Pretty Disgusting, If You Think About It

One More Time: When you miss from forty-seven yards (thirty-three last week), trying from forty-three (and not really trying to get closer) is a bit stupid. If most of the Jets fans knew this, why not the coaches? Hmm?

Mr. Williams has repeatedly said in his damage-control press appearances that he was being paid the $240,000 only to promote No Child Left Behind. He also routinely says that he made the mistake of taking the payola because he wasn't part of the "media elite" and therefore didn't know "the rules and guidelines" of journalistic conflict-of-interest. His own public record tells us another story entirely. While on the administration payroll he was not only a cheerleader for No Child Left Behind but also for President Bush's Iraq policy and his performance in the presidential debates. And for a man who purports to have learned of media ethics only this month, Mr. Williams has spent an undue amount of time appearing as a media ethicist on both CNN and the cable news networks of NBC.

-- Frank Rich

Sometimes things occur that supply a moment of crystal clarity. The idea that the federal government is (secretly) using our tax dollars to pay conservative shills [Frank Rich supplies excellent commentary on Armstrong Williams' character] is simply disgusting. Let's be clear about this. Two hundred and forty thousand dollars, which is about six times what many working people made a year*, was supplied without disclosure (which, though not that experience suggests they care, violates at least the spirit of federal law) to a "journalist" ["I'm not a journalist; I'm a pundit," Armstrong.] who might just have been voicing his own opinions anyway.

Not a bad job, if you can get it, hmm? And, when called upon it, the administration stonewalled, misrepresenting things in the process (see Rich's commentary). Oh, and CNN does not come off very well in the process either. Credit should be given, and sometimes isn't, to some good coverage of ongoing questionable dealings. The coverage is incomplete, of mixed value, and is never quite cumulative enough. An ongoing summary is necessary -- the torture story, for instance, has too many complex parts that are handled piecemeal. Still, kudos to Rich for doing a good job supplying criticism when criticism is due.

Our leaders, boys and girls. The individuals that you have re-elected into office. I personally cannot bear to listen to the President or various other members of the administration, since my gag reflex is of questionable strength. This sounds bad, doesn't it? It sounds like I cannot be taken totally seriously, since I'm "biased" against these people. Let's just remember that such reactions have been fully earned. And, don't worry, I will restrain myself, especially when I voice my opinions on boards where such basic truths trouble people.

Since, like the commander in A Few Good Men said, the truth is just too depressing for too many people, so they accept a lie. Fair enough ... but shouldn't they get something for their trouble? A small voucher, like those received by extras in movies or television shows? Seems fair.

----

* Former Secretary of Treasury Paul O'Neill in today's NYT sets forth a Social Security proposal that would set aside "at least a million dollars" for retirement. A person who retires at age sixty-five and lives to ninety, which might be fairly typical soon enough, will receive forty thousand a year (or 240K in six) under this minimum.

In Good Company

Interesting Education Story: When we talk about learning, we really mean two quite different things, the process of discovery and of mastering what one discovers. All children are naturally driven to create an accurate picture of the world and, with the help of adults to use that picture to make predictions, formulate explanations, imagine alternatives and design plans. Call it "guided discovery." As they say, read the whole thing ... since we all learn in some fashion, it doesn't just apply to those in school.

A listing of the best films of 2004 suggests that it was not a great year. There were some good films and great performances, Million Dollar Baby and Kinsey fitting in both categories, but no great films. A film that received many accolades was Sideways, which was an enjoyable film with very good performances from the typically second tier leads, but it was not great or anything. The movie takes awhile to get going and at the heart is about a not too pleasant guy who might be redeemed by the love of a woman perhaps better off not with him. This is a bit trite, was done in a witty manner, but a great film it does not make.

Kinsey also had some flaws, including a somewhat weak final third, and an incomplete feel to the biography. There was a lot of good in the film, and if it wins an Oscar or three, it might even be deserved. Still, not a great film. Similar things might be said about The Woodsman, which should have at least one nomination (Best Actor -- Kevin Bacon). I haven't seen the movie about the Rwanda genocide yet.

Carter Duryea (Topher Grace) is one of those bright, ambitious kids whose drive and weaselly charisma get him promoted into jobs he's not ready for. He's not stupid, but the limits of his experience and his undeveloped instincts are precisely the things that upper management is usually blind to, while underlings feel them all too keenly.

-- Salon review

I had problems of late to find even a good film, as did others, given the high ticket sales of a film like Meet the Fockers. Still, some people who like that sort of thing told me it was pretty funny. And, one should not sneer at a pleasant time at the movies. And, In Good Company is just that, guided by excellent performances from Dennis Quaid (middle-aged executive dealing with some crisises at home and a demotion at work), Topher Grace (young upstart who took his job, but isn't so sure of himself either), and Scarlett Johansson (Quaid's daughter, but catches Topher's eye too).

And, there are several other very good supporting roles for characters actors to shine. Topher Grace (of That Seventies Show) kind of annoys me, so I was not sure about this movie, but it's too amusing, winsome, and just a bit wise to miss. It is the definition of a good movie -- not great, but well worth the time. And, heck, Quaid is just good enough here that a long shot nomination in the Best Actor role is not totally out of the question.

The movie does have a flaw that hurts its chances for superior status -- the time old inability of an American movie to find a totally satisfactory way to conclude matters, perhaps because of a failure of will to take a chance.* Still, Dennis Quaid has a pretty good piece of advice regarding how to succeed at marriage. Find someone you want to share a foxhole with, and when you are out of the foxhole, keep it in the pants. Many a marriage would have survive with less. And, it is an "adult film" in certain ways, but retains its PG-13 status. This too is an accomplishment.

---

* Roger Ebert recommends the film, but gives it a mixed review, and probably does so because he doesn't believe in the final third of the plot. This is mostly fair, though he speaks of the film at times as following the line of the usual "corporation as villain" movie without quite explaining that there really aren't too many films that actually do so with the skill of this movie. A movie can be too predictable in some ways, but still be worthwhile, something Ebert himself makes clear.

Perhaps, the idea is that we sometimes expect more out of some films of this caliber? Anyway, the quote from the Salon review appears to me to have some applications to the Bush Administration.

Well, that was pathetic

Quick Bits: A FBI report has reaffirmed many of the concerns of fired translator Sibel Edmonds. Also, an interesting lower court decision overturning a sticker put in textbooks that stated that evolution is but a "theory," is discussed on this thread.

The NY Jets won the Super Bowl not long after the game was first played, but since then had a series of "here we go again" moments that prevented a repeat. As they did tonight. The Jets played good enough (well the defense played good enough) for the stories about this latest collapse to write itself in all ironic detail. This time the Jets missed the field goal (twice really, but only one would have iced the game), allowing the other team to win 20-17 in OT. The third consecutive OT that they had to play, a record that they had no desire making.

And, they shouldn't have. The offense ... let's find the right word ... played F----- pathetic. Oh, sure, the game is still fresh in my mind, but what else can you say about an offense that had THREE points? Points they were lucky to have because of a bad snap that was well played by the kicker (the veteran waited to have his moment in the sun ... so to speak). An interception had earlier made it 10-0 Pittsburgh (they had to score, but actually managed to get the yards when they had to), but it was 10-10 at the Half because of a punt return for a touchdown. A field goal attempt was not made at the end of regulation since the Jets just ran out of time before they downed the ball.

They were up 17-10 because of an interception ran for a touchdown. The rookie QB had many interceptions (add a key fumble, one the Jets failed to take advantage of), but you still have to do SOMETHING on offense. The Jets did not. This highlights the final two field goal attempts. First, it was a 47 YD attempt, which was just too long -- the Jets had to get a first down in that situation. It was only a near miss. The Jets got the ball right back on an interception and got the first down ... but only a few yards of field position.

This field goal attempt, again no gimmee even with a veteran ... was really off. So, the kicker is the goat, and some blame is on his shoulders. You need to make a 43 YD field goal in that situation. Still, the offense, including the QB, is the ultimate one to blame (with an assist from the coaching).

The defense finally wore down in OT, after the Jets got one more breath of life with a close first down call, and there was that winning field goal (Pittsburgh got it closer as well, but it still looked a bit close). The defense missed a few times late, including a long QB scamper, but they did their job rather well. The offense stunk.

No moral victory. The Jets had this game and gave it away. Same old Jets ... choked at the clutch ... Chad and company at the controls. Oh, the Pittsburgh QB was beatable -- he has to play better than this to beat the Pats or Colts. But, give even someone with a somewhat off day chance after chance, hell, the end result is clear. Jets cannot go the next mile. Next up: the sun rises in the east.

Randy Moss In Context

Link: I forgot to toss in the link for yesterday's lede ... here you go; re-read the shocking story.

One of my biggest pet peeves is lack of context. This is especially annoying on message boards. A person says something, often in a quick post, and it is wrong on two levels: in basis and substance. The point is wrong, largely because the assumptions are, or at least they are misinformed in some fashion. This is often impossible to handle, which is the same in politics with its quick soundbites and such. Oh, you can try to address the wrong assumption(s), but you lose the audience. The net result is that you talk past each other. Thus, I respect the effort of a blog like Left2Right, which is partly concerned with trying to defend their point of view to the other side, to somehow get a dialogue going.

The basis of this little rant is Randy Moss pantomining a moon to Green Bay fans after scoring the key touchdown last weekend. This disgusted various people, especially since he rubbed the goal posts before doing so (I missed this ... I barely saw his big moment). It was noted later that GB fans have a tradition, disputed by some, of mooning the opposing team's bus. This, of course, was not generally done on air. At the time, I felt it deserved an unsportmanlike conduct penalty* (excessive celebration), but the only result was a $10k fine (doubling the usual because of a past infraction). And, now, a local sportswriter (reporting the comments of a commentator on HBO) noted that the fans also were rowdy, including voicing racial epithets related to Moss' fleshed out Afro and so forth.

Moss is a bad boy type, so he is not likely to be given much slack anyway, but overall the context makes his actions understandable. I guess, though seriously it really isn't too important, it was worthy of a penalty, maybe (more borderline) a fine. Still, to go on and on about how horrible it is that he acted like a five year old is a bit ridiculous. In fact, given the situation, it is a bit stupid. The context does not quite justify what Moss did, but should surely be addressed in a "two wrongs don't make a right" fashion. Also, racial epithets trump rude behavior.

Ironically, the column that pointed this out ended on a bad note itself. It compared the 10k (as noted by a corresponding article, it is usually 5k) fine to the "slap on the wrist" fine of $7.5k given to the Jets play who made a late hit to the QB at the end of regulation, extending the game after an incomplete pass that should have given the Jets a victory. [OTOH, it's stupid for the Jets guy to contest the fine; he should give the same amount to charity as well given what could have happened because of his stupidity.] Thus, we have to understand the context of the situation.

Likewise, it was not a second offense, and the player (unlike Moss) did not laugh off his "wrongdoing." And, it was a bad hit, but less offensive than many nasty hits done in much less key points of the game. Oh, and unlike Moss, the Jets were penalized in a big way at the time. Finally, the writer speaks of "tailgate parties" (pre-game celebrations in stadium parkinglots) as if they are just reasons to drink, though really they are fun times for all fans. The fact that some abuse the privilege should not overshadow this.

Before you say anything, I know ... "let those who never sinned toss the first stone." All the same, if someone is going to challenge sportscasters and such (rightly) for being too much on their high horse about the Moss incident, they should be a bit careful about his own affairs. I know from experience that it isn't an easy job, but hey, I do not get paid for this stuff. So, when those who do are sloppy, we all have a right to complain.

----

* I'm a fan of football, but honestly ignorant about various aspects of the game -- the nickelback concept, for instance, or what exactly the different "refs" do. This includes certain penalties, though I think too many are given in various cases. Unsportmanlike conduct seems to me a somewhat wimpy penalty, but if you are going to receive a fine, the team deserves the foul. One set of penalties that I fully agree with relates to those involving helmets and head shots, though some of the latter are really not intentional or even really shots to the head.

Also, sometimes a player really cannot suddenly avoid making a bad hit, especially if seconds early it would have been a good one. False starts and encroachments are sound, if a bit overused, since those are the rules. Illegal conduct calls often are misapplied. And, officials should do a better job properly announcing who was penalized and exactly why so -- it's a bad sign when those who call the game wonder what the heck is going on.

A line in the sand

Sports: The NY Knicks recently embarrassed itself by losing to a team that was in the midst of a two game winning streak ... doubling their total wins for the season. The NY Jets owe their fans an upset. Their win last Saturday was nice, but I was one of the few who gave them a good shot, since the Chargers really weren't too much better than them. The Chargers just was a bit more consistent, including in flubbing a playoff game per their coach's history. So, I want the Jets to beat Pittsburgh, who are due to lose anyway. Why not now?

The Senate measure to impose new restrictions on the use of extreme interrogation measures, drafted by Senator Richard J. Durbin, Democrat of Illinois, was in an amendment introduced by Mr. Lieberman and Senator John McCain, Republican of Arizona. And in little-noticed comments on the Senate floor in December, Mr. Durbin complained that the decision by conferees to delete the measure had been "troublesome.

Troublesome? You think? When will a forceful minority draw a line in the sand? I noted yesterday that the new nominee for head of the Department of Homeland Security might be the best we can do. This should not be taken to mean that he is a great choice, which would be silly given that I oppose many of the things he had a major role in when he was in the Justice Department. Aside from this, one is left with a strategic choice akin to the once referenced at the head of yesterday's post: if you are in Congress, what do you do when such people come up?

I guess something can be said for a steady opposition, on merits not politics alone, even if it makes one looks like a total naysayer. If the administration is consistently wrong, "nay" is a legitimate choice. Sometimes, especially for certain members, strategic moves will warrant lesser evils. This might be seen as a sort of "game theory" philosophy. All the same, the underlining point that we are move pieces around on a board that is rotten at the core should not be forgotten.

This includes measures accepted by 96-2 votes in the Senate, but later removed. Legal Fiction voices this in support of Howard Dean for DNC Chair, while voicing some support for a lesser known choice toward the end of his remarks:

Despite his ideological wandering during the primary, his tenure as governor was fiscally responsible, socially progressive, gun-friendly, and intelligently hawkish. ... Growing up as a blue blood, he is fluent in the language of Wall Street and will be able to raise money (just like Bush). But more than anything else, Dean is the only prominent Democratic official that has given the slightest indication that he understands the long-term challenges facing the party. ...

I guess too that I have a soft spot for Dean from early 2003. When I was so thoroughly demoralized about Iraq, it was Dean who spoke out and articulated the, well, rage I was feeling at the time. And even though Dean lost, he didn't come across as wishy-washy or unprincipled or cowardly. He emerged with some dignity. That's because he had the spine.

Word. This is what some who sneered at his candidacy ignored at the time. Dean might not have been a viable choice as President in some ways, but he had some core qualities that the ultimate one lacked in some essential way. Yes, Dean had his own problems, including failure to define himself in a way so that the public realized the positives of his resume. But, his positives just might make him a good leader of the party. This one? I'll let the wonks decide, but he appeals.

As previously noted, the campaign for DNC head has raised calls for changing the way the Democrats frame the abortion issue, though it is somewhat of an ill advised time to do so. A leader of Catholics for Choice has written an article that suggests some of the points being made, though it has made some in the pro-choice community wary.

To summarize my take on the article, I think she has a point that we can honor fetal life without threatening abortion rights (e.g., better health care furthers fetal health without necessary threatening the pro-choice movement), but at times does not give the movement credit for what it has done. For instance, pro-choice members of Congress put forth an alternate "partial birth abortion" bill and Sen. Kerry was deemed a hypocrite for saying his personal beliefs respecting abortion should not necessarily mandate his views on public policy. Her comments on parental involvement also are incomplete and so forth.

But, it is a worthwhile read, suggesting the complexity of the average person's thoughts on the issue.

Supreme Court Watch

[A blog was started mainly to deal with the issue discussed below, so do go there to read about the material in more detail ... apparently, many practioners aren't quite sure what the ruling means, so take the below with the usual salt shaker.]

The Supreme Court in a split decision decided that mandatory federal sentencing guidelines that required judges to take into consideration facts (determined by a preponderance of evidence) not held to have occurred by the jury (by a beyond a reasonable doubt standard) is unconstitutional under the Sixth Amendment. All the same, Justice Ginsburg gave Justice Breyer (who loves guidelines ... he was involved in their creation) another majority in respect to the remedy that mandates that judges do consider such guidelines in their sentencing (their decision open on appeal to be judged by a "reasonableness" standard), but not to be bound by them.

In fact, Justice Breyer basically overturned more of the law than the other majority (per Justice Stevens) thought proper, and robbed some of the original intent of the law: namely, it's move toward determinate sentencing. As Justice Scalia notes in partial dissent: "In order to rescue from nullification a statutory scheme designed to eliminate discretionary sentencing, it discards the provisions that eliminate discretionary sentencing."

Overall, one also gets the sneaking suspicion that judges also have a way to get around the requirement that juries determine the facts behind the sentence, the whole point of the reasoning (as applied to the remedy?). Justice Scalia appears to agree, wondering if the remedy allows what the holding denies. Justice Stevens (with Souter and Scalia/Thomas in part*, the latter duo wrote separate opinions) wrote the main dissent on the remedy issue, however, and targets its basic foundation:

The predicate for the Court's remedy is its assumption that Congress would not have enacted mandatory Guidelines if it had realized that the Sixth Amendment would require some enhancements to be supported by jury factfinding. If Congress should reenact the statute following our decision today, it would repudiate that premise. That is why I find the Court's professed disagreement with this proposition unpersuasive.

The overall point of this partial dissent is that the guidelines are largely legitimate as a constitutional matter (their overall philosophy against judges doing their jobs / individual sentencing notwithstanding), except to the degree it allows sentencing on facts not determined by juries. In fact, a judge's conclusion that a defendant obstructed justice and evaluation of their prior criminal record both are allowable, the former apparently a determination of law.

Justice Breyer's stance might work as a policy matter, but let's leave assumptions on what Congress desired to them. In fact, otherwise Congress might just do nothing, since judges probably still can work within the current system under his regime. Justice Stevens notes that few cases would be affected by the new rule in any respect, perhaps fewer if the justices held with him across the board.

I guess we can hope that Congress will settle this question with new legislation, but it probably will be done so by tons of legislation. Have fun criminal justice personnel everywhere!

---

The justices also decided two cases involving detainment of aliens resulting in a split victory for civil libertarian, but one that appears to suggest regular rules still apply. Justice Scalia (breaking from Thomas) wrote a 7-2 opinion upheld a habeas corpus ruling respecting an illegal detention of two Cuban nationals.

He also wrote for a 5-4 opinion, also applying statutory terms, that permitted an alien to be removed to a country without the advance consent of that country's government. permits an alien to be removed to a country without the advance consent of that country's government, in this case Somalia (having no real government at the time in place to agree).

The laws are not completely silent respecting aliens, even in (terror) war time.

---

* Justice Scalia mostly agreed, adding some sarcasm and opposition to reliance on legislative intent. Justice Thomas agreed somewhat less, but still appears to felt his gist was correct.

Laugh or Cry: Two Examples

Strategy: Some suggest that targeting Alberto Gonzales is not the best way to attack the administration on torture because it might make the thing into some political football more than torture per se. Mark Kleiman, however, suggests that imperfect or not, it's the only thing we got. True enough for three reasons: (1) Republicans are not about to have some sort of torture hearings, since oversight has not been their thing (2) What isn't made into a political issue these days? The war with Iraq was politicized, which is why many gave away the keys back in Oct. 2002. Will we ever learn? (3) AG is not just a cog in the machine, but a primary one, and has no right to be confirmed for this and other reasons.

A sense of humor is a measurement of the extent to which we realize that we are trapped in a world almost totally devoid of reason. Laughter is how we express the anxiety we feel at this knowledge.

-- Dave Barry

I went into first gear last spring, sometime around the time when Air America went the air, in respect to thinking about politics and the Bush Administration in particular. My blog had some mileage on it already, but I took to writing longer entries, many dealing with the campaign. It must be said, however, that now that the election is over and all, things are mightily depressing. The best way to deal with such things, I guess, is to try to be philosophical about it all. We can also see the humor in it all. Recent events suggest this might be the way to go, unless we just focus on the Jets unlikely win last Saturday Night.

For instance, Judge Michael Chertoff was just nominated for head of Homeland Security. This on some level is a decent choice, since he is respected, non-controversial (except in some political circles, including his involvement in the Whitewater investigation), and has some experience in the Justice Department's fight against terror. Also, though some would disagree, he has made enough moderate noises on civil liberties (so suggests David Cole, who has written widely in dissent on the issue) to perhaps be the best we can hope for.

It might be wondered why a federal judge was chosen (more so why he would step down from a life appointment), but more so one without much management experience (DHS requires this in spades). Also, wasn't Sen. Kerry denounced by this administration for allegedly thinking the "war on terror" is mainly a crime issue?

This led to some supporters of the administration to wonder why he was appointed. They are kidding, yes? A loyalist, with a nice veneer, and another chance to fill a plum judicial slot ... the only surprising thing is that they chose someone who actually dissented on a matter that reached the Supreme Court. The fact that his experience suggests the administration was hypocritical to criticize Kerry is surprising? The fact that loyalty trumps a best fit to the position is surprising?

A pick that arguably is at least as good as the person he is replacing (cf. Rice and Gonzales) in respect to something else other than loyalty, that might be surprising. The other stuff is not and to suggest otherwise is either clueless or a bit of that right leaning wit.

"I think it's reprehensible, and [Williams] is being disingenuous to say the least - to say, 'Oh, now I realize I'm part of the media elite,' " says Katherine Lanpher, a journalist and cohost on the "Al Franken Show" on Air America Radio, about his insistence that he didn't think he was doing anything wrong in accepting the money. "At least CBS is taking responsibility for what happened. They screwed up, and there were consequences. I don't see anyone on the other side of the aisle doing that."

The other amusing bit respects the aftermath of Rathergate, which involved a long report damning a sloppy story involving Bush's National Guard service, and led to the firing of four CBS News employees ... though Rather is still around. It should be noted that though the documents involved were never authenticated, the gist of the story was not really disproven. My concern that the story was mishandled and overplayed aside, the "sin" here should be put in context.

The context would include, as bloggist Atrios noted, how various anti-left stories that turned out to be wrong was not given equal treatment. Likewise, including the current business about the government paying "journalists" to promote programs without disclosure, notice how the administration itself fucked up repeatedly without anyone being fired for it. No, they get medals and re-elected.

This is either funny or aggravating ... either way, quite so.

And also ...

The Supreme Court refused to hear a case respecting a Florida law that is uniquely discriminatory in that being homosexual will prevent adoption in all cases, trumping even being single or a convicted felon. Various states do make it quite hard for homosexuals to adopt, but laws of this nature are good targets for litigation in that their extremism can be used to take baby steps, even in these not quite gay friendly times.

For instance, Romer v. Evans concerns anti-homosexual bias, especially on status grounds alone. Would Florida bar a single grandmother from adopting her now deceased ex-lover's needy grandchild solely on account of her lesbian status? The extremity of such a decision puts this on another level from a state that finds homosexuality a major barrier to adoption, but not a complete bar. This perhaps might be a fine line, but such total lack of wiggle room troubles the courts when they are dealing with discrimination claims.

I'm not surprised the Supremes refused, but the lower court upheld the law on dubious grounds.

---

Normal Rules Don't Apply Here: Private donations are being supplied to pay for the forty million dollars that the inauguration (coronation) of President Bush (shiver) will cost. The problem is that there is another estimated $17.3 million cost to D.C. itself for security and other costs. The administration, in a move that even a member of his own party (chairman of House Government Reform Committee, which overseeing such matters) finds "simply not acceptable," instructed the city to use homeland security funds already appropriated.

The problem is that much of the money is earmarked for other purposes, leaving $11.9 million not covered. This is all highly irregular and a break from usual tradition respecting such matters, i.e., not very conservative. It is, however, par for the course for this administration, who doesn't think traditional rules quite apply to their actions.

Highway to Heaven

Highway to Heaven is now on Nickelodeon. This was a 1980s show somewhat akin to Touched By An Angel, but with Michael Landon and without the obligatory scene in which the guest star realize (by the glow around them) they are talking to an angel. Anyway, it's pretty good at times, even if you do not believe in angels. One nice thing about the show, aside from some good guest stars (last night Helen Hunt was on ... she had quite a few roles before Mad About You) was that Landon decided that his friend from Little House on the Prairie, Victor French, should be his co-star.

This was not a popular choice of some corporate types, since he is not exactly photogenic or anything. Think of a Jack Klugman type with a beard. Still, it added believability to have the angel's earthly assistant being some ordinary schlub, one who wasn't even that religious, if somewhat influenced to assist because he saw the angel's "stuff." The two have since died, though Landon's son recently directed two movies adapted from books by Jannette Oke, who wrote a series of historical fiction with some religious overtones. So, the family work's continues on.

Yesterday's episode was a two-parter and suggests its general approach. Landon and his friend goes to work for a rich man whose ne-er-do-well son secretly loves the daughter of the family's horse trainer, though he is engaged to marry someone else more appropriately of his station. They elope, though earlier the daughter (Helen Hunt) faints and has to go to the doctor (played by the storekeeper from Little House on the Prairie, which was a less skilled position, but he had to deal with a harridan wife).

This bit of somewhat heavyhanded foreshadowing is followed by a nearly obligatory scene when the rich father storms into the trainer's house to oppose the marriage just when the doctor had told him that the daughter has cancer (cue treacly theme). A scene that is touching as it is amusing, since the plot machinations are just a wee bit too much fully in gear. Anyway, the daughter decides to push for an annulment, since she doesn't think the son can handle her dying. And, then we learn that she is pregnant, so she decides to not take chemotherapy so that somehow she would live on. The two, of course, do eventually marry, and the father-in-law relents.

This is how it ends, but no indication is shown that she will miraculously be cured or anything. The show tends to be honest in that respect as well as having the overall populist view shown in this episode. For instance, another one respects a paralytic who decides that it is okay for him to marry, even given his condition. The general philosophy being that life is not always fair, but one's faith will help you along, as long as you believe in it and work with what you have. And, more times than one might hope, something special does happen. It's an uplifting message that has enough truth in it that the show is worthwhile overall.

And, it might help when those look at some tragedy and wonder "why?" I myself would just add that we must remember we are but one of many, horrible things came before us, and will come after us. So, I think it a bit presumptuous to blame God for such things when it happens to us, as if only now are they really bad. Believe or disbelieve, but not on those grounds.

A last thought on the episode. A controversial aspect is the abortion question, since the daughter decided not to have one, even though her doctor and father felt that she should. [And, just mentioning the word on a family show in the mid-80s was not a trivial thing.] And, I fully support her choice, since it was the right one for her. In fact, if I was in her shoes, I too might have done the same thing -- luckily, however, this probably will not be tested. Nonetheless, the point is that it was her choice, a moral and health related one that should not be made by anyone else. She should think about all those involved, since in some fashion their interests matter too, but the final decision is hers.

And, it was, though given her age (about twenty, but things probably would be the same if she was fifteen) and condition, some cultures might decide that the doctor or her father should make the decision for her. Many religious believers can tell you that free will can lead to unpopular decisions, some quite controversial. We take it away at our peril, though perhaps the writers might be upset at how I'm using their story. See also, Catholics For Free Choice.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time

Interesting: An article on a case that upheld a policy that forced a veteran woman bartender at Harrahs to wear make-up. And, coverage of the joys of tofu in Asian cooking.

It was 7 minutes after midnight. The dog was lying on the grass in the middle of the lawn in front of Mrs. Shears' house. Its eyes were closed. It looked as if it was running on its side, the way dogs run when they think they are chasing a cat in a dream. But the dog was not running or asleep. The dog was dead. There was a garden fork sticking out of the dog.

When the record player was invented, many felt that their major purpose would be educational. Perhaps, this thought was influenced by Alexander Graham Bell, who was experimenting with ways to help the deaf when he invented the telephone. At any rate, the audio book (book on tape, though I reckon books on compact disc and MP3 will be popular soon enough) is a useful development, allowing books to be enjoyed in various ways. And, not only the blind, but those driving, jogging, resting, and the so on.

I myself enjoy listening to something educational or whatever, allowing me to rest my eyes, and consume information at the same time. For instance, on Fridays, Your Call has an interesting end of the week news summary moderated by Laura Flanders.

The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time by Mark Haddon is fictional, but educational too, though this is obviously not really necessary to enjoy reading and listening to audio. The audio tape version (five tapes, unabridged) was narrated by Jeff Woodman, who did a good job, including the various voices found in the story. It regards fifteen-year-old Christopher Boone's decision to write a book as part of a school project, a book discussing his attempt to find out who killed a neighbor's dog. It is notable that more mysteries aren't about death of animals, since deep down, this often causes us to be more emotional (even in fiction) than the death of certain people.

Mystery novels often are as much about the detective than the mystery, and this is the case here as well. [The author notes (see author link above) that the plot came first in his mind, but the reader probably will be more affected by the character.] the Christopher has Asperger's Syndrome, which is condition similar to autism, and can be said to involve being totally literal and logical. He does not really have perspective, cannot understand slang, and has such a grasp for detail that it sometimes overwhelms him. Christopher is quite intelligent, if not socially, and can handle himself if allowed to follow an ordered existence.

OTOH, he doesn't like to be touched, and new people scare him (he also doesn't like to be looked at while being talked to). Also, somewhat ironically given his usual annoyance at symbolic things, Christopher associates certain colors with bad things, so he hated things that are brown and yellow. Also, if a certain pattern of red cars pass by, he thinks it will be a good day. It also might be added that Christopher would benefit from an ongoing class entitled "mores of modern day British society," since it might help him a lot in dealing with his fellow citizens. American readers also will be happy that he too dislikes France.

So, he has something that many might call autism (but less extreme), and the two conditions are interconnected. The author is not a specialist, but those familiar with the disease (if that's a good word -- a NYT article recently spoke of some who feel that it is wrong to think of it that way, since it is but a different sort of way of looking at the world, and individuals can still go about with the lives fairly normally in many respects) say he (through Christopher as first person narrator) does a good job allowing us to view how such an individual views the world.

I do not have firsthand knowledge of Asperger's Syndrome, but agree that the novel does a good job allowing us a special perspective of everyday events. Though he himself surely did not intend it, Christopher provides a humorous and touching narrative as well as an at times exciting one.

My problem with the book was deals with the story arc itself, and for those who might read/listen, I do not want to say too much about it. Suffice to say that I think the story went a way that was not really true to the character, or quite believable given his nature, though it does end on a better note. On the whole, however, it was quite good. And, I'd recommend it, however one might want to consume it.

A Wild Wild Card Round

The Wild Card Round was full of teams lucky to be in the playoffs, three of them whose luck in an interconnected way showed itself in Week Seventeen. A pretty wild weekend of football began with the Seattle Seahawks (9-8 and lucky to be that) vs. the St. Louis Rams (8-8, thanks to resting Eagles and a spotty Jets), and the third time was not the charm for the Seahawks, even at home. St. Louis let them stay in the game, the questionable Seattle defense holding them to less points than the Jets did, but the Seahawks fell yards short of forcing OT. This set-up a match-up with the beatable Atlanta Falcons because ...

The third time (and 31 points) was the charm for the Minnesota Vikings (8-8, but in thanks to Carolina losing last Sunday) , who shot up to 17-0 in Green Bay, but ultimately won because of repeated Green Bay foul-ups. After scoring those seventeen points in last than a quarter, they only scored fourteen more points vs. a questionable GB defense (guided by a fired Jets' defensive coordinator, fired in part because of the Jets' defensive woes last year).

Seven of them came after a failed chip shot field goal was quickly followed by an interception (one of many) because of a misplayed running route. The high/low (depending on one's perception) point of the game came near the end of the Half where Green Bay couldn't score from First and Goal, in part because Brett "this is how we became 1-4" Favre for some reason tried tossing a pass four yards from scrimmage (penalty), when he was right near the first down marker. The chip shot was missed. Viks at Philly next week.

This was on Sunday, after the Colts did the expected and blowed out the Broncos (hit and miss much of the year), though the latter managed to score some garbage time (the Second Half, since it was 35-3 at Half Time) points. Colts at New England next week. The game of the weekend came the night before (ending around 12:03 today), the N.Y. Jets (10-6, but in thanks to the Bills losing last Sunday) vs. the San Diego Chargers (12-4, so like the Colts in straight away, but overachieving ... and their coach always eventually lost in the playoffs).

The Jets Defense showed up, though so did their recent tendency to get penalties, which is going to kill them sooner or later. And, it showed up in the Fourth Quarter, even though it did blow a ten point lead. The two just unfortunately melded at just the wrong moment. Clinging to a 17-10 lead because of various miscues, the Jets had a dramatic goal line stand at the end of regulation ... and blew it by roughing the passer, the QB, who just threw a desperation Fourth Down throw around the 21yd line with around :11 left. The penalty made it First and Goal at the 1, and the tie was assured.

In fact, the win seemed basically assured as well, especially after they won the toss. The Jets Defense did hold, but the Jets Offense went three and out. And, San Diego got into medium range field goal range ... WIDE RIGHT! Given more chances than they rightly deserve, the Jets drove into field goal range themselves, but their kicker missed a 33 YD attempt at the end of the first drive of the game (typically, it was long, but not productive). This was a 28 YD attempt and had to be re-kicked because a time out was called right before it was kicked.

It was a closer kick, he wasn't a rookie like the San Diego kicker (nor did he have SD's coach bad karma to deal with), and it was GOOD! 20-17 ... re-match at Pittsburgh next week. One team of the four that I was rooting for won, but if this would be the case, this is how it should go. Well, maybe without me so unnerved at the end of regulation, etc. But, that's okay, since they won and all.

Baseball Note: Meanwhile, it appears the Mets overpaid for Carlos Beltran, who is getting what amounts to (maybe) a couple million more to leave a team where he had a good year and seemed to be comfortable to play for the um NY Mets. Hey, I like them, but don't know if I'd want do such a switch if I was him. Anyway, the team (pending a physical) appears to be ready to spend lots of money for two players, who at the end of the day give them some cred. Still, the team is rather flawed ... so the net result is somewhat questionable.

OTOH, the signing of Miguel Cairo, the former NY Yankee back-up infielder, was a good pick-up. He's a trustworthy role player, one any borderline team like the Mets desperately needs. The Mets also trade away one of their extra back-up catchers (Vance Wilson) for a decent sounding prospect, who will be missed (good guy, dependable), but so is the remaining back-up (who also has some first base experience). So, it was worthwhile.

Closed Captioned

Anti-Bush Bits: Balkinization has an excellent multi-part discussion of the administration's stance on torture, while today's NYT has an extended article on possible American involvement of illegal kidnapping of foreign citizens. ex-Sen. John B. Breaux is the Democrat chosen by President Bush to co-chair a bipartisan advisory panel on taxes, one of those wishy-washy Dems who went to the other side in the past. And, TPM does some digging on the latest distasteful Bush move, and a local Republican (who I did a report on a while back and married a member of her delegation a la Farmer's Daughter) seems to play a key role. Good digging TPM! Oh, GO JETS!

Gift Cards: In answer to criticism, I offer this defense.

Closed Captioning: I recently obtained a new television, though my old one still works -- it is rather old, and I sometimes have an image of it giving up its last breath, and not having one. The time between football and baseball season is a good time for this to happen. Anyway, new models have closed captioning, and it is the major value of having a new set. The value of this requirement might be considered questionable, since not too many people are deaf, but many more have hearing problems and/or would benefit from the service. I reckon surely at least ten percent of the population, perhaps more.

I enjoy it for various reasons, including seeing what is being said when the audio isn't totally clear (including opening music), and not having to listen to annoying voices (this might make Charlie Rose easier to bear). The other benefit, besides a somewhat clearer picture, is that if I accidentally turn on/off the t.v. before the dish box, I do not hear the loud blare of t.v. fuzz. A new movie suggests such fuzz might be a way to communicate with the dead, so this might help things along, especially if closed captioning works here as well. Sadly, I think it would be one of the times when it wasn't available, but who knows how the afterlife feels about such things.

A Few More Thoughts On Yesterday

In November, Bush carried the crucial swing state of Ohio by about 118,000 votes, although voters complained of problems in many areas, most of them Democratic-leaning precincts. In Columbus, where some people waited 10 hours to vote, up to 15,000 frustrated would-be voters left without casting ballots. Poorly trained poll workers in Cleveland gave faulty instructions to voters that resulted in thousands of provisional ballots being rejected, and they misdirected several hundred votes to third-party candidates. In Youngstown, 25 electronic machines transferred an unknown number of Kerry votes to Bush, researchers found.

-- Two Lawmakers Raise Objection To Ohio Balloting

The chance to challenge the electoral vote count has some of a certain political leaning nearly wetting their pants, suggesting just how little is needed to excite some people. Seriously, it does show that just a little bit of attention, just a little bit of focus on a problem suggests to many people that their concerns are at least being taken with some degree of respect.

As one litigant said after losing some lawsuit (not sure if this was in a story or in real life), he got his day in court, and was satisfied. Same here, though many will continue to feel (rightly) that problems will remains, and some (a rather small and less right minded group, but worthy of some concern) that some big conspiracy or major breakdown that might (probably) led to the wrong result (not by ignorance, but breakdown in the voting procedure itself).

The other value of the challenge was that the other side looked truly stupid. I'm at times an overly critical person, or so some say, and I think a lot of things are stupid. But, some things said today was truly stupid. The biggest one being that somehow, follow me here, now was the wrong time to make this challenge. Sure ... the day the electoral vote was counted was the wrong day to suggest that the voting that led to such vote had various problems.

Likewise, it was a waste of our precious time with so many other things to do. You know, like pro forma hearings of the Secretary of Education designee. There was a two hour debate limit. I reckon the rote announcement by state of the counting of the electoral votes and so forth did not take much less time than that.

[Some respect should be supplied to Sen. Graham (SC), a manager during the Clinton impeachment, who showed some scorn against Alberto Gonzales during the pro forma Attorney General nomination hearings. He also has a plan out that would recognize that privatization of Social Security would require more money and raising of some taxes. The guy is a conservative whose views on various matters are distasteful, but appears to have some character. When Air America hosts praised the guy, you get the idea that something is there worthy of respect.]

The two hours let the usual suspects address some of the problems that remain in the voting process even in the 21st Century. [Where are the rocket planes? And, isn't Manhattan supposed to be a prison? No, it isn't ... only Rikers Island.] For instance, Sen. Durbin (IL) noted that in his own state, there are different rules regarding counting of provisional ballots, depending on what area you live in. This appears to me to be an equal protection violation, even if you don't want to rely on the "good for this day only" decision of Bush v. Gore.*

Anyway, this sort of talk apparently (in the minds of various Republicans and apparently others as easily confused) was really a criticism of the legitimacy of the election of Bush itself, no matter that the Democrats clearly said otherwise. OTOH, Kerry won Illinois, so logically Sen. Durbin might have been challenging the legitimacy ... well, that would be dumb, wouldn't it?

[At times, I have this bad feeling that people are either ill informed or not honest when they choose a certain point of view or candidate. This can be said to be somewhat vain and sounds a bit off -- calling a large chunk of the voting public ignorant is deemed in bad taste. Still, sometimes one is left with that feeling, and the Republicans yesterday were either ill informed or not really honest. The next four years often will be as tedious as it is disheartening, merde.]

The day the electoral vote is counted should be a day of some note given what occurs. The added value of using it to highlight voting (problems included) overall seems like a good idea. Pointing out Republican stupidity is just a added value. So, cheers to Sen. Boxer and company, since even a small symbolic move is sometimes well worth the effort.

---

* Sen Durbin also noted that in the 1960s voting decisions, there was talk of a right to vote, while in Bush v. Gore there was not. This appeared to him to be contradictory, but this seems to be a matter of confusing things. [I didn't hear all of his remarks, but this confuses others, so let's go with this.] The 1960s decisions discussed a fundamental right to vote in various circumstances, especially the election of members of the House of Representatives (Art. 1 and state law) and state legislatures (state law). "State law" in the first case because Art. 1 determines the right of suffrage in respect to voting for house members by the right to vote for the most populous branch of the state legislature.

Other parts of the Constitution, including the various amendments directly touching upon voting, also factor in. All the same, once upon a time, this was quite limited, though the move toward "universal suffrage" has led many to not realize the provision exists at all. They feel there is some national right to vote expressly in the Constitution, which is not really so. Furthermore, there is no direct right to vote for President.

States have much discretion, leading Rep. Jesse Jackson Jr. to call for an amendment that protects a national right to vote. As with Sen. Durbin, I distrust calls to amend the Constitution, but also see some merit in this idea. Voting should be (and in various ways is) a national right of citizenship and giving states a myriad of ways to water it down in various cases is a bad and at times dangerous idea.

The Fat Lady Sang ... Eventually

Tidbits: Some comments on last night's West Wing. Also, Josh's new temp is annoying and stereotypical. A good article on the importance of business interests (not just hot button ideological issues) in the judicial nomination battles.

Sixteen minutes into the session when Ohio's votes were read, Rep. Stephanie Tubbs Jones, D-Ohio, issued her challenge, saying the votes "were not under all of the known circumstances regularly given."

-- Dems Contest Bush Win

I want to ask you for the most precious thing you own - your vote.

This power and right to vote is something you must cherish and guard with courage and dignity.

When someone asks you for your vote, you must be jealous of that vote and must ask yourself, who is it I'm voting for? What kind of person? What does he stand for?

What does he believe in? Nothing wrong will happen to you, the people, if you will use your vote properly and no one man nor group of men can hurt you if you will use your power of a free and honest election.

-- Farmer's Daughter (today's Loretta Young's birthday)

Sen. Boxer joined an official protest of the Ohio electoral vote count submitted by a House member (Stephanie Tubb Jones) from Ohio, a black woman and former state prosecutor/judge. The purpose was to force the required debate in both houses so that focus would be put on irregularities involved in the Ohio election and elsewhere, and that the need for reform would be addressed.

[One important reform, in part addressed by proposed legislation by Rep. Holt (who has expertise in the general area) that would require a printout in all electronic voting machines, since the concept of "black box voting" is quite troubling to the integrity of the electoral process.]

Thus, it was a basically symbolic move, but an important one to address issues that the public as a whole generally are not familiar with, though many are concerned. The value of such public relations advocacy, which is not meant to demean the practice, is quite important in my eyes. For instance, I added to an interesting discussion of the medical malpractice tort reform issue here by pointing out that experts on a panel sponsored by the administration focused on dealing with the trouble of a few bad apples (doctors, not trial lawyers).

Par for the course, the administration ignores advice that doesn't fit their agenda, but the issues need to be fully addressed to the public at large. This is the ultimate role of the loyal opposition, better known as the Democratic Party. Thus, it is a good thing the challenge was made, one of many (I hope) gestures to be made that might be hopeless except for the point being made and the future reforms that might be helped along.

My first sentiment, honestly, was to be annoyed that this wasn't done in 2001. A senator has to join the protest of house members in such cases, and not a one did when several representatives challenged the electoral vote back then. A challenge that was much more substantive than the one this time around, since the result was fully in doubt, not just some number of votes that in all likelihood would not be enough to change the election.

Sen. Boxer was asked about the matter and her honesty was appreciated. Al Gore asked the Democrats not to challenge the vote, so Sen. Boxer did not, but now wished she had. Sen. Boxer made an important point in passing that the issue was not just the candidate, but the voters themselves. Quite true. I wish she felt a bit more that way in Jan, 2001.

The matter at hand is important to the integrity of the electoral process, including how much the people themselves -- all of them, not just those deemed mainstream or what have you -- respect it. The response to such a request, therefore, should be welcomed by both sides. It harkens back to the sentiments of Republicans back in late 1800s, which valued the integrity of the voting process, then challenged by Democrats in the face of clear discrimination against blacks.

The challenge resulted in a requirement that each house supply at most two hours of debate on the topic at hand. Big f-ing deal! If Republicans wanted to use the time to underline the integrity of the election, so be it. Let them show how their candidate was elected in a fully fair way, while saying they support any necessary procedure to help things along next time around. This was beyond their abilities, of course, and the challengers were denounced as extremists and conspiracy theorists ... from the President's press secretary down to Republican members of the House delegation from Ohio.

[Respectful opposition in such cases should exist across the board. Some issue will arise that Democrats will oppose on substantive grounds or because they feel it is a politically motivated attempt to cause trouble. In fact, it will be at least in part based on an important principle or concern that warrants their respect. Some concerns growing out of religious beliefs might fall into this category, but at any rate, some will arise. And, care should be supplied there as well.]

A final word on the constitutionality of the move. The joint session is in place via the Twelfth Amendment to officially count the electoral votes certified by the states last month. What exactly does this "count power" involve? After all, all the states submitted one set of returns, including Ohio, and done so properly (in form). The problem was not in the electors per se, but the voting procedures and the voters themselves. Thus, one might say the challenge was improper.

OTOH, electors are not independent actors, but respond to the popular vote count. Therefore, if the popular vote count was improper, the electoral count would be as well. Ignoring this reality is reliance on form over substance, giving electors more weight than they deserve, and ignoring such independent will when doing so helps answer concerns it might be dangerous.

This much is clear. Ignoring the fears of the American public that their fundamental rights were not properly protected is dangerous with the resulting consequences showing up time and time again. Two hours seems the least that could be offered, even if it is as pro forma as opposition to the questioning of Alberto Gonzales that the challenge interrupted.

Sports Update

Since political news is downright tedious, let's go to the back page this time around. First off, Wade Boggs (Red Sox / Yanks) and Ryne Sandburg (Cubs) were just elected into the Baseball Hall of Fame. My memory of Boggs shall always be his bases load walk in Game Four of the 1996 World Series that led to the series being tied 2-2 (Yanks were six runs down). I do not know of Sandburg, but he does have an interesting first name, and I'm told that he deserved the honor.

A couple teams argued that they deserved to be top ranked, but after the shellacking USC delivered last night, I bet they are downgrading their claims to second ranked. They surely have a claim now, given a game that many felt was going to be close turned out to be a rout, surely upsetting various odds makers all over the country.

I imagine certain off center folks out there betting high for underdogs (Red Sox, Cubs, and the usual suspects) or crazy scores (low scoring Colts games, etc.), just waiting for that one time that they will hit the lottery. Yesterday might have been such a day, since the afternoon sports show around here predicted a 3-6 point differential, not a 3-6 touchdown one.

On the subject of sports, how about those nutty Anaheim Angels ... oh, I'm sorry! The Los Angeles Angels of Anaheim (sic). This amusing development is a result of contractual obligations that require the use of "Anaheim" in the team's name, but the owner apparently doesn't really like Anaheim. Will this become a trend ("The N.Y. Jets of New Jersey")? But anyhow: the guy does know that this is totally ridiculous, right? I guess, however, they can gain a new sponsor (AAA).

Speaking of baseball, how about the local teams? The Mets are talking about getting into the Carlos Beltran sweepstakes, though I have no idea why he'd want to come here (especially since the tax differential will make the money less alluring than meets the eye), given he is nice and comfty in Houston. When dealing with big money, it seems to me that a few million is not worth it sometimes. The idea is seen in the small scale too, after all, by those who don't go to the job that supplies a few extra dollars an hour because there are negatives involved. Anyway, the Mets need relief pitching. Meanwhile, alien life form Randy Johnson is coming to the Bronx.

The "getting no respect, since little is warranted" Jets are due to play San Diego on Saturday. Herm Edwards, the head coach, is shown in today's paper holding up a letter from the commissioner congratulating them for getting into the playoffs. This is deemed an accomplishment, which it is, though I don't know if the Jets wants to be compared to the likes of the Minnesota (thanks Saints!) Vikings and Seattle (we have a D ... we really do!) Seahawks.

The Jets deserve credit for early consistency (many a team was doomed by losing to bad teams), but their inability to beat at least one good team (they beat San Diego before the team gelled and Seattle, which is stretching "good" a tad) warrants some degree of humility, of which they aren't quite showing. As a NY fan, I don't really care too much, except to the degree that it seems stupid ... as much as those fans who cannot admit they "backed into" the playoffs, given they were 5-6 and needed Buffalo to choke to get in.

Basketball? NY teams are pretty mediocre ... they should be thanking the basketball gods that Miami is no longer in the Atlantic Conference. Hockey? Apparently, it is likely that the strike will end the season. Not really my concern, though I did see a hockey magazine in the store last night, and wondered what they would write about, if the season ended now. Then again, the Yankee Yes Network somehow fills its schedule in the winter, so it should be okay.

This weekend: Jets, Packers, Seahawks, Broncos (I'm tired of the Colts). And, who knows, at least two of these might even win! The Wild Card Round, by the way, is the "do over" weekend, with divisional opponents and rematches involved throughout.

Anti-Bush Quickies

Social Security: Paul Krugman is back, and besides the first in a series of editorials on the subject, he also has an interesting article out debunking the plan to "reform" (we need to destroy in order to save) Social Security.

Medical Malpractice Reform: President Bush and company likes to target those nasty trial lawyers, who apparently are a grand threat to all sorts of businesses, especially doctors. One can go after the few bad seeds, but let's look at the first pick of today's "giving the press credit when they do a good job" award:

But the Budget Office also reported, in January 2003, that malpractice costs were less than 2 percent of overall health care spending and that even a 30 percent reduction in malpractice costs would lower health care spending by less than 0.5 percent. ...

But others who follow medical-malpractice cases say the situation is hardly as clear-cut as Mr. Bush has made it out to be. The Consumer Federation of America, for instance, has argued that the insurance industry's business practices are a big part of the reason for higher premiums.

Politically, Mr. Bush has had little to lose by attacking trial lawyers, as he did often during the campaign. They traditionally have been big supporters of the Democratic Party, and a onetime prominent trial lawyer, Senator John Edwards of North Carolina, opposed the Bush-Cheney ticket in the last election as Senator John Kerry's running mate. ...

Independent analyses suggested that the president's cost estimates were exaggerated, and the actual size of malpractice awards is impossible to calculate, since so many suits are settled before they reach trial. The Congressional Budget Office reports that 15 claims are filed for every 100 doctors each year and that about a third of the claims result in an insurance payment.

Alberto Gonzales: Washington Post has an extended article on Attorney General designee Alberto Gonzales.

War On Terror: The NY Review of Books provides a discussion of "The Truth About Terrorism."

Sigh. No wonder the anti-Bush publishing is a growing cottage industry.

Having Guts: Alberto Gonzales Hearings

Media Affairs: After supplying his typical end of the year review, Dave Barry went on hiatus ... I have been a fan of the guy for years, and read many of his books (his take on American History is a must read), and wish him the best. Likewise, I support this sentiment that For Better or For Worse is currently the comic strip to beat. The "special needs" students story line is only the most recent of so many fine ones that show the complexity and humor the strip supplies on a daily basis. Pearls Before Swine is my new favorite on twisted humor grounds, but FBFW is fine indeed. Finally, a recent fairly tasteless reality programming (that reminds me of Lace) is examined with worthwhile philosophical musings here.

Senator Charles E. Schumer, a New York Democrat on the committee, said in an interview that despite reservations about Mr. Gonzales, he is likely to be confirmed and with broad Democratic support.

Mr. Schumer said the threshold for winning confirmation to a president's cabinet was far lower than for lifetime nominations to the Supreme Court, which have produced intense battles. "Generally, for an executive branch position the president gets the benefit of the doubt," he said. "The general feeling on the committee is that he has probably met that lowered threshold."

As I noted in the past, another member of committee, Sen. Leahy (minority chairman) also noted that our future attorney general was a fine guy with a lot going for him. As Prof. Froomkin notes:

There is of course an element of political calculation here. Many chickenhearted Senators believe that they expend political capital by opposing cabinet nominations, when in fact opposing the right ones may create it. But even if I'm wrong about that, for some things - torture, fundamental constitutional principles* - the calculations should be left aside.

As far as I?m concerned, Congress was almost as much to blame for Iraq as Bush ? they wrote him a blank check, with the Gulf of Tonkin precedent sitting there in front of them. If there isn?t some serious attempt in Congress to come to grips with the torture scandal in the next year, then some of the torture dirt will stick to them as well.

But, hey, no need to rely on anti-administration law professors to make the case:

A dozen high-ranking retired military officers took the unusual step yesterday of signing a letter to the Senate Judiciary Committee expressing "deep concern" over the nomination of White House counsel Alberto R. Gonzales as attorney general, marking a rare military foray into the debate over a civilian post. ....

In addition to Shalikashvili, other prominent signatories to the letter include retired Marine Gen. Joseph P. Hoar, former chief of the Central Command; former Air Force Chief of Staff Merrill A. McPeak; and Lt. Gen. Claudia J. Kennedy, the Army's first female three-star general. Several, including Shalikashvili, supported the failed presidential candidacy of Democrat John F. Kerry.

Yeah, I know ... the support of the "failed presidential candidacy" (pointless info alert!) suggests their judgment is open to question. Still, this is not your run of the mill interest group brief, but a sign of how the professionals (you know, the adults) think something seriously wrong is going on here.

Thus, it is up to the Democrats to have a different mind-set than seems apparent in recent times -- more of a give no quarter philosophy. Many are pushing for this on the Social Security issue, and the value of money over the health and lives of foreigners [and the inability to risk being called anti-patriotic for opposing arguably unconstitutional, but clearly stupid wars] suggests it might catch on there first, but it should be a general theme.

Surely, it should be in certain choice battles, and this is one of them. On substantive and strategy grounds, it makes sense to oppose this nomination fully, and this includes not lumping him with your typical Cabinet nominee or supplying gratuitous praise that will surely be used by the administration's forces. It surely, of course, means voting against the guy ... even if the final vote will be 60-40 (usual suspects crossing party lines) or whatever.

We can take this further, though I know it might be asking a lot, and apply it to Condi Rice. Rice will replace the Colin Powell as Secretary of State, the guy who was used to relieve the minds of various moderates in 2000 ... and was basically ignored as he played the loyal good dissenting soldier. It was State by the way that opposed the original administrative stance on torture, both on policy and justice grounds. OTOH, it was Rice who was not only a loyal soldier, but not that good of a National Security Advisor.

The word for '05 is "guts."

---

* An analysis of the latest "torture memoranda," which is mostly laudatory, can be found here. The NYT article cited above also referenced to one complaint that I heard about the use of the charge that the administration thinks the Geneva Conventions are "quaint." It is worthy of extended quotation:

He described the conventions as "quaint" because he said they required "that captured enemy be afforded such things as commissary privileges, scrip (i.e., advances of monthly pay), athletic uniforms and scientific instruments."

White House officials said that Mr. Gonzales expected to be questioned closely about the memorandums on detainee treatment and that they did not believe his nomination was in any jeopardy. One official said the word "quaint" referred to the items the prisoners should receive but not to the protections themselves.

But the language in Mr. Gonzales's memorandum appears to misstate the nature of the provision to make the conventions seem unduly soft. The conventions do not require that prisoners of war be given items like athletic uniforms and scientific instruments but that the authorities allow such items to be received in the mail.

A commissary and scrip are not requirements, but if they exist they must conform to regulations in the conventions.

Fair and critical. See, Mr. and Ms. reporter, it's quite possible to be both.

Poetry and Prose

Jets: Herm Edwards, the head coach of the Jets, was out after the game challenging everyone who felt the team should feel bad for losing (again) against a (in some respects) decent team. Sounding quite ghetto, he spoke about getting on the bus ... some get on the back, some on the front. As a local sports talk guy noted, the team appears to want to be praised for doing the small things. This is fine, if you actually do some big things too, and respect the size of your accomplishments. Also, some criticized the team for going to two late in the third quarter (and failed). I say it was okay, since if a field goal would have won it, the Rams would have used its time outs, and got the ball back with something left on the clock. Experience showed this to be a lethal proposition.

An Invitation of Poetry: A New Favorite Poem Project Anthology is a collection of poems selected by Americans of all ages and professions with personal comments added to suggest why they found the poem so special. Twenty seven of the poems are read and discussed on a companion DVD, and we not only hear the poem, but also get a feel for the various people who recited it. My favorite poems from the anthology ("a bouquet of flowers") might be these:

William Blake: "The Chimney Sweeper" (young orphan)

Gwendolyn Brooks: "We Real Cool" (and died young)

Emily Dickinson: "I'm Nobody! Who are you?"

Thomas Gray: "Ode on the Death of a Favorite Cat" (curiosity killed cat)

Thomas Hardy: "The Man He Killed" (had he and I but met elsewhere ...)

Evan Jones: "The Song of the Banana Man" (proud poor man)

Theodore Roethe: "The Sloth" (fun)

Ernest Lawrence Thayer: "Casey at the Bat"

William Wordsworth: "We Are Seven" (five alive, two dead ... child voice)

---

The Right Of The People* is a printing of three lectures Justice William O. Douglas gave in 1957, and I received the paperback edition (1962) for a few bucks from Amazon. There was still an address label on the inside cover (original owner? well, not the seller) and underlining inside. This reminds me of an essay in a reading comprehension test from long back that honored a marked up copy of a book.

Some people are concerned about having pristine copies, but not that writer (reader) -- he enjoyed a book that was lived in. Likewise, there was the star of 84 Charing Cross Road that enjoyed reading the comments and scribbling of past owners. For instance, imagine some of the books owned by John Adams, who loved to makes notes all over the place. As do I oftentimes, as if it was for some college class.

Suffice to say, some marks -- besides helping highlight what is important -- is not always a bad thing. On the other hand, once I was trying to sell a book on Ebay, and noticed someone wrote phone numbers in red on the cover sheets. Unless we are talking real nice handwriting here, this doesn't really add to the overall book owning experience.

---

* The book supplies interesting perspective to the Douglas scholar. For instance, given his later absolutism, comments about the proper limits of libel law and campaign financing laws was notable -- ditto an earlier opinion in which he mentioned in passing that obscenity could be legally barred. Also, given all the ridicule over his use of "penumbra" in Griswold v. Connecticut and talk that Justice Brennan was really the brains behind the opinion, the lectures showed that Douglas used the word years earlier (and in various contexts) and had a basic understanding of a constitutional right to privacy in 1957. OTOH, his dissent in Poe v. Ullman showed this as well.

Finally, his discussion of man "as a child of God," suggests an important aspect of his understanding of natural rights. It also might explain a controversial comment in an earlier opinion that argued that we are a religious people with institutions that presupposed the existence of God ... one used quite often by those who want the state to recognize said existence in ways Justice Douglas would have rejected.

Week 17

Court Watch: I discuss a Montana Supreme Court opinion respecting domestic partnership rights for same sex couples here. An interesting article respecting a federal judge who questioned the validity of the death penalty because of the chance of innocents being executed is found here.

Week 17 was more interesting than expected.

Local opinion suggested various things would happen by the end of the 1 P.M. games today ... local opinion was wrong on several grounds. Buffalo (at home) would surely manhandle a Pittsburgh team that had nothing to play for, so the Jets would have to win their game (a Denver loss later on was unlikely, but a Buffalo loss was really unlikely), but this should happen anyway.

Well no. Buffalo lost, though it was probably more on them, since Pittsburgh did rest their key players for much of the game. This allowed the Jets to sneak into the fifth seed, while a Denver loss only would guarantee sixth (and a Colts match-up next week). I would be amiss, by the way, not noting the the Browns actually won another game.

The Jets lost (in OT, helped by a questionable failed two point try), allowing the Rams to win. Also, surely Carolina was favored to win its game vs. the Saints (three straight wins putting them in the playoff hunt itself), which would likely negate even a Rams win. Well, no. The Saints won, helped by a poor early showing by Carolina, and a silly final 60yd field goal try (if a final heave worked yesterday in college, it could work here, especially since no one outside Denver would make that figgie).

This was a godsend (a true deus ex machina given recent history) to the Vikings, who few had much faith in, and their loss reaffirmed the sentiment. A Carolina win plus a Rams win would have eliminated Minnesota, and rightly so. But, a Saints win pushed the Viks in, and negated an improbably four game winning streak by New Orleans. A Rams loss would have guaranteed them a playoff spot ... not so now.

The Rams tried to give the game away to the Jets in the Second Half with multiple turnovers and failures to make them at the end of regulation game to ice a win. At times, they took advantage of their fewer opportunities, and racked up the yards/points. This included an ironic turnaround near the end of the First Half. The Jets intercepted a pass near their own goal line, which was upheld on review.

It was unable, however, to make a first down ... short field for the Rams. The Rams then scored on one play, putting them ahead 14-10, when a field goal a bit earlier would have made it 10 all. Thus, we have a situation (like last Monday Night) in which it would have really benefited the Jets to lose the review (automatic under the two minute rule). Overall, the Jets did score 29 points (though only 16 offensively), but gave up two quick scores as well, dooming them in the end. 32-29, OT.

After the Jets limped in with some help (by OT, they knew the spot was assured, and it might have influenced a play that helped the Rams win), how did the rest of the day go? Doug Flutie, whose desperation pass in college was copied yesterday (the recent Hail Mary pass included a twenty yard run), showed a bit more magic as starting QB in the San Diego win. All the same, nothing that special happened in the 4 P.M. games, though some thought KC would win over SD and be 8-8.

Denver won, after the Colts back-up did nothing in the Second Half, so the AFC playoff spots went to the predicted teams ... just via a different route. The Falcons/Seahawks game did end in exciting fashion, and the rushing record goes to a Jets player because the Seahawks competition was a yard short ... the Falcons was a lot less in trying to tie on a 2pt conversion after making it 28-26 at :00.

The Giants/Dallas game was deemed by many a meaningless one, a tedious way to end the regular season via Sunday Night Football. Not quite. There were some meaningless games today, though they might have had some meaning to at least one of the teams involved. A game that might be the final one for veteran quarterback Vinny Testaverde or gave rookie QB Eli Manning a chance to end the team's eight game losing streak by winning his first game in professional football was not meaningless. Nor was a game that would allow Tiki Barber, in the final play of an end of the game winning scoring drive too boot, to break the team rushing record. And, besides, the game (eight game losing streak and all) put the Giants in second place in the NFC East.

Suffice to say, all things considered, some Giants fans might just be more happy in the morning than Jets fans, who saw their team limp into the playoffs.

Some Movies For The New Year

Torture Update: As is their want, the administration slipped in without fanfare a change in the official stance on torture, doing so on the Thursday before the New Years Day weekend. Intel Dump is a good place to go for a summary and links to some prime articles. Perhaps, not being up front about such things is justified, since change or no, the official line is still "we didn't do anything wrong." The new procedures match the accepted techniques, including I guess forced enemas and use of the Meow Mix jingle.

And, it is just in time for the Alberto Gonzalez nomination. btw if I promise to be good from now on, does the fact I killed people and such no longer matter? Let's remember that basic idea, the "you are responsible for what you did," especially since the new policies are not exactly without problems, including detaining citizens like Padilla, still without his true day in court.

New Years Day is known for its college bowl games, but there also was some good movies on television as well. For instance, I saw Brian's Song for the first time -- a based on true story of an unlikely friendship between black and white Chicago Bears players that ended in tragedy when one died of cancer. It was made for television in the early 1970s, and still holds up as a very good tearjerker.

An amusing scene involved Brian Piccolo helping injured Gale Sayers to regain his strength and playfully called him a nigger to push him on ... seriously ... and the fact Sayers broke out laughing suggests how ridiculous it was given their relationship. It really was a striking scene, and the film does mention the racial implications of their relationship (mid-1960s), but there was humor too. I wonder if a playful use of that word could be handed today; in fact, I wonder if the scene was played the same way in the 2001 remake.

A movie that I did see many times was also on, Same Time Next Year, a late 1970s promotion of adultery. Alan Alda (who was quite busy that year, in three films as well as M*A*S*H) and Ellen Burstyn star as very different people (WASP CPA and Catholic housewife) who meet in 1951, have one night stand, and then meet again every year until 1977 (and beyond).

The movie shows us their changing relationship (and the changing times) in five year (or so) increments from 1951-1977 as their bond together grows, while they still love and honor their spouses the rest of the year. Like the other films discussed, the movie definitely has a feel of the time it was made, and has a lot to offer. A bit simplistic at times, but the two stars are quite good, and it's a great movie to watch on cable or rent some time. I know I have done so repeatedly over the years.

The Inn of the Sixth Happiness was the late movie on the local PBS station, the Ingrid Bergman take on the experiences of an English missionary in China during the 1930s, who took it upon herself to fulfill her calling though deemed unqualified for the task. Robert Donat (Mr. Chips) plays a local Chinese official, quite well, and his last line in the movie (his final role) was quite fitting: "We shall not see each other again, I think."

The movie is actually based on real events, though the love story was not, and does a good job albeit with an old movie gloss. For instance, some comments from those who watched the film noted that we do not truly understand how the missionary was accepted by the locals of a different culture. The reason shown is the inner goodness of the missionary, including her concern and efforts in support of orphans. It all might even touch those who think missionaries, even those who fully believed in their calling, often did a lot more bad than good.

I'd add a couple Book TV tidbits. Joseph Ellis* talked about his book on George Washington, and noted that our first president was a realist. He opposed sentiment, thinking (unlike Thomas Jefferson) that people were not really naturally good and all we needed to do was remove old feudal restraints to the success of the average citizen. You need a combination of realism and idealism, and it turns out that they are interconnected -- after all, idealism guided our society in many ways, and it had some productive results.

Abraham Lincoln probably would agree, and I got to tape Sam Waterson's re-enactment of his Cooper Union Address. Quite a speech, and it was wonderful to hear a seasoned actor recite it.

---

* The link is to an Ellis article entitled A Historian's View of What the Founder Would Make of Our Time. A choice sentiment: "Rather than rally public support around fear, he reassured the citizenry that the liberal values created by the American Revolution—popular sovereignty, representative government and individual rights—would eventually triumph."