it is often up to regular citizens, like Edward Schempp, to reaffirm them.

--

Senior citizens amok? Might happen ... see the closing vignette found in this article on the pending Medicare legislation.

Outside of terrorism and foreign affairs, the most pressing pieces in Congress under full Republican control is the pending Medicare and Energy Bills. Both are flawed, rushed, and seen as fundamentally necessary for the political future of the President. This results in a general mess that I rail about here. Seriously, the substantive problems with the legislation aside (too much in this mega-legislation even for me to handle, really), the process and political motivations involved are what really trouble me. Similar things can be said about the whole judicial appointment mess.

---

David Brooks manages to sound crass even when he is basically on the right side. His latest column puts forth the conservative (yes, he puts himself in that camp) case for same sex marriage, which also is contemplated via a somewhat different perspective here.

You get a feeling this column might be a bit off early on: "Anybody who has several sexual partners in a year is committing spiritual suicide. He or she is ripping the veil from all that is private and delicate in oneself, and pulverizing it in an assembly line of selfish sensations." Okay, David, do you have exact numbers here? How about if you have two partners? Will three lead you down to the road to perdition? Now, spiritual suicide might be deemed worth it and all, but just curious.

He also gets a dig at liberals, who apparently see the issue as one of economic benefits or just another civil right entitlement program. Brooks, however, takes a somewhat strong view: "We should insist on gay marriage. We should regard it as scandalous that two people could claim to love each other and not want to sanctify their love with marriage and fidelity." At some point, this all becomes not just unsavory, but just plain dangerous. It is quite nice that Brooks sees that quite a few things threaten marriage today, same sex unions is at best at the bottom of the pile, and marriage is a quite beneficial (better yet fundamental) institution. All the same, this mandatory marriage sentiment is just too much. Marriage is not always great Brooks, and you and your conservative pals do not have the right to insist on how people live their lives.

---

Blue Gate Crossing, a teen drama from Taiwan has a timely subplot. The film concerns a triangle formed by two best friends, one of whom likes a boy on the swim team, but is too shy to tell him. This leads to complications when the boy thinks the other one likes him, which is fine with him, since he likes her. Unfortunately, not only doesn't she (at least romantically), but she secretly likes her friend. A basic little story told in a gentle and thoughtful way with very good performances by all the leads. It is unfortunate that more teens are not liable to go to a film (if they could find it) with subtitles, since there are not enough films of this sort for teenagers. Oh, we do have the WB, but this film actually has a real life feel to it.

---

The FBI is worried about anti-war protesters. I'm worried about the First Amendment.

"Rational Basis" is the test that the Massachusetts Supreme judicial Court [as compared to its Supreme Executive Court?] argued that the ban on same sex marriages did not meet. See, for instance, the discussion in this debate on the subject currently found in the New Republic. The reply is that it is "reasonable" (if not necessarily correct) or "rational" to argue that special benefits to heterosexual couples (e.g., marriage) further the states' interest in advancing the best way to raise children (i.e., via a man and a woman, preferably by natural means). I think this makes a valid point, but obviously, it depends on what you mean by "rational basis." Clearly, if this was some law regulating widgets, the test would be less strict.

Let's be honest here. Justice Rehnquist sometimes asks when an advocate talks about how a law is "irrational," if s/he means the legislators who wrote it were basically crazy or something. The comment is not only used by conservatives; John Hart Ely (recently deceased) also often noted that it is rather hard to think of a truly irrational law. The only reason a law is not "rational" is because certain interests are deemed illegitimate or the burden inflicted is deemed to harm a protected class or fundamental right. And, this is exactly what is at stake here: classification by sexual orientation and sex/gender is treated differently than classification by say intelligence, and marriage is fundamental civil right. So, the obstacles the state has to climb over might not be "strict" (really hard, as if free speech was at stake), it is more than "rational basis." I'd call it (no, I didn't originate the term) "rational basis plus."

The habit of pretending or assuming things are less complex than they really are is not just present in cases like this. For instance, many think the President's general practice is to act irrationally. This leads to people arguing that on subjects like invading Iraq that there is some method to his madness. And, the critics look silly. The better path is to show that your opponents' arguments are on balance unreasonable or problematic. For instance, if you think a "compelling" case is needed to go to war, maybe the case was mixed, but not compelling. You need not exaggerate either side (those totally assured of their validity are leading themselves to the path of ruin or the misguided assurance they denounce in their foes) to win in the end. In fact, you very well might do a better job not doing so.

And, so would be the case in the same sex marriage case ... yes, in some way perhaps the discrimination is rational or enough so that the courts should not second guess the legislature. All the same, given the interests at stake, this is not enough. A closer, but not even a very close, look will show the state's case is a bit too weak to pass muster. Or maybe not ... but this is what is really being done here, and it is misguided to pretend otherwise.

The Revolution Will Not Be Televised is a documentary concerning a coup attempt in 2002 against the controversial populist leader in Venezuela, Hugo Chavez. The film does not really do a great job putting the coup in context, though it does give you an idea why Chavez was so popular (the documentary was originally going to be about Chavez himself, but then the coup happened while they were down there). The official site alone supplies a timeline of the coup that suggests a complexity not supplied in the film itself. All the same, the documentary gives one an amazing "you are there" look at how the government was seized, misinformation sent, and (this appears to be rare overall) the official government was able to seize back power in the end. It must have been amazing to be a part of it all.

And, though the movie just hints at it, it was not a high point of the Bush Presidency when it at first made noises supporting the coup, accepted (according to the documentary's take) misinformation, and was not that concerned that a democratically supported government was overturned. This probably did not invite good feelings when Chavez returned to power a couple days later.

Thoughts: More on the Same Sex Marriage Decision, Feith Memo on Al Qaeda links (link to Talking Points Memo, see also, BTC News today), a response to comments on juries determining sanity, and to thoughtful comments on dividing the Ninth Circuit and judicial nomination wars per se.

[Update: I got some interesting replies to my Same Sex Marriage Post, many in opposition, leading me to try to defend my case. I was clearly annoyed with some of the arguments, since they went much further than the case at issue, and were on some level just plain wrong. Still, I understand the argument against judicial involvement, but basic equality is at stake here. The argument (or fear) that the net result will be a backlash is understandable as well, though is not the state involved more liberal than most? And, back in the 1940s, a California court struck down a miscegenation law, long before the Supreme Court did. The sky did not fall. Perhaps, the public debate (yes, even in an election year) this forces is a good thing.

On the other hand, another reply reflected the fact that many are deep down willing to accept equity for homosexuals, but are hesitant to "legitimatize" them. Thus, perhaps, "marriage" is a too culturally laden term, and the Vermont "domestic unions" path is a better way to go. Cultural acceptance cannot be supplied by the courts, only legal rights, and "marriage" is as symbolic/cultural as it is legal. I hope this would be acceptable to the court, especially since their is rumblings of a constitutional amendment to overrule the decision.

Finally, one reply supplied an interesting reason against the ruling ... I didn't buy it, but interesting all the same. It was a natural law argument, but that can be used to support the ruling too. It is only selective argument that allows natural law or religion to only be used to oppose this sort of thing.]

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court Holds Ban on Same Sex Marriage Unconstitutional: "Barred access to the protections, benefits, and obligations of civil marriage, a person who enters into an intimate, exclusive union with another of the same sex is arbitrarily deprived of membership in one of our community's most rewarding and cherished institutions. That exclusion is incompatible with the constitutional principles of respect for individual autonomy and equality under law." (ruling) (see also here and here (Nov. 18) and some good news articles here)

How do we judge such a decision? One important thing to do is to note that it is a state law decision, one that factored in state constitutional commands and practices. For instance, other states do not have similar anti-discrimination laws and acceptance of same sex couple adoptions. Or they might have explicitly anti-homosexual clauses in their constitutions (as Hawaii, recently amended, does). Likewise, there is a fear that such rulings will spread, like some kind of contagion (horrors!). Thus, the latter link argues that it will encourage a federal marriage amendment (aka a federal marriage discrimination amendment), which will inhibit legislative and societal change. Of course, there is no guarantee (especially given the Defense of Marriage Act) that other states will have to accept gay marriages authorized by other states, and even Massachusetts can amend its constitution to stop state decisions of this sort. But, yes, hysteria is a possible consequence, especially in areas where anti-gay religious sentiment dominates.

Rulings such as these make sense and use reasonable application of basic constitutional themes. The best way to go is a "take it slow" technique, and the Court did give the state six months to respond. Furthermore, Massachusetts is a fairly liberal state (Vermont, where this also basically occurred, is libertarian; Hawaii is liberal as well), so it has that going for it as well. Still, it is troubling when a major change of this sort occurs via a 4-3 ruling, the minority arguing that child rearing concerns are valid enough to justify the classification and that equal deprivation is not a violation of equal protection (both men and women must marry the opposite sex and no matter what sexual orientation you are, you can marry). I find such reasoning a tad bit specious (to put it mildly), but remember Loving v. Virginia (laws against miscegenation are unconstitutional) was unanimous.

We also have the "slippery slope" sort of arguments that we heard when the Supreme Court barred laws against homosexual sodomy. Mostly tedious though broadly reasonable in a "taken to its logical conclusion, if the world actually worked that way" way. For instance, "see, anti-discrimination laws, including the ERA, can be read to justify and/or assist homosexuals, including homosexual marriage." Yes, one stone of the wall and only the concurrence focused on equal protection of sex/gender. The concurrence was correct to argue that discrimination by sexual orientation usually results in discrimination by sex, partly because the latter is based on sexual stereotypes. It is not a broadly accepted view all the same.

As to the argument that now multiple marriages and incestuous marriages, explain to me how discrimination by sexual orientation is valid comparably as discrimination by those two criteria. For instance, where is the acceptance and anti-discrimination laws of such conduct? Yes, some religions (such as dissident Mormon sects) support polygamy and some forms of incest are rather tenuous (how about fifth cousins?), but it does not take too much to differentiate them from same sex relationships. Many support a basic right of privacy or individual liberty, even those against homosexual marriage, even though it might taken to its logical conclusion involve consensual use of drugs. Protections would be mightily limited if slippery slopes ruled the day, no matter what side you are on. [For instance, if you are against abortion, why allow it for woman's health?]

Massachusetts' constitution logically was read to ban discrimination. The state was given six months to adapt, though apparently (see today's discussion of the case here) there is not enough time to amend the document, which is troubling. All the same, the ruling was a good one, though the response might not be. All the same, naive as it might be, I share the sentiment of the concurrence:

"I am hopeful that our decision will be accepted by those thoughtful citizens who believe that same-sex unions should not be approved by the State. I am not referring here to acceptance in the sense of grudging acknowledgment of the court's authority to adjudicate the matter. My hope is more liberating. The plaintiffs are members of our community, our neighbors, our coworkers, our friends. As pointed out by the court, their professions include investment advisor, computer engineer, teacher, therapist, and lawyer. The plaintiffs volunteer in our schools, worship beside us in our religious houses, and have children who play with our children, to mention just a few ordinary daily contacts. We share a common humanity and participate together in the social contract that is the foundation of our Commonwealth. Simple principles of decency dictate that we extend to the plaintiffs, and to their new status, full acceptance, tolerance, and respect. We should do so because it is the right thing to do."

[Update: Looking at the news coverage, we find out that: "President Bush denounced Tuesday's ruling. 'Marriage is a sacred institution between a man and a woman,' he said in London. 'Today's decision ... violates this important principle.'" This was not surprising, but even if you agree with it, look at it a bit closely. Is it really the state's role to determine what is "sacred?" I don't think so. Does the President think those religions that do feel same sex marriages are 'sacred,' are wrong and have no right to be honored by the state? Does he have a set of guidelines to determine what is and is not sacred? Just curious. As the ruling said, when it boils down to it, we are talking about a licensing statute. The sacred nature of the marriage is a private religious matter, one arguably often not present is marriages today or in the past.]

Republican Dissent and Rumblings re Iraq: Michelle Goldberg has some good comments about the abyss possible (or rather existing) in Iraq in her recent Salon column about her presence at a Republican retreat. Said one member:

"The premise that people would want passionately to be rescued is of course in question," he said. In fighting the Iraq insurgency, "We're going to kill a lot of Iraqis and restrict their movement. We may well become a guerrilla-manufacturing machine."

and ...

"Our goal is not a free Iraq," Pipes continued. "Our goal is an Iraq that does not endanger us."

The operative word being "us."

[I list Slate on my list of links because I find its content, especially it's reader comment section ['the fray," which often is more useful than the actual articles ... BTC is authored by a consistent contributor] worthwhile enough that I focus an unequal amount of my time there. Salon actually also has a lot going for it, but it is not quite free -- you are required to get a "one day free passe," which is inconvenient, but relatively painless, and can be done repeatedly. Current content suggests that it should be.]

Need to find a church? Well though the Catholic Church has a new trick or two up it's sleeve to determine marital compatibility, the Beer Church has a lot going for it:

"For each and every one of you, your own appreciation of beer is something deeply personal. The appreciation of Beer is also something that is universal. Beer Church is about the relationship of the two; your personal affection for beer, and humanity's overwhelming love of Beer. Beer Church is a celebration of Beer (with a capital "B"). Beer Church represents the "something larger than yourself" to which you belong by virtue of your very personal love for beer. Beer Church is about the one thing that we all have in common, regardless of all of our other differences. Something we all believe in. Beer.

Any gender, any sexual preference, any nationality, any shoe size or hair style; beer drinkers of the world are all part of something much larger than themselves. They are part of a loosely connected, diverse social group of countless individuals all around the world, with at least one thing in common. Beer. And sure, someone might be able to say the same thing about cheese, or coffee, or many other things, but we didn't. We said it about beer. And because you know the difference, you are one of us. You are Beer Church."

Anyway, mixed reviews aside, Looney Toons: Back In Action was a fun movie. I could do without the twelve minutes of "pre-show" entertainment, which included five commercials, five previews, and about a half minute of theater (no talking, etc.) stuff. The current practice of commercials, overproduced and expensive they might be, is surely one of the nadirs of current movie going experience. I am not totally sure why we need extended end credits (this one has a closing joke afterwards for those who stuck around, like I always do) with details such as catering and on the set tutoring, but commercials is a bit too tv for me.

As to the movie itself, Brendan Fraser was right ... this is no Space Jam. Its energy level and mentality is consistently on the cartoon level with many nifty in jokes for adults (who grew up watching this stuff, after all, more so than the children they take with them). Fraser and Steve Martin (as the head of the Acme Corporation) are very good, though Jenna Elfman is rather stiff. There was a bunch of cameos, including some genre favs (Leo Rossi has a nonspeaking role as an Acme lackey), but Wile E. Coyote isn't on screen enough, I think. Joan Cusack has another zany role, the sort she does best. The "inside paintings" scene is a wonder to behold, but more importantly, more often than not, the scenes are fun and loyal to the characters. The final battle scene between Bugs and Daffy vs. the Martian was fun as well.

Much better than a full length takeoff of shorts has any right to be, especially with the mixture of animation with live action. Fun stuff.

Giants lose ... do I hear hammering? Yes, the nails on their coffin. Bengals do it ... they are the ones who give KC their first loss, like the lowly Giants did a few years ago when Denver was but a few games from a perfect record. A day of toughly played games (outside of Philly and Cleveland) so far. Buffalo had the "don't see this every Sunday" line of 2 3 3 2, two safeties and field goals.

And, the Jets' defense again cannot stop 4th and Goal at the line, adding another collapse at the end of the Half. This sort of play is why I can't relax today! See here.

Sunday News Items: Telling families soldiers have died, the death of a loyal fan, and the charity of a leader of the team for which she rooted.

A few of my own comments. The first piece is an eloquent piece that can be read no matter what your position is, though it's easy to use it in an ant-war way. I heard the fan in question on talk radio, and it was sometimes hard to take given her illness and hacking cough. Sad case, she died too long, but it is a good human interest story of an ordinary person getting her little chance to shine. The final story regards Al Leiter, surely one of those athletes that makes caring about adults playing children games worthwhile. It is unfortunate (lol) that he is a Republican, since I can easily see him going into politics some day as he himself has admitted is an interest of his.

The Weekly Standard leaked a memo to the Senate Intelligence Committee that suggests there is strong proof that Saddam Hussein and Al Qaida has had strong connections over the years. This would dispel the consistent criticism, one that even President Bush has basically admitted was accurate to some degree, that such links were exaggerated. Or were basically "lies." My philosophy in areas like this was that speaking in absolutes were a bad idea and that the ultimate test was twofold: (1) were the connections not just present (the organization so diffuse, I think some connections or meetings could have existed) but significant enough to be considered "major" and (2) on a cost/benefit level, was the choices made to go to war correct?

The reply to the article was tentative, but many doubted the source, argued the evidence was rough, that the Defense Department and others on the Senate Intelligence Committee weren't impressed, it serves as an example of the selective concern of the administration for secrecy, and that other countries still had much more major connections anyway. See, for instance, here (Nov. 15) and here.

My overall philosophy, though I agree with many of these concerns, is that you got to be careful with absolute attacks and do more than making personal shots at the sources. It is easy to do so when the other side basically taunts you by exaggerating, misleading, lying, and bullying as they make moves that substantively you feel are often at best misguided, at worse dangerous. Still, let's not make the mistake of trying to make shades of grey into black and white. I think this might be such a case ... no connections? I'm doubtful. Major connections? Doubtful as well. Somewhere in between that still was twisted by the administration for their own ends while simplifying a complex situation? Yes ... after all, it seems to be their de facto position on most matters of this sort.

I wrote this as I read some news online while the NY Giants bungled their way through another half. I missed their one score (a field goal on an Eagles mistake), but saw their inability to score on First and Goal on the 1, after quickly getting there once the Eagles fairly easily went up 14-3. Yes, this is not a game worth watching without doing something else. Meanwhile, the Bengals (a player of which guaranteed a win this weekend) are tied at the Half with Kansas City 3-3. The Bengals is a bad team actually showing some life, while the Giants are a mediocre team with the potential for more that has found more and more ways to look pathetic. So it goes.

The Giants have came back from the dead (only to collapse again in the post season) enough times to be more cocky than they really have a right to be. They are really pushing the envelope here, aren't they?

Thoughts: Suggesting the benefits of online message boards, I questioned and got information from others regarding Dean/Kerry and Clark as well as providing a summary of the judicial nominations wars (ending with some proposed solutions).

Talking about judges ... Barnhart v. Thomas (11/12) was the first ruling handed down by the Supreme Court, striking down a lower court ruling that was in conflict with other circuits. No, it was not a Ninth Circuit ruling (which was cited for its consistency with other circuits on the matter), which was a prime target during the Senate talkathon. The true breadth of the "liberal" nature of the circuit is suspect, of course, when it hands down a ruling that production of machine gun parts is not a matter of interstate commerce, written by one of its conservative wunderkinds.

Anyway, back to the ruling. The ruling involved a federal disability case involving an claimant that could not get a job because the profession she was able to do in her current state was basically obsolete (manual elevator operation). Justice Scalia, writing for an unanimous Court, argued that a literal reading of the law could reasonably mean that being able to do a job is all that is required, not that the job actually exists. [Again, we see that federal legislation is rarely a wonder of clarity and courts disagree on their "obvious" meaning.] The alternative, he suggests, would be to open up the path of people refusing to work or something. Or perhaps make it harder to enforce the law.

The lower court logically noted that the ruling sets up an absurd situation of depriving her of benefits because she is able to do something that doesn't exist. And, yes, as Justice Scalia notes, being able to do the job might serve as a proxy of ability to work at all. The problem, however, is the result here is a Catch 22: being able to do the job, even if it doesn't exist, stops the process. All the lower court gave her was a chance to go to the next step, which would determine if she could work that was available.

This literal, hard nosed, and ultimately unjust reading of public benefit law reminds me of the unanimous ruling against innocent public housing tenants. It also suggests what happens when you do not have even one true liberal in the mode of a Justice Douglas, Brennan, or Marshall.