More on Kingdom Coming plus Air America

And Also: Perhaps my favorite local columnist, Lenore Skenazy, has another gem today. She does light and serious equally well, speaking for the average person.

Michelle Goldberg has done the impossible. She's written a serious, scathing, eye-opening expose of the ongoing takeover of our country by right-wing Christians -- and somehow managed to make it witty, funny, and humane.

-- Katha Pollitt on Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism

I don't know about "impossible," but Pollitt has a point -- Goldberg is quite serious that there is a threat as shown by her repeated citations of The Origins of Totalitarianism by Hannah Arendt. Her concluding chapter makes this clear as well as her sentiment that those concerned cannot just play nice (a theme of various New Republic sorts) or expect some middle ground (such as economic populism) to be found to solve things. She finds appeals to the " 'moderation' that is said to be at the heart of the American character" not enough -- "reconciliation or healing" will not stop the threat. Instead we need: "electoral reform to give urban areas fair representation in the federal government [this would require constitutional change], grassroots organizing to help people to fight Christian nationalism on the ground, and a media campaign to raise public awareness about the movement's real agenda."

[There is a bit more hope to obtain control in a few "Red" states than Goldberg suggests. For instance, Nevada is actually a "purple" state, suggested by the fact the Democratic Senate Minority Leader comes from there -- Bush did not win the state by much. The split in Florida is well know, of course, but even a state like South Carolina (suggested by the winner in West Wing) has progressive possibilities. My SC link suggests the point. Heck, even a significant of Texas -- the Molly Ivin brigade etc. -- is reachable. Such things are quite important in congressional races and with the right candidate, possibly essential in the '08, when a few Red/Purple pick-ups are mandatory. OTOH, some tinkering of how we pick federal officials, including changing electoral vote counting in some fashion -- even a district by district vote in Florida could have changed things -- could help in this respect as well.]

She wants "a group whose values are routinely trashed by the country's rulers" to step up and stop feeling like victims. Turnabout is fair play -- a bottom-up action to take control "back" was the name of the game for those the book is concerned about, starting with the Goldwater campaign (ironically, Goldwater Republicans -- including one involved in a Dover, Pennsylvania intelligent design controversy -- often find "Christianists" almost as scary as the left) up till today when top congressional leaders and the President suggest they are now almost "mainstream" (or rather, official) voices. It is time for the liberals to step up, to refuse to accept the labels or warnings that they have to compromise.

To cite Glenn Greenwald's book, they should school others on how to be a patriot. And, do so from the bottom up, if necessary. This is why Howard Dean's "50 state" campaign is so important -- we must look to the future. I would add strategy might require certain techniques that are not required to obtain the support of certain members of those more concerned with a reasoned secular state with various essential liberties than a faith based program. Thus, I myself am firmly against Bush et. al. first and foremost because they simply leave a bad taste in my mouth. All this talk that just being "anti-Bush" was not enough, notwithstanding. But, sure, as TPM and others note, incompetence and failure can be a more useful rallying cry. For some, Jesus telling Thomas that faith is to be honored more than those who need to see things (especially the remarkable) with their own eyes will be their guide. Hopefully, a majority will not.*

But, Goldberg's book is also humane. It surely was not neutral -- her sympathies are evident, and she is a senior writer at Salon, which is clearly a liberal publication. [She looks rather young in that jacket photo.] All the same, she does not view the other side as faceless evil automans. A value of the book is that she personalizes them, not just giving us a visual image of various people discussed (many of whom she interviewed -- it's harder to de-personalize that way), but suggesting many of their sentiments arise from reasonable fears and concerns. In fact, in various cases, they are sympathetic characters.** [Not always enough -- if faith based charities discriminate against people of different faiths, some success alone does not mean they merit governmental funding.]

How they handle things might seem foreign to us and their mind-sets makes it that much harder to provide bridges between groups with comparable concerns. Nonetheless, the human face -- not always evident when various sorts speak of "them" -- is quite useful, including in determining how to deal with such individuals. It also results in a more interesting and engaging book. Goldberg underlines btw that an important weapon for liberals (broadly speaking) are organizations that provide the resources and know-how to fight the good fight. An imperfect resource, not mentioned in the book, is Air America. Thus, a bridge ...

To follow-up on my Air America post, let's examine the new schedule that will begin next Monday. As the 1600AM signal in NY ekes into my home -- you know other than weeknights and all -- the new schedule is mostly to be expected. Rachel Maddow is moving to evenings (6-8) with David Bender's "Political Direct" (heard it a couple times; kinda dull) and Betsy Rosenberg's "Ecotalk" shows having an hour each afterwards. Mike Malloy's (10-midnight in NYC) replacement is to be announced. The one hour theme show idea is nice, though perhaps some working issue theme (or perhaps other issues) could be mixed in as well. Perhaps, a sort of rotation thing? Meanwhile, they did take my "liberal morning drive" (commentary/entertainment) idea, but the local station is sticking with Armstrong Williams/Sam Greenfield (along with overnight shows, WWRL is keeping their stuff before 9am). I don't think the cooking show is on any more.

Again, I wonder how Sam Seder feels to be following them (at least in NYC). I'm all for balance -- except perhaps on a "progressive network" -- but he is a bit more doctrinaire than me. There was a particular amusing tidbit relevant to this matter on yesterday's show. Melanie Sloan was on for her weekly political corruption spot [Lawrence O'Donnell was on afterwards and actually wasn't too dismissive of the 9/11 docudrama] and one of her issues respected the use of reporters as paid government propaganda agents. Armstrong Williams was mentioned in passing, though he was not the primary concern this time around. It was left unsaid that he has a show on the station, but directly following the segment, there was a promo for his show! The next day the promo was slightly different -- it is a "WWRL" morning show.

Overall, this is a mixed bag. I think Sam Seder actually works better evenings -- with a young child and a bit edgy flavor, is he really ideal for a mid-morning show? I find Springer distasteful, but his show might have actually fit the slot better (after all, it is about when his t.v. show is on) ... if nothing else, Maddow (in her original slot to boot) might be a better fit. Also, again, the signal stinks. As does Armstrong Williams. OTOH, Springer is gone from NYC, the "Young Turks" idea for morning drive sounds interesting, and the evening shows might be a good mix. I sorta worry about them though.

Oh well. Good luck at any rate. I see btw the updated schedule is not on the website yet. It was noted in the radio section of the NY Daily News.

---

* Just as Goldwater conservatives can be liberals strange bedfellows these days, post-modernism appears to have support not only on the fringes of the academic left. The idea here -- I'm not a big philosopher but the book covers this ground -- is that we should not let facts bind us. Or, rather, reality is what we make of it ... it is not truly objective. This sort of thing allows one to truly believe creationism is factual, even if reality dictates against it. See also, the infamous Bush insiders scorn at the "reality-based community." The press aids this all -- facts are but one side of the debate. Something "one side" says. The fact such enablers can also be made into enemies of the right only adds to the irony.

** Thus, an abstinence promotion advocate came off as a pleasant sort, but had twisted ideas that overall would lead to problematic consequences. The fact that such people did reach various troubled individuals underline that we have something to learn from them -- a full-fledged planned parenthood resource, for instance, needs to address the needs of those who deep down have conservative views on family planning. They might not find some clinics friendly in this respect.

Overall, the drab nature of various government offices that serve the public (even comfortable seats for those waiting for jury duty at the local courthouse is a useful thing) is an infamous thing. Surely, we see this raised in respect to public schools. The danger of leaving such things to questionable sorts is underlined by the Hamas scenario.

Primary Day

And Also: The head of the relevant committee, Sen. Pat "Bush stooge" Roberts insists that the report (or the sections they deigned to release) on the lead up to the Iraq War is not important. Old news. That is why they are continuing to stonewall it for political purposes, I guess. "Everyone" knows this stuff. Not really, as polls suggest, but hey ... no need to share with them. See here for part of why they don't want to totally clue in people of what happened. Actually, it is all rather remarkable. And, yes, not new. It is news to lots of people though. Finally, having official government reports -- with bipartisan support -- say it is also rather different too. What a wanker.

Had yet another annoying message on my machine reminding me to vote and suggesting whom to choose ... but it was too late to count and was for the other guy anyway. Yes, another NY Primary Day at the local schoolhouse, where little future voters learn how to be good citizens, or something. The nostalgic should hold on to these memories ... in a few polling places, new voting machines are already being tested. The days of the 19th Century looking lever voting machines used over here should be winding down, especially since we already are behind schedule per HAVA requirements. I can imagine if the '00 election went down to recounts of these things.

[But, bottom line, NYC -- a rather big place with plenty of minorities (white males, for instance) -- has not had loads of election problems over the years. I'm sure it is not perfect (surely for the handicapped, who probably use written ballots in certain cases) but the lack of horror stories -- unlike let's say urban Ohio -- is rather notable. Once there was a problem with a machine -- my precinct has about five -- and I was just given a provisional ballot, the sort of thing that would have been quite useful in various places in '00.

As to the overall idea of the primary, including the fear it will be dominated by partisans on the edges, well that is a bit less an issue in a city dominated by one party. And, simply put, there should be an election for party bearer. Other non-first person past the post sort of deals might be nice and all, but party primaries still seem like a good idea overall.]

NYC remains a Democratic realm though we have a Republican mayor (by convenience ... shifting for the '01 campaign to winnow out the competition -- his challenger in that general election is among those running for attorney general today). This is why those in my area that are Republican have one thing to vote for -- what sacrificial lamb between two lame choices should they choose to run against Clinton in November? As I have noted, Clinton (no Lieberman -- her middle of the road stances also mean she does not act against party interests) does have a protest candidate running against her, Jonathan Tasini, who is no Lamont (who supports Clinton). Still, I voted for him, since his more progressive stands are copasetic. Clinton's failure to debate him is far from surprising, one really can't blame her, but I sorta do.

The Republicans actually have a credible candidate (with county prosecutorial experience) for attorney general who has a shot at winning (some might split tickets, the governor's race almost a lock for Eliot Spitzer); especially since both likely Democratic choices are sorta jerks (Mark Green or Andrew Cuomo) whose records for such a statewide office is a bit questionable. OTOH, the woman (no primary competition) chosen has a husband who has caused her Geraldine Ferraroesque problems and she embarrassed herself in her aborted plan to run against Clinton (unlike Katherine Harris, Pirro knew what was good for her, and took the advice of others to aim lower). Other localities, of course, might have had some local offices with Republican primaries. But, statewide, this is their shot.

That lock for governor also had a challenger -- Tom Suozzi, a reform minded gadfly sort who picked a weird time to run. The last time, the Dems had a weak candidate (Carl McCall, who is black, and Cuomo caused problems by challenging him early on), but I guess he wasn't ready to run back then. Spitzer was called the "sheriff of Wall St" by a local reporter, and making statements criticizing the fact he is not as clean as he could be (special interest connections) isn't really getting much traction. This led to a local story spelling out how the guy has a sense of humor on his website, including links to him with cows. I'm sympathetic to these sorts of people -- more power to them in trying to do something for the community and wanting to take part in public service. Still, one assumes there are better ways to do this than quixotic campaigns against people who really don't need to be kept honest that much. But, I guess those who are "locks" do need such balance -- part of why it annoys that Clinton gets away not debating. These aren't sinecures.

The final office that I voted for today was state assembly -- a local political family representative filled the seat just last term, Naomi Rivera. Her opposite number in the state senate, he of "works harder" fame (what a lame campaign slogan), is running unopposed. [No need to work hard now ... just continue posting those signs.] The only real thing of note as to the statewide legislative offices is that there are actually lawn signs (not too popular) for the Republican candidate. One "lawn" (don't really have front lawns around here actually) had three of them -- not that he is likely to win or anything. NR's competition is also token. NR's big claim to fame appears to be promotions of local events as shown by signs noting she sponsors such events. This gives her a presence, reminding people just who she is.

Given our local federal congressman is not generally seen (at least by me) in these parts or mentioned in the local papers, this is a good thing. Key to political success is name recognition ... next to incumbency (judges up for recall elections have about equal shot of being voted out as most legislators), this is essential. As to the voting experience, smooth as usual -- actually saw an election worker under forty. And, the races had a bit of a point -- the attorney general race is competitive (though Cuomo appears to have a sizable lead), Tasini is a good message candidate, and hey, if you are a Republican, you should have the best sacrificial lamb as you can. After all, she is going to be in office for six more years, right? One hopes so.

Hey, being a citizen isn't always a grand experience. Still worthwhile, even the little things.

Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism

And Also: Added reading suggests the Giants were apparently victims of a few bad calls that really bothered them. Still, they lost because they made one too many mistakes against an elite team. Zebra help is not appreciated, but that is the bottom line. I found Kerr's comments to this post the usual knee-jerk defense/spin of someone who should know better. Such enablers particularly aggravate me, especially with their damn "you seem mistaken" tone. Kerr tends to sip rather than gulp the kool aid, but he still is among them. They are what "you miss the point" is meant for.

The ideologists of the conservative revolution superimposed a vision of national redemption upon their dissatisfaction with liberal culture and with the loss of authoritative faith. They posed as the true champions of nationalism, and berated the socialists for their internationalism, and the liberals for their pacifism and their indifference to national greatness.

-- Fritz Stern, The Politics of Cultural Despair: A Study in the Rise of Germanic Ideology (1960)

Stern, a refugee of Nazi Germany, is a history professor and scholar of fascism. A few days before Bush's second inauguration (appropriately, "augur" has a religious connotation, a diviner of signs), he gave a speech during parallels between his former enemies and the American religious right ... speaking of the "pseudo-religious transfiguration of politics" that was key to Hitler's success. As Michelle Goldberg says in her interesting book Kingdom Coming: The Rise of Christian Nationalism: "Fascism isn't imminent in America. But its language and aesthetics are distressingly common among Christian nationalists." Given the central role of energetic bases, therefore, her book is important ... as is the fact it describes a significant subset of society overall.

The use of "Nazi" to describe people, on either side, annoys me. Simply put, when I think "Nazi," I think of WWII (the death toll partially explains the "appeasement" of the 1930s) and the Holocaust. Now, if you fully believe that abortion is murder, it might seem appropriate to compare it to the Holocaust ... though generally, people understand the difference. [Extremists on another side at times call factory farming some sort of "holocaust."] But, no matter what you think of Bushies, they simply aren't quite on the level of the Nazis. "Fascist" perhaps -- Mussolini was no saint, but he is but a minor figure next to the horrors of Hitler and Stalin. We look at what might occur, avoid first steps toward perdition, but perspective should still remain. Still ... the 1930s simply are not beside the point these days.

[A Slate frayster provides a personal family account that fits in here. It is an impressive one and helps to explain his very strong take against the current administration et. al. But, a similar history or comparable one can lead to a quite different result. After all, his family was threatened by their own country, which responded to the current realities in another way. And, his final line is a bit scary -- is extremism ever a good idea? I wonder -- we might think we are fighting the good fight, but we are not demigods. We need to take due care ... extremism can come back to bite us in the ass. And, honestly, I am a bit turned off by the extreme nation of some of his rhetoric. Overall, his posts are excellent, but he might want to tone them down a tad.]

We do have certain markers -- like Vietnam -- that serve as imperfect symbols. This occurs in our daily life, so some person or event represents a key idea or value. This is where the "Nazis" come in and other somewhat less emotional markers. Thus, when we read of programs about "how to think," and the ideas and values promotes are abhorrent, well, you get bad visuals. The chapter on the move against homosexuals surely does this, especially since you know, gays were targets of Nazis too (think Cabaret ... Berlin was a favored spot for gay men in the 1920s). But, putting aside that visual, the serious effort (and sense of horror on the other side) against gays is as remarkable (in its breadth) as is it scary. Consider who is being harmed here. We are not just talking marriage by any means.

Her discussion about how the effort occurred hidden in plain sight is particularly notable. Other chapters discuss the war for intelligent design and other anti-science measures, governmental funding of conservative religious programs, their counterproductive war against sex, and the battle for the courts. Overall, it is an important book because it is a sort of sociological ethnographic look at a different culture, one that in many cases are filled with people we can respect, but who have an ideology and political movement that is a danger to American values. For instance, many (not me ... the polls were all too close) were shocked that Bush won along with a slew of anti-gay ballot measures. Where did this come from? Well, Goldberg notes, in part from mass efforts hidden in plain sight, such as in megachurches in Red America ... rather remarkable places really, worthy of a book itself.**

It seems sort of an alternative universe of good things such as the mention of the conservative "Presbyterian Church in America." This led me immediately to think of my online link to South Carolina, a member of the same thing, just lower case (just plain Presbyterian, John Edwards loving sort, she). S. does things like go to Sunday School and stuff (for us lapsed Catholics, that was left for the kiddies -- Catholics need a more concerted effort to get the whole family involved, other than you know, bingo). [There is a Presbyterian Church in mid-town, so I often pass by, and see pretty nifty names of the sermons. Traditionally, sermons were quite powerful influences on society -- it is sort of why many governments target religious dissidents.] Her church also has various community outreach measures that are appealing.

It underlines that -- as MG says in her introduction -- we are talking about our fellow Americans who often are quite nice people with pretty universal concerns. As suggested by the note, even the influence of religion on politics is not inherently a bad deal -- religion is a central part of our being, so how can our faith not in some fashion influence our politics in important ways? It is the particular path taken, including trying to answer the complex (and scary) nature of current realities in such wrong-minded ways. It underlines the problems with separation -- something the other side is surely not free from (the investigation probably was quite useful for the secular urban Jew author too) -- not of church and state, but of one group from others, even if they feel them to be among the damned.

[In fact, in various respects, "red" America is more broken than "blue," going by such things as family breakdown and poverty rates, which any inner city analysis will tell ya are clearly connected. It is ironic as well that sorts that might be supportive of those who becry the "victimization" rhetoric of some on the left are quite emphatic about their own victimization. They know, I guess, that even if Republicans control Congress, their favored faction still does not rule the day. Not with Justice Kennedy writing in support of gay rights etc.]

Not quite like Nazi Germany, but when different groups become so foreign from each other to the degree that it seems like a fight of good vs. evil, we are in deep trouble. At the very least, and this book helps (Joe Conason liked it ... how can it not?), it is important to understand each other, including those we find so scary.

---

* She notes without comment at one point: "Just as political Islam is often called Islamism to differentiate the fascist political doctrine from the faith, the ideology laid out in these papers could be called Christianism." This brought to mind the current controversy over the term "Islamofascists," which seems to be problematic because it simply does not cover the direct threat we are facing from Bin Laden sorts. But in some sense, though it is a problem we face ... the fact that our "allies" like Saudi Arabia have fascist regimes notwithstanding. Of course, it is problematic to associate our allies in this fashion with our enemies, but still.

** They call to mind my basic mind's view of a Southern Black Baptist congregation, in which the religious element is more dominating than that of traditional Catholic/Protestant faiths, who do not spend much time on that element of things. Catholics go on mass on Sunday for about an hour ... Baptists have hours long events with singing, food, and so forth. "The Sabbath" takes a bit more meaning there. This is the path of making religion a central part of one's being, helping explain why some think separation of church and state is ridiculous. One need not go down that route, but it is understandable all the same.

Football

And Also: Osama didn't change everything. He changed some things, but if we let him change everything, well insert trite saying here. Such is what I like to do -- some things you can hang on to, and when you hear anguished cries from reporters that a 100 floor tower collapsed, well, a bit of normalcy is a good thing. You fit in the changes, but some baseline stays the same. Overall, that is how 9/11 affected me. Others had some kind of conversion experience that warped their minds in some fashion. But, as with the neocons, I think something was there already. Everything didn't change, even if some things did. A hole, thousands dead, and political realities alone point to the truth of that. Anyway, I'm for a quiet remembrance.

Football season started on Thursday with a back-up QB and a late red flag. Today was the first Football Sunday. The primetime game was Manning Bowl. I came home right before halftime and got a look at a representative snapshot. Manning the Younger (Giants) drove to make the score 13-7, Colts. With less than two minutes to play, older brother drove them quickly for a field goal. Mention was made meanwhile that the Giants (Jersey/A or B? ... TMQ?) earlier missed a 40YD field goal and three potential picks. Toss in too many penalties, and you have the "coulda but didn't" five point loss.

The Jets had a better conclusion, but not much easier time of it. The Jets are due to win 6-8 games, and this was one of the ones they had to win. The Titans do not have a promising year ahead of them, though they have a QB of the future (the QB of the present is a lot more iffy). The Jets went up 16-0 and held there to the 4Q. They should have been ahead more. The field goal was a 19yd affair -- this is not ideal, since it means you missed a First and Goal shot by not much. Good thing it was made -- the guy missed an extra point and two 30ish field goals.

Thus, tossing in a score (two pt) and a fumble at the other team's goal line (score/two pt), the Jets had a finger biting 16-16 score, and then needed to hang on to a 23-16 lead by their fingernails at the end of the game. It ended on a drive starting at the Jets' 12 and ended with thirty or so seconds on a failed 4th Down play. The moral is that when you make repeated missteps, do it against subpar competition. Meanwhile, Seattle beat Detroit 9-6 (no, not baseball), Pats came back from 17 down with a safety for the win, and Chicago embarrassed Packers ... first shutout for BF. Really?

How this year promises to play out, maybe he should have retired.

A Fond Kiss etc.

Crisis Pregnancy Center Article: Brad Plumer criticizes, mostly rightfully, a Washington Post article on crisis pregnancies centers ... he includes an excellent Alternet piece on them. I looked into these things a bit after passing by a web ad for them over at Slate. As I noted in his comments, what particularly rankles is the tired he said/she said technique in which problems of the centers are generally put in the mouth of abortion rights groups. They "say" things etc. It is misleading.

Given how many "planned parenthood" centers leads to babies (you know the "parenthood" part), people who don't want an abortion can receive nonbiased counseling without often government funded pseudo-clinics like these serving the purpose. "Clinics" that often promote sexual absistence until marriage and other conservative moral paths that can be counterproductive to their alleged core end -- preventing abortions. I think the article comes off a bit better than Brad does, and it is useful that it deals with the issue, but the fact such things aren't underlined only adds to its problems. Are facts biased now?

Books: I have updated the side panel. For some reason, it did not want to accept an image for Forces of Habit: Drugs and the Making of the Modern World by David T. Courtwright. So, I left the book on the Guarantee Clause, since the template demon didn't even want to accept an alternate third book option. I did find out something that I might comment upon in the future -- no, it's a secret. [Mundane, obviously.] The GC book does let me toss in a nice quote from Justice Ginsburg's dissenting opinion (citations removed) in Bush v. Gore:

The Framers of our Constitution, however, understood that in a republican government, the judiciary would construe the legislature's enactments. In light of the constitutional guarantee to States of a "Republican Form of Government," U.S. Const., Art. IV, §4, Article II can hardly be read to invite this Court to disrupt a State's republican regime. Yet The Chief Justice today would reach out to do just that. By holding that Article II requires our revision of a state court's construction of state laws in order to protect one organ of the State from another, The Chief Justice contradicts the basic principle that a State may organize itself as it sees fit. ("Through the structure of its government, and the character of those who exercise government authority, a State defines itself as a sovereign.") ("How power shall be distributed by a state among its governmental organs is commonly, if not always, a question for the state itself."). Article II does not call for the scrutiny undertaken by this Court.

Movie: Since the best bets were foreign movies anyway, one a re-release (in the theater) of a 1990s film, I decided to rent. I was there to pick something up for someone else anyway. From IMDB:

In "A Fond Kiss," Loach and screenwriter Paul Laverty tackle the age-old conflict of star-crossed lovers. In this case, it's Casim Khan (Atta Yaqub), a second-generation Pakistani immigrant, and Irishwoman Roisin Hanlon (Eva Birthistle) in Glasgow, Scotland. Casim's a DJ with lofty plans to open his own club; Roisin's a music teacher at the Catholic school attended by Casim's sister, Tahara (Shabana Bakhsh). As expected, Casim's family made plans for him to marry a cousin. And he's caught between obligations to his family and his love for Roisin.

Given Loach's track record, it is not surprising this generation clash romance has a bit more of an edge than others. It also has subtitles (if one desires) to help understand the accented dialogue (which is fairly easy to handle). It is a good romance, well acted, with the Roisin character the most well-rounded. But, we have sympathy -- even if many would shake their heads at -- for Casim's more traditional minded family. They are right too -- his family will stick by him; how can he trust this woman? The race/religion issue is almost secondary.

And, the difference is clearly not just race. Roisin is a divorced teacher at Casim's younger sister's Catholic school. This causes problems when she needs to obtain a certificate from the Church authorities and her "living in sin" ways and apparently dismissive nature of her obligations as a teacher at a Catholic school leads to a clash. The principal is willing to avoid such "formalities," but the church official has the rules on his side ... even if it is a state supported school. His abrupt nature -- he's tired of secular Catholic sorts like her -- might be crude and a tad bit counterproductive, but trouble spots like that cannot always be elided over.

The experience throws Roisin since she is on her own, thinking she has no old-fashioned things like Casim's family has to deal with to hold her back. This leads him to accuse her of "self-indulgence" -- she can "indulge" in not lying, since what does she have to lose? When directly challenged by his older sister (her younger is more "modern," someone many viewers will be more accepting of ... also a student at R's school -- that's how the two lovers meet), Roisin cannot really respond. This leads to a couple one-sided scenes, but perhaps it is realistic. Could someone like her truly being able to challenge such a direct reproach? She would be so taken aback that she would be almost speechless.

Second generation clashes like this suggest there is a way to unite traditional families through their kids -- the edges can be ironed out somehow. I myself am Irish/Italian, and the ethnic backgrounds of my parents were not irrelevant at the time (my father's mother was also more conservative ... this is somewhat amusing knowing my mom, but actually only up to a point). Not too much though, but the differences were relevant and long lasting.

We live in a society that promotes individuality but groups still matter. The film ends on just that note, making it a bit bittersweet. Good flick.

Geneva Conventions Too Much In Certain Cases?

And Also: First stupidity of the NFL season. After fumbling at the Miami 1, the Steelers eventually got the ball back, and in one play got the TD and lead. But, though Miami felt a need to check, the guy clearly went out of bounds around the 1.5 line. Likely TD eventually anyway, but given the fumble, who knows? Unfortunately for Miami, their coach took so long to throw the red flag, and near an official with his eye on the (slow going, but key, for a 4pt lead) extra point attempt. No official saw it; no challenge to officials not seeing a challenge flag. Next time, on the play of the game with around six minutes left to play, make the near obligatory challenge earlier, or do so a tad bit more emphatically. Or, tell your QB not to give up two interceptions afterwards, including when the PS missed a 44yd field goal attempt.

The confirmation of Mr. Armitage’s role, long the subject of media speculation, shows that the initial disclosure of Ms. Wilson’s identify did not originate from the White House as part of a concerted political attack, but was divulged by a senior State Department official who was not regarded as a close political ally of Vice President Dick Cheney.

-- Armitage Says He the Source in CIA Leak (NYT)

To perhaps answer a question I raised, Armitage said that he did not discuss his role until now because Patrick Fitzgerald asked him not to do so. Okay. All the same, the coverage continues to be open to so much spin, and is clearly misleading. Not always quite as much as the Washington Post editorial comment on it, but misleading all the same. And, various unanswered questions remain.

For instance, consider the title of this piece. Yes, he was "the" source in respect to certain leaks, and perhaps he was the first one. I don't know ... but let's say it "originated" with him. So what? It was still used "as part of a concerted political attack" by others. In fact, Armitage appears -- questions still remain -- to have obtained the information (what is this "Ms. Wilson" business?) while reading a classified report (people share classified information, and I have been among those who said this should not be considered illicit per se, though it depends on the context) that was part of that very attack! Finally, it is unclear if the "covert" agent and the cover story company bit came from him (seems not).

[Update: The WP story clarifies: "Novak asked me, 'Hey, why did the CIA send Mr. Wilson to Niger?' I said, 'I don't know, but I think his wife worked out there,'" Armitage said. The report A. read did not discuss her "covert" status. So, that didn't come from him. Or, so is the story.]

Meanwhile, Armitage's former boss continues to try to justify human rights law lite when dealing with suspected terrorists and other assorted bad guys. Or, who we think might be bad guys ... putting aside all the mistakes and such. The discussion led to some -- including on the Slate Fray -- to consider the question. A couple people in particular argued that in effect "the enemy" and/or "terrorists" are involved in asymmetrical (to use a fancy-smancy word) warfare, not having the resources or ability to follow the rules that are presupposed when the Geneva Conventions are to be carried out. So, why should they receive its privileges? I use the word advisedly, since it is assumed that we aren't talking about basic human rights here, or even things that are required under our laws (including rules of military conduct) anyway.*

[One noted s/he supports "humane" treament without torture but would allow indefinite detainment, while disagreeing with the "Article 3" argument in Hamdan respecting peoples who breach the conventions in nations that previously signed on to them. How much does this really offer at the end of the day? See also the note.]

Such things are often phrased in such a way that annoys even before we get to the core issue. Thus, one spoke of how GCs were written for "Western" industrial nations and such, which to be fair, must have meant "First World" nations or something (you know, Japan counts). Uh huh. No sorry, it has been signed by nearly every nation in the world, though some reprobates (you know, the usual suspects) have not signed on to all of its protocols (if you missed the sarcasm, the U.S. is included here). Also, there is some general sentiment that the people we have in custody are "terrorists," when in fact, none of them has been tried and found as such. Finally, exaggerations are made. Terrorists have no base of support or reason to follow some basic rules of conduct and so forth. This is not true as a general matter; Hezbollah in fact is a prime example. I also noted the three journalists recently kidnapped and eventually released.

What confuses me, other than the idea that somehow the current conflict is totally new (no terrorism in the past? illegal attacks [civilians cannot be attacked as such, but many actions do harm civilians] on civilians?), is that the Geneva Conventions treat different groups differently. It is important to underline that BushCo has not supplied proper protections to suspected terrorists and so forth. But, going beyond that, there is this implication that terrorists under the GC have the same rights as regular combatants. Thus, they have no reason to "follow the rules." No honor among thieves.

Huh? If you are an illegal combatant (Malvo was not a murderous sniper but part of an army of two), only some minimum protections are supplied. One thinks about spies -- they have limited security because they have no uniform or mark. But, they cannot be tortured, right? Overall, I do not buy the argument. First, as suggested, the either/or situation is more messy in practice. Terrorists have reasons to limit their actions; they have a base, foreign support, and so forth. In fact, some of the insurgents in Iraq have agreed not to target civilians. Also, the GCs clearly were not written for conflicts with basically evenly matched sides -- sometimes, one side might have very limited resources. Did the people who wrote the GCs really not imagine such a situation? Worldwide anarchism, international communism, independence movements and so forth in recent memory, ongoing, or likely to arise?

Also, there are various pragmatic reasons to supply some protections to illegal combatants. [The legitimate nature of some combatants, especially among leftist theorists, is open to debate. The rules might be different in certain situations, such as the Palestinians vs. the Israelis. I put this aside.] Simply put, we look like assholes when our President offers rules of military commissions that top JAG officials tell the Congress are not proper under rules of civilized (a term of art) conduct. And, yes, potential illegal combatants/terrorists are influenced by how humane they will be treated. In positive ways, including working with their captors, and not doing some acts in the first place.

Finally, not to be naive or anything, we are a civilized nation that should follow certain rules. I am not sure what rules that apply to illegal combatants [who again are not treated the same as POWs] should not exist. And, what the limits to the argument truly might be. In various conflicts, civilians will in some fashion help insurgents. Should they too not receive GC protections? Insurgents will have some sort of medical services -- they are not all suicide bombers. Are we supposed to target these people, who in various cases might be "civilians" (sort of like Dr. Mudd helping Booth, the former probably no complete innocent) in some sense? And, simply put, we cannot trust this administration with some sort of GC-lite protections.

"Humane" treatment? Ha. There is nothing wrong with tweaking human rights law to some extent; there surely is some play in the joints if they are basically honored. But, there is no reason to re-write them here, especially given the basis offered leaves a lot to be desired.

---

* Thus, there is a "beside the point" nature to the whole debate. Some are loath to call the current conflict a "war," though I find it hard to totally take this seriously in certain respects. What is going on in Iraq certain looks like some sort of war, even if it is a quasi-war. And, the war power can be carried out in a sort of junior variety way [thus, in the late 1790s, we had a "quasi-war" with France], even if it really is a military occupation.

This is not mere semantics, but I can put it aside in most cases. Thus, the idea that treaty rights here is a sort of "contract" that need not be followed when breached. This in effect raises the rules of "reprisal," which has limits at any rate. If they torture, do we get to do the same? Honestly, I do not fully know the exact guidelines, though civilians are clearly protected. [But, "they" don't honor our civilians' rights and often have support of the general population. So, the tit for tat rules simply must have limits, right?]

But, the limits of reprisal notwithstanding, there clearly are limits on civilian conduct, limits that arise from our own laws and constitutional mandates.

Bush's Prevent Defense

And Also: Free Speech TV had a bit on an ingenious protest. Apparently, a couple women charged for indecent exposure for being topless found out that just being topless is not generally legally indecent. For instance, my state's constitution protects the right to breastfeed, including in public places. So, a protest event was developed to show what truly was "indecent," while various women were topless as well. You know, "war is indecent," and so forth. The short segment also had some guy playing a catchy folksy song as a sort of theme song to the whole thing. It was a pretty nifty deal -- all successful "sale" jobs need a good hook.

The Pentagon's top uniformed lawyers took issue Thursday with a key part of a White House plan to prosecute terrorism detainees, telling Congress that limiting the suspects' access to evidence could violate treaty obligations.

-- Pentagon Lawyers Warn Against Evidence Limits

While the Mets were basically putting the final nail in the Braves' coffin, El Decider was giving another speech to promote his anti-terror policies ... or, as someone rightly noted, another political speech. [Two game sweep by Triple AAA call-ups, who admittedly were major league retreads with talent. BTW, doesn't the SNY roving reporter -- who does a good job -- look a bit like Conan O'Brien?] Meanwhile, the NY Daily News had a series of articles yesterday concerning the poor air quality of Lower Manhattan, especially as it affected rescue personnel. To refresh, remember how EPA head Christine Whitman assured everyone all was well shortly after 9/11? Apparently, this was about as true than some scenes of the upcoming ABC docudrama.

The reports -- honestly, I find reading/listening to the guy as tedious as it is annoying -- discuss such things as his claims that those terrorist suspects kept hidden in secret CIA locations (can we call off the hounds now respecting arresting those reporters who discussed this "secret" news?) were not tortured. They were submitted to "tough" but "legal" questioning and will now (eventually) be sent to trial. The "trial" should be by military commission pursuant to his administration's bill, one that members of the "dippy left" (to cite one moron) like Sen. Lindsey Graham (former JAG) find problematic. [We have seen that his positions are not exactly ideal in a justice sense, which only underlines the extreme position of the administration.] Again, from the lede article:

"I believe the accused should see that evidence," said Maj. Gen. Scott Black, the Army's Judge Advocate General. Black and the other lawyers said such an allowance was a fundamental right in other court systems and would meet requirements under the Geneva Conventions.

Meanwhile, Bush feels Congress should support his "protect non-torturers by passing legislation that make them immune for doing something that really they didn't do" legislation. Again, there are some problems with pesky Republicans who might find it a bit problematic. See here.

I see this whole thing a bit like the "prevent defense" used by winning teams to run out the clock by delaying the other team's scoring opportunities so long that even if they do score, so much time expired, that it is likely to be a pyrrhic victory. Given the bend over nature of this Congress and the fact it is already approaching late 2006, if not exactly a "Two Minute" defense, we are approaching the end game in some sense all the same. [Football season starts today. Brother Bowl this weekend between the Giants/Colts while the Boy Wonder, the Jets coach that looks a bit like Kevin James from The King of Queens has his first game against one of the teams about as lowly as his -- the Titans.]

We saw this before: Homeland Security Department, 9/11 Commission, anti-torture bill, over the top actions on judge nominations, combatant tribunals, sharing various "torture memoranda," and so on ... they hold, hold, hold, until they cannot hold any more. Then, they give up a bit, but only about the bare minimum, as shown by how they handle losses in court respecting their national security campaigns. And, in the process, of course, they spin it as much to their advantage as they can. Thus, opposing an over the top anti-union measure in the Homeland Security Bill is somehow a traitorous move. In other words, nothing new, nothing to interrupt midday soaps for. And, of course, no desire to actually seriously work out a real sensible position that makes this country appear to be lead by people who respect human rights and the rule of law.

Such a position will surely not please me in all particulars -- one person noted that it is likely that it would lead to some executions, which never appeals to me -- but it is what true leaders do. It underlines the multi-leveled nature of why this administration is so horrid. Its overall policies are distasteful as are how they are carried forth. Of course, the leading individuals also leave lots to be desired, even if idiots think one or the other would be a fun person to go out for a beer with (you know, I just love going out for a beer with alcoholics ... it's so fun ... look at the pretty pictures!). You know, not the one who deep down we knew would have major influence -- no we kind of thought him a bit creepy. But, I digress.

Rice now apparently is comparing opposition to their policies to those who opposed the Civil War or something. Let's hear it for those Copperheads!

Air America Blahs

And Also: House's season premiere was on last night -- I thought it might wait until after the playoffs. Pretty good episode, with some real twists on his character's weaknesses. His recklessness, and Cuddy's faith in him even against her own judgment, was put on display -- even though he was right, it was dangerous. Surely, will have consequences. Be interesting how he holds up. The subplot about Cuddy wanting a kid ... eight weeks of series time has past after all ... was not dwelt with. Good connection to the "everyone lies" and "you can't get what you want, but can get what you need" theme set from the first episode (which I just watched over the weekend) on.

A Huffington Post entry recently compared Ann Coutler, the queen of bitch, to the management of Air America. This is a rather inexact comparison in various ways. First, she has been around a lot longer than two years -- she had some time to hone her bit. Second, AC is a sort of naughty pleasure, appealing to the darker side of our tastes, even if our superego knows how ugly her rhetoric is, that is, if we take it totally seriously. Finally, her time is now -- conservatives are in control and Democrats by nature look weak.

Still, Air America management is worthy of some scorn. It is obviously hard to start a new radio network, and in various ways, I am sure there have done a good job ... all things considered. All the same, the current re-organization only emphasizes the problem. I speak of the move by the flagship station in NYC to 1600AM in particular. This is a bad sign, the way it was handled a sadly typical slipshod procedure. As noted, the signal is much weaker -- I turned it on last night, and basically could not hear it. Again, I'm from the Bronx, not some distant environs in Putnam County or something.

Another AA listener spoke of similar problems from Queens. A more detailed analysis of the current situation over there suggests some other signs of lack of money. At least, unlike in the past, the basic technical stuff seems to be running fairly smoothly. Still, not hearing the station ... or hearing it with much static (Saturday evening) ... makes the cutesy new number not really a good bargain in the long run.

The first blogger also was concerned about how the station treats listeners. I agree. We are dealing with the radio business, but one has some business expecting that a "progressive talk" station would respect its listeners a bit more than some run of the mill Top 40 station. For instance, years back, I listened to a duo (English sounding woman with taste and typical macho guy producer sort ala the Radio Chick and Butchy in NYC) during the afternoon on the walkman, and thought them pretty good. Nothing much, but enjoyable on a daily basis. I shifted for a few days to the sports talk station, and then switched back, and they were gone. Such is the business -- easy come, easy go, often without much warning. This sort of thing is also prevalent in the temp business.

But, again, one thinks Air America might be different. Not as much as one hopes. First, they stripped the station of some popular co-hosts who served as good balance overall. Mark Maron, for instance, was very popular to the fan base and provided a nice (amusing) balance to an admittedly rather dull (if veteran) old guard left host (Mark Riley). Liz Winstead did the same for Rachel Maddow, a good hard working host* (she came into her own guest hosting during Katrina). In fact, few seem really to appreciate replacing their mid-morning show with Jerry Springer, even if he is a "name" -- Sam Seder (whose co-host also left, less of a loss -- don't know how their fans feel about it though) is due to take the slot. Likewise, Al Franken (documentary coming out) really can use Katherine Lanphur (who has a book coming out) for balance.

Such things were clearly largely monetary. They also were addressed on air -- we were prepared for the co-hosts leaving and so forth, and Maron in particular got a nice send-off (and a West Coast show). Not quite the case for Mike Malloy, the old grumpy 10-1(12 in NY) night time host. Mid-guest hosting appearance for Randy Rhodes (who is smart, but turns me off -- annoying voice, knee-jerk attitude, though she has had success in the business overall), he was left go for "financial" reasons. This after we were told he was promised a return engagement after being taken off 1190AM for similar "financial" reasons for the "Satellite Sisters," a syndicated WE sort of talk show. Also, apparently, he was one of the least paid hosts anyway. It is probably a fair assumption to think that it was his sometimes over the top nature that led to his firing, or whatever you want to call it. Overall, especially since he too was popular with a key base (Sam Seder voiced his displeasure with his firing), it was just plain handled badly.

The listeners deserve more respect. They deserve to know what is going on. They should not have to hear elsewhere that Sam Seder is going to move to mornings, then see it on the Majority Report blog, but still not see it on the Air America website. The website took days to replace Mike Malloy on the schedule. It also (though it was mentioned in a promotion on air) doesn't let us know that Armstrong Williams (co-host) -- yeah, the black conservative host that took money from the Bush Administration to promote their education causes -- will stay on at 1600 with his early morning show. Some lead-in to Sam Seder ... oh wait, we aren't told about his upcoming shift either! Don't think Al Franken, who spoke of his major role in getting the station going and so forth, clarified such matters either. Just handles his duties ... he doesn't take calls anyway, and the only "emails" he takes are those from laughable critics of the show or those writing in to play "Wait Wait, Don't Lie To Me."

The station clearly serves a good purpose and has some good hosts and material. In fact, the weekend has some of the most interesting sounding stuff ... though admittedly, I barely listened to it since it is so badly promoted and on at relatively odd times. For instance, Jackie Guerra has an hour show on Saturdays called "Working It" that deals with working related issues ... she was an organizer as well as having a comedy/entertainment background. Betsy Rosenberg has an environmental show, two with religiously themes, and Laura Flanders has an evening show on weekends from a traditional progressive activist tradition that reflects her background. There also is a cooking show! Again, one would never know it, since you only hear it mentioned once in a blue moon. And, why was the hip hop themed show shifted to Sunday nights at 11pm? Sorta a Saturday night deal, huh?

Sounds silly, but why not? Why not have a variety of shows from a liberal mind-set? This is why Mike Maron added a nice mix -- a sort of morning show talk/comedy deal that people like for morning drive. A well run station would provide what one supposed Air America was expected to bring: a place for people go to on the radio for enjoyable progressive leaning talk, talk of all sorts. So, the Satellite Sisters isn't a bad idea, in a sense -- have a relationship type show, be it women friendly or not, but with a progressive flavor. But, please have respect for the listeners. Keep us abreast of what is going on, including on the website. Provide better promotion, again, especially on the website. The guest host process was a good idea -- people like Sam, Laura, Rachel, and Mike guest hosted on other shows.

And, please, no Armstrong Williams! It's a damn liberal radio station, isn't it? Maybe not. Maybe we are going for a Joe Lieberman deal or something. No wonder it isn't being promoted too well. I wonder how Sam Seder will feel following him? That should be amusing.

---

* With Sam Seder shifting to the morning, it would seem ideal for her (Armstrong Williams filling her slot on 1600) to shift to his evening slot, but who knows?

Thom Hartman has a syndicated show and has guest hosted ... he too sounded good the few times I heard him, a progressive voice that takes calls and intelligently challenges opposite viewpoints, conservative and libertarian. He takes no prisoners, but can do this (with the right amount of righteous anger) without the sarcastic dismissive tendencies of Rhodes and Malloy, both who honestly sound like kneejerk libs a bit too often. They simply do not let other people talk ... it is an annoying quality that can leave to non-believers to dismiss them as well.

Katherine Harris Redux

And Also: Crikey, indeed. Steven Irwin, the Crocodile Hunter, died after being bitten by a stingray (a freak way to go, even given his job) -- he was forty-four and left an American born wife and two children. If you have to go, doing so in the midst of what you love is a good way to go. Still, John Quincy Adams had the right idea -- died at 80 or so on the floor of the House of Representatives.

I know, to put forth a Roe v. Wade-like preface few will take seriously, that this subject has been covered over and over with a tendency each side to throw coals on the fires. But, like that ruling, it seems like the same canards are replayed each time, eventually becoming accepted wisdom even for those not too sympathetic to the opposition. Thus, repeated efforts must be supplied to counteract such things, especially since the basic issues will not go way. Furthermore, at various times, things pop up that makes it useful or at least somewhat appropriate to re-examine some of the issues.

The Florida Republican primary for U.S. Senate ... with Katherine Harris the odds on favorite* ... seems like such a situation. I also point the interested to a New Republic piece entitled "Katherine Harris, still crazy." The general sentiment of the piece being that conservatives/Republicans are a bit late in the game of finding fault with KH, and more generally, since some of them are willing to doubt every other aspect of the Bush regime, why not add the election fight to the mix? Anyway, I wish not to re-cover every issue here, but a discussion over at LGM did lead me to think a few things in particular were particularly noteworthy to comment upon.

Seven Justices of the Court agree that there are constitutional problems with the recount ordered by the Florida Supreme Court that demand a remedy. See SOUTER, J., dissenting; BREYER, J., dissenting. The only disagreement is as to the remedy. [Fake reason offered to suggest possible remedy is not appropriate.]

-- Bush v. Gore, per curiam (assumed to have been written by Justice Kennedy)

By a vote of seven to two, with Justices Stevens and Ginsburg dissenting, the state supreme court's decision was held to run afoul of the equal protection clause. By a vote of five to four, the Court held that there was no remedy available. ... Justices Stevens, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer each filed dissenting opinion.

-- Constitutional Law and Politics, Volume One (Fifth Edition) by David O'Brien

We hear of "lies" repeatedly these days, but I have a more basic problem with misleading spin that is properly called "bullshit." Let's call a lie a lie, sure enough, but as is often the case, a lesser wrong is still wrong enough, surely if it is more firmly provable. And, the "Bush v. Gore was a 7-2 opinion" spin is simply that -- bullshit. Now, the fact that the majority opinion cited it is not too shocking -- one really should take some things such opinions say with a certain grain of salt.

It is more appalling, however, when it becomes accepted wisdom even if casebooks that honestly can be said not to be conservative spin jobs. Why shouldn't this also be the message sent by the media, as it is now speaking of "liberals" wanting to hinder the war on terror by opposing listening to Bin Laden, when in fact they oppose illegal warrantless taps on American citizens? Something polls suggest a majority of the public oppose.

The Oxford Companion to the Supreme Court entry to the case notes that Souter and Breyer "expressed some sympathy for the equal protection argument, but they stressed that these issues were more properly addressed by the state and (if necessary) the Congress." This approaches the truth. "The" equal protection argument refers, of course, to the argument put forth in the majority opinion. Justice Stevens and Ginsburg were concerned with equal protection as well. Stevens, for instance, noted how different the counts was statewide with different machines. Ginsburg was in fact said to have been challenged by Justice Scalia when she planned to include a footnote pointing out how if anything, the problem was racial discrimination. This was deemed by Scalia as some sort of "Al Sharpton" moment.

And, overall, the dissent thought the “remedy” offered by the majority was a bit ridiculous for those truly concerned with equality. In fact, both Stevens and Ginsburg noted that for the sake of argument, the best way to approach a need for a clearer recount standard was to remand it to the state. They too mentioned the "remedy" addressed by the other two dissents, but perhaps knew giving more ammo than that would lead them to be played for fools. One thing in particular stands out: Justice Breyer (along with Ginsburg) JOINED Stevens' dissent in full. The other three "dissents" (this is useful to note ... none of the four somehow "concurred" with the majority's equal protection argument ... only five justices joined it) did not receive full support from four justices. But, Breyer joined Stevens' opinion in full.

So, how exactly can he not be joined with the "two?" Now, Souter noted that he joined in "significant extent" (whatever that means) with all the dissents. Notable. Still, at the very least, should not we have heard of a 6-3 ruling? Also, re-reading the Souter/Breyer dissents, I am not sure exactly how they "held" that Florida Supreme Court had "run afoul" of the U.S. Constitution. Again, this doesn't take some deep legal knowledge to understand ["Justice Stevens with whom Justice Ginsburg and Justice Breyer join, dissenting," however apparently confuses people, so who knows?]. Justice Breyer speaks of what "may well" be true, but felt that he "need not decide" the question. Souter speaks more strongly of what "seems" to be the case, but still noted that if left be the state courts "very well" might not have caused any problems in the end. Anyway, he starts his dissent firmly saying the Court shouldn't have taken the case.

So, basically Souter and Breyer "agreed" that the argument that the recount standards were constitutionally problematic was a reasonable viewpoint, but surely did not firmly decide upon the point. As to the supposed fact that they agreed that some remedy was demanded, one is unclear about this too. Neither one wanted the case taken in the first place. Both are rather empathic on the point, Breyer focusing on Congress' responsibility, "however awkward or difficult it may be," to settle the matter. [Listening Judge Posner?] A matter the majority not too surprisingly elided over, focusing on a phony reading of Florida law as to the "safe harbor" deal. The two, though again the other two referenced the point too, did offer "[i]n light of the majority's disposition" [trying to make the best of a bad situation] the possibility of remanding the case back to Florida.

But, clearly, their "remedy" would have been to leave it to the state and Congress throughout. If there was some sort of constitutional problem, therefore, it would have been a "political question" left to others than self-interested justices of the Supreme Court. [Scalia and Thomas had family members involved with the Bushies to a degree much more problematic than a duck hunt, Rehnquist's successor was at stake, as well as "this is terrible" O'Connor's future, plus the tenor of the hundreds of lower court judges that were due to be appointed, a chunk because Republicans refused to let Clinton nominees get "up and down" votes.] In fact, the conservative leaning 11th Circuit of Appeals recognized this fact ... this is why the case is entitled "Bush v. Gore," the losing party listed first in federal appeals.

I'm sorry, continual cries of "sore loser" or "get over it" will not erase such facts. It will not erase the rightful distrust in the system by the "losers" here as well as the ironic wariness of trusting the courts with true election inequalities that remain. The majority spoke of this ruling as of one of a kind, a sort of ticket good for one ride only, though annoyingly for them lawyers continue to cite it in their briefs and judges in their opinions. After all, is it not like the Korematsu decision, which spoke of strict scrutiny for racial classifications, even if it failed to apply the principle consistently then and there? Voting equality was raised, and the bait and switch tactics used can only fully succeed by letting them so.

Can it not be cited for this end, while ala the Japanese Internment Cases, its judgment rejected as a dark mark on the Court? We can use Justice Scalia's dissent in the Casey abortion ruling ... you know his appeal to Chief Justice Taney going somewhere he shouldn't have for the oh so wrong minded reason that he thought it was necessary for the good of the country, much to our detriment? The ruling surely will not be forgotten as long as its beneficiaries continue among us ... in office, representing us in the U.N., running for Senate, and yes, serving in the federal courts. So, Katherine Harris, thank you -- you are like an itchy scab, one that cannot be ignored, even though many of your supporters wish you to leave, so that the rest of us would. But, the sting is still there.

I guess the only disagreement is on the remedy.

---

* Obviously, she is not the odds on favorite for the general election. In fact, top Republicans -- from the Bushes down -- nearly begged her not to run, since she is such a lousy candidate for a race in which a competent one might very well have a good shot at winning. Since the party is basically abandoning (well, they never quite supported him in the first place ... see also, Rep. Murtha's challenger) their party's candidate in Connecticut, they don't want some sort of trend forming. Harris currently is having problems holding on to staff people. Projections have her getting in the low 30s, basically the party faithful.

Unfortunately for them, Rep. Harris is not satisfied with a comfortable little district seat, a not too surprising prize for her efforts in '00, but apparently feels it a mission from God to seek higher. Putting aside the religious element, this reminds me of Secretary of Homeland Security Michael Chertoff, someone with a somewhat thankless job that many feel he is simply not fit to handle. It must have taken some interest in public service (or something) for him to give up a life tenure appellate judgeship (unless he got bored at it after less than two years) so people can blame him for Katrina et. al. Or, stupidity. Tomato/oe.

Labor Day Thoughts

And Also: My first published letter to the editor was critical of an "R" rating (teens under 17 technically cannot see it without parent/guardian) to Pump Up The Volume, a serious teen drama with some "mature" things to say. This Film Is Not Rated targets this "miss the forest for the trees" rating system, including its secrecy and bias against sex (especially "abnormal" types). And, does it fairly well (good visuals) with a certain tidbit about Maria Bello.

What is more appropriate reading for Labor Day weekend than a collection of excerpts from the battle over labor, the pregnancy sort, that is. The Abortion Rights Controversy in America: A Legal Reader, edited by N.E.H. Hill et. al.

A Slate frayster sees the abortion issue through a Thirteenth Amendment lens, sees it as rather obvious really (not a big fan of originalism, so original understandings of "labor" per that amendment is not damning), since it deals with a sort of forced labor. This surely is an important part of the issue, though in that respect, I also would point to the importance of control over fertility and family life as an aspect of liberty. In effect, though the amendment per se is rarely referenced, this is really how the right to choose an abortion is currently framed in the courts. I sort of see it as rather obvious really.

The book has excerpts from the usual suspects. Likewise, it has some additional stuff, including from 19th and early 20th Century birth control debates, that is particularly interesting. One federal appellate ruling noted in passing that obviously the federal government cannot regulate abortion directly; the issue there was postal regulations. It also inferred a "life" exception, since it would be unreasonable (without specific notice) not to do so.

A later lower court ruling went further and inferred a "health" exception -- birth control devices can be sent through the mails for health reasons, which are not necessary the same thing as for "immoral" uses ala contraception generally. Finally, there is an excerpt from Justice Douglas' notes on the conferences held respecting Roe and Doe. News to me that this was even available to the public. Pretty good overall, though maybe a bit more on the parental notification/consent issue would have been useful. This is as important as the blockade issue -- which received its own section.

Of course, baseball is an important part of Labor Day Weekend. Good games yesterday. Atlanta/Philly has a doubleheader that appears to have been a good watch, looking at the box score. David Rasner, a rookie that was hurt most of the year [each game, the radio analyst -- Susan Waldman -- always lists injuries, and he was always tacked on in a sort of "and, yeah ..."], shined in a spot start role arising from a recent rainout.

The Mets was destined to lose, did, but did so with a bit of style. Kansas City again burnt their Central Division competition, this time again making sure Chicago (recently, they did the same to the Twins) did not gain ground on Detroit -- a team sort of limping to a division leading finish, though they have been hovering around five games ahead for awhile now.

The Astros, at home, lost the first two with the back-end of their rotation though both was close enough that Wagner sweated a bit. In fact, on Saturday, Beltran hurt his knee saving the day. The 'stros had Oswalt, the Mets El Duque just back from some downtown, and three key Mets bats did not play. It turned out to be one more in the Mets line of one hit away from no-hitter games (of which, they have none). They only had one other quite like this -- a 2-1 loss.

Not quite the time when the Yanks, back in their crummy days, lost a no-hitter. And, again, it was done with three of the Mets best hitters out of the line-up (Beltran, Lo Duca, Wright). It underlines why Houston will probably not make it to the Wild Card Gold -- no offense. The one hit did not factor into the scoring though a hit batter did. That loaded the bases for a suicide squeeze. The other run came via a walk, stolen base, and two sacrifices.

Anyway, the Phillies lost their second game ... so the Mets' magic number dropped anyway. Again, not a bad way to go. Today, the Mets play the Braves, who are actually still alive (darn horror movie monster) in the Wild Card race (Phillies/Marlins too, the latter amazingly given their "less than some single players are getting" team payroll, both ahead of them). The Mets swept them the last time -- basically putting a nail in the "not this year, division-wise, guys" coffin, but "Larry" and company still leave a bad taste in many Mets fans' mouths. This is so even if some now can be patronizing about them.

Finally, time home does not only include barbecues and ball games, but obviously more television time generally. So, let me toss in a House reference. What better to rent from Blockbuster than a collection of a show repeated each week on USA? Hugh Laurie plays the lead character, a genius misanthropic doctor whose team tackles particularly tough cases at a NJ teaching hospital (neat locale).

Interestingly, Laurie -- who plays an American -- was previously best known for playing a cheerful boob on a British TV. series. Though it might have helped his accent, the character also is not that foreshadowed by his American role as the (human) husband in the Stuart Little (mouse) movies. Sure, he played other more serious roles, but one wonders why he was chosen.

Well, sure, because he's great at it. Duh. This is why he wasn't nominated for an Emmy though had a cameo in the opening bit on the awards show. Differential diagnosis?

Party of Death [NYT Review]

And Also: Air America went to 1600AM in NYC on 9/1; get it? Yeah, a bit silly, and the signal is rather weak -- even in the Bronx. The website also did not update the schedule, so one might think Sam Seder still has a co-host and will remain at 7-10 weeknights. No -- he's flying solo and shifting to 9-12pm. Meanwhile, who is he following? [According to radio coverage; who knows?] A show co-hosted by Armstrong Williams, the black conservative who in the past was subsidized by the Bush Administration. Mike Malloy was suddenly let go -- mid-guest hosting stint -- for "financial reasons," after being promised a return. More slipshod stuff, even after two years. Turns one off.

To resolve these debates categorically--as Mr. Ponnuru does--is to commit an error that has been exposed by thinkers as diverse as Michael Oakeshott, Russell Kirk and Friedrich Hayek. The error consists of attempting to judge the complexities of morals and politics through the reductive lens of natural science, under the bright light of pure reason, from the cold heights of abstract theory. What gets lost is the ability to make relevant distinctions, to discern the wisdom embodied in custom and common sense, to acknowledge the ambiguities, mysteries and tragic choices of lived experience.

-- Peter Berkowitz (Wall St. Journal)

Well, the other side can rest easy -- The Party of Death: The Democrats, the Media, the Courts, and the Disregard for Human Life -- was finally reviewed by the NYT, though they used a conservative leaning sort (Jonathan Rauch, whose right leaning sentiments on some issues make him a favorite "alternative" pro-gays rights speaker) to do so. Thus, as with Berkowitz, Ramesh Ponnuru can hope for a friendly ear. [National Review's blog called it a "fair and sensible" review.]

Thus, his "soul of fair-mindedness" is suggested by comparing him to Ann Coutler, even though the title is the usual Regnery (the publisher) kneejerk crap that forced him to look like an idiot when trying to backtrack from it. I want to say upfront that I find this path the most distasteful part of the enterprise. Doesn't the importance of the subject matter require one to speak beyond the choir, even if it might hurt sales to true believers? Guess not. We also are told of his "razor-edged moral acuity" and "of a searching seriousness" that apparently people like I can learn from. This is shown by such statements as [comments are of reviewer]: "'But of course the embryo looks exactly like a human being,' he writes in a knifelike sentence that pulled me up short 'It looks like a human being in the embryonic stage of development.'"

Wow! I wish I could right so well! Of course, a corpse looks exactly like a human being. It looks like a human being in the dead stage of development. Close? But, and yes, this sort of thing leads to sarcasm, I am part of the party of death, "those who think that the inviolability of human life is an outdated or oppressive concept." Sure. I oppose needless wars carried forth in ways that will lead to horrible death and violence. I want an intelligent health care policy mixed with a human social welfare policy so that people will not needlessly suffer, some dying before their time.

And, yes, I want to prevent unwanted children or those parents cannot handle, including contraception that might work after fertilization, and in various cases abortion. Ponnuru wants to ban abortion, but not necessarily make woman involved criminals. In fact, maybe even only fining the doctors would be necessary. This is interesting, since they are murdering human beings, yes? [Heck, assault is liable to get ya more than a fine.] The review notes such problems, which absolutist sorts like RP fall into -- they simply cannot quite keep up with their utopian absolutism. I reckon they are the "party of hypocrites." You know, the Republican Party. Well, not all of them, but the party might rightly be called a "wholly owned subsidiary."

In real life, people do care about life. It is not some outdated concept. They just have very different views on the subject, views that simply should not be all mandated by law. Thus, fine that Jenny and Greg (friends of the reviewer) have decided that "reducing" their triplets would have been wrong. Perhaps, if it turned out one would have died at birth, doing so at the beginning of the pregnancy would have been okay for them. Enough with strawmen like those who think abortion is akin to appendectomy. And, hey, we hear of "fertility doctor." Hmm. In vitro with use of disposed embryos, perhaps?

So, no I do not find such overcooked boilerplate an "unsettling challenge." Abortion is something that has fascinated me for some time, given all the things involved and the broader themes dealt with in the discussion. So, I have thought about it more deeply than some, but generally speaking, quite a few on the pro-choice (even to the degree of keeping it legal) have come upon their stances with a good amount of reasoned analysis. They know what they are doing, know what the other side offers. They rightly would shake their heads at statements like "[e]ight-week-old fetuses do not differ from 10-day-old babies in any way that would justify killing the former." They are tired of tomes that speak to absolutists as if they are the people who drive policy. This is especially so when the alternative offered is as absolutist.

[I'd also like to underline that it is misleading on various levels to use "fetus" as some sort of catchall word for anything between conception (or implantation) and birth. The fetus represents a certain stage of development -- both medically (about twelve weeks) and morally (floating, though eight weeks would meet that definition for some people). It offers a certain image, clearly ideal for some people, of deep development.

Not quite the same thing as embryos (or even fertilized eggs) in the first weeks after conception. And, the author is concerned with such things, including stem cells. In fact, even talking about "eight-week-old" embryos as some sort of representative sample is misleading in an important way since the book would not support abortion of two-week-old embryos. Finally, especially with advancements in birth control pills -- btw it has been noted that even traditional sorts might work after conception, but are interestingly not tossed into the Plan B mix -- often we are not talking eight weeks at all.]

Those absolutists apparently "reject common-sense regulations requiring parents to be notified if minors seek abortions. They insist that abortion must be not just legal but subsidized." They support partial birth abortion that is said to be akin to infanticide. Speaking as a member of this clearly meant to be misguided group, a few quick comments. The idea is that if you are going to subsidize childbirth, even for a tenth child, you should also subsidize abortion -- especially in various cases. A blanket notification policy, even if the parents will abuse the child and so forth, in the real world causes problems. Finally, an attempt to target a particular procedure seems almost silly. If the abortion is legitimate, perhaps for health reasons [are we required to keep risks to our life nearby in other cases? even if a proverbial lifeboat?], should we just use a more risky procedure? Maybe one that will prevent further pregnancies?

Sure, that is a way to promote life. The review says that the book "has little to say" to the middle that the author finds nonsensical. Perhaps, that explains the title -- if you are going to publish such over the top claptrap, someone has to be found to read the darn thing. Now, when strong pro-choice sorts (hard to call them "absolutists," since they are willing to compromise women's liberty and lives more often than not in practice ala William Saletan) can be a pain, such polemical material probably can be forgiven. All the same, perhaps the other side can write a few more books a little less over the top.

Obviously, there is something to be said in promotion of a stance millions support ... the millions (and maybe even the unborn and born they so passionately speak for) deserve a bit more balanced approach than this. Sacred cows on both sides deserve some strong critical analysis, some pointed edges quite acceptable. Doing so in a way that more than the choir will find useful might be somewhat difficult, might require "razor-edged moral acuity," but I'm sure there are some people out there that can do the job.

Note: Have not read this book except for a few glances at the library. Yes, along with Ann, he did invade the NYC public libraries. So, some might say I cannot properly bash a book I have not read, which is true up to a point. But, hey, if The Corner finds a review fair, what else does one need? And can't we trust the Wall St. Journal?

Seriously, take my entry with the grain of salt required, but I do think my general sentiments here would hold up even if I read the darn thing. Since I tend not to read over the top pro-choice tomes -- reading an "abortion reader" with historical stuff from both sides now -- I really have no desire to read this thing. And, when conservative leaning sorts discuss it in this fashion, my mind is sadly not changed.

Various Thoughts As September Begins

And Also: Referenced The Storm, a Katrina book from the technical side of things, written by a storm specialist. Though I "read" it ala Bush, I admit not being able to get into it. Skimmed it though, and it did provide some good insights. One focus was the value of wetlands. He also noted that he raised the idea that potential refugees could stay in tents, which was deemed stupid. An earlier "war game" exercise also didn't turn out to be too useful. The author doesn't think much of the administration's efforts and defense. Also interesting is that he references his faith. This apparently is possible for "reality based" individuals too. Meanwhile, Harry Anderson, looking a bit like Bill Clinton these days, is leaving town.

Editorial Page vs. Reporters: It is sometimes noted that the Wall St. Journal is a good news source, except for the editorial page. This is apparently a trend; thus, the Washington Post editorial page has some conservative sort of deal going on that contrasts with the coverage in the paper overall. This is troubling since many might miss the stories and only read the editorial page. [OTOH, sometimes the NYT editorial board does more than its main pages, partly out of fear of putting "opinion" in the paper proper. "Opinion" includes calling a liar, a liar. Media Matters highlights the point.]

It also pops up in my local tabloid, the New York Daily News. Pretty good news, knee-jerk editorial content. Thus, an article reports that the school chancellor seems to be full of hot air in denouncing "worthless" officials he apparently would fire if given the chance. The knee-jerk blowhards over on the editorial page falls on one side -- right, not the side of their own reporters. And, both were on the same day. If we note that editors and owners also influence the main content in various ways, this is distressing.

Saving Face DVD: The DVD provides a chance to trump the "special track so buy a new CD" selling point by providing various "special features," especially for "specialty sets" like Star Wars or something that might have literally hours of this stuff. This sort of thing is therefore not left to "making of" shows on HBO and such. Still, what I really like are the commentary tracks where the director (and perhaps star(s) or someone else involved like a screenwriter) talks about the movie, often providing loads of stuff respecting motivation and movie making trivia.

If the person has a good descriptive manner, this all is rather interesting, and gives you a different view of the movie that you might have (as did I with this one) before. BTW, the Chinese leads in this film are all pretty nice on the eyes in different ways, one having a very cute ponytail. And, yes, Alice Wu does a very good job here, and this indie has an interesting backstory ... including some help from Wil Smith's (yes that one) production company. This includes some desire to de-Chinese the whole thing, even though this obviously ruins a major motivation/reason for the whole piece.

NY Sports: Jets ended the preseason on the right foot though they had a lousy first half. Giants were 4-0, which doesn't mean too much, but playing well against even Patriot backups is a good sign. A-Rod is suddenly coming alive. The Mets continue on, though they have the backend of the Astros rotation to deal with. Still, two starters coming back from layoffs .. Glavine was good until the fourth. El Duque on Sunday.

12 Angry Men

And Also: Just love those old Pink Panther cartoons, especially those little white guy characters with big noses that have to deal with his antics. Never found the movies that amusing at all. As to (yet again) comparisons to Hitler, this time to a feared "Fourth Reich" (sounds like some sort of low grade thriller), you know there might be something there. Hitler had a mustache. A mustache was obligatory for Saddam's party. QED. Seriously, the Nazi metaphor is sooo tired, including when used against Bushites.

Appropriately, the day after I discussed jury duty, 12 Angry Men was on TCM. The movie was referenced recently since Jack Warden (who recently died) was in the cast, one of many excellent actors in it -- again, character actors made the movie ... we aren't talking one, two, or three angry men here. Seeing Jack Klugman as a nebbish sort was amusing. And, it seemed like it took place in the Bronx Courthouse ... Yankee Stadium is just a few blocks away, and Warden does want to see a game. You know, with some of the money he earned selling marmalade.

Now, these days, the bit with the knife would have been harder to do. Yes, there is the fact that jurors are not supposed to go to the scene of the crime and do their own investigating, but then again it was noted that he bought the knife illegally anyway. No, now they check for weapons at the door, so it is unlikely such a dangerous instrument would be allowed through. I find it a bit strange -- though mention was made about "kids today" being so unruly (is there ever a time when adults are not nostalgia for better days in that department? 17th Century Puritans spoke of the old days when people were more holy.) -- people weren't checked even in the 1950s. Or, was it a bit of dramatic license? It was Sidney Lumet's first film and all.

Many of the men were quite "angry," though one was firmly rational throughout until the old man broke through his assurance with the bit about the main witness wearing (or, rather, not) glasses. This was in part because a few had clear biases which led them to be emotionally against the young poor slum defendant (white -- we get a quick look of him in the beginning). Two in particular, including Fonda's main nemesis. We all have biases though, including jurors, even if not so blatant. I also saw such things come out, troublingly so, in my second jury stint [was not called when I went the third time, the first was a typical buy/bust deal in which a white suburbanite mom looking sort was the most dubious and led to half the charges being dropped].

One woman eventually noted she was abused in a comparable way to the alleged crime at issue. A heinous one. Another basically saw the young victim through the eyes of his own daughter. It is hard to imagine that jurors do not in some fashion have a "by the grace of god go I" sentiment, one that many suggest is a good thing when they step into the shoes of the defendant. But, one reason for a jury is that a diverse group also should do this for each member of the case, the witnesses and victims included.

You have to take the good with the bad ... up to a point, of course, but still. Thus, a juror here had a certain perspective as an old man, but this very well can cloud judgment too. Such is the value of twelve and unanimity. OTOH, when you are a victim of the very crime, especially an emotionally tinged one, I find it problematic. Some of the other jurors voiced their sympathy. Did any, like I, feel annoyed (or at least concerned) she was on the jury?

Henry Fonda noted that various things were not brought up that he felt should have been. He suggested this might have been because a young court appointed lawyer was involved. I'd first note the thing about the knife (it turns out not to be so rare after all) underlines the complexity of a case -- every piece of evidence must be investigated. This underlines the problem of overworked public defenders. Also, it brought to mind my big case as well. I too felt various things were not offered or clarified. In fact, a previous case of abuse was briefly mentioned, and only confused matters. Finally, I too wondered ... about the prosecutor. Many on the jury liked her, but she seemed a bit green, a bit overmatched by the older craftier defense attorney, who was once a prosecutor (I believe).

One of the jurors early on made a telling point that made the Fonda character think -- what if you convince all of us and he turns out to be guilty? Sure, the idea is "reasonable doubt," but it is important to understand what this means. It does mean that sometimes a factually guilty person will be let go. But, the system is not cost-free ... safeguards tend to have their liabilities. The extra time and effort (and money) spent might cause problems. Nonetheless, there is a "lose the battle, win the war" sentiment involved here. The net result is thought to be good -- protecting the innocent, furthering better prosecutions, securing important rights, valuing the worth of the jury, and so forth. So, admitting that one could be wrong -- a point made -- does not end matters. Some, however, I thinks it does, especially in certain cases.

The conclusion is that the doubts of one led to the doubts of all, a decision for the defendant. This is not very likely, but the movie obviously had a broader point to make. It is not too unlikely to assume that sometimes there really are only a few jurors firmly believing someone is innocent, but they are enough to acquit, even if only for some of the crimes alleged. [This "compromise" verdict in fact often occurs, even if it might seem unethical to some people. It just underlines how real life tends to be messy.]

Note this very case -- he was charged the murder that had a mandatory death sentence (this made it easier to vote for acquittal), which would not occur these days. The facts seem to suggest perhaps he was guilty of a lesser sort of homicide, perhaps not death eligible at all. A few doubters, maybe even one firm one, might lead to this different result. Same overall principle would apply for convictions that might result in serious differences in prison time.

It just might be time for another movie that in some major part focuses on a jury. One of the Law & Order shows ... the one that finally failed ... did in part. But, most of those police, lawyer, or prosecution shows do not. I guess it is cheaper just to pay for extras. Maybe, one of the new ones will. I recall a Picket Fences episode that actually did focus a bit on the jury room. Pretty good episode.