Celebrity Follies: Britney Spears nixed her suicide ... video, that is [patterned on Leaving Las Vegas] . Tom Cruise fired a key assistant because of criticism over Tom's emphasis on Scientology. Julia Roberts (no not that one; a NC 96 year old grandmother) was charged with crack possession. The President's press secretary's father released a conspiracy account of how LBJ was behind the JFK assassination. And after a defendant made a crack at her about oral sex, a local judge [allegedly] commented that he was too small for her.
---
God's Justice: A judge in North Carolina got in some trouble by suggesting that "so help you God" not be used as the default oath [not prohibited, though that is how it was spun by some], one of various ways he proposed to deal with the more diverse clientele that use the courts. It is an example how people do not like you to remove the remaining establishments of religion in this country. The idea that the judge was acting in the interests of "non-Christians" was troubling though, since not only do many Christians oppose oaths [e.g. Quakers; see also, Art. II of the Constitution with its "affirmation" alternative to the Presidential Oath], but many non-Christians do not mind it (not only Christians believe in God!). Finally, it is to be noted that a non-religious oath is somewhat of a contradiction in terms -- it is an "affirmation," since an oath is a "swearing" act that implies the presence of a deity.
[Update: As related in the comments to the original posting of the story (see link) and to me personally, the trend has been away from "so help me God" oaths, though their popularity does depend on the locale.]
---
Snarky Judges: Researching another matter, I came across a narrowly divided (11-9) appellate refusal for re-hearing of an important Miranda (confession rules) case involving the use of trickery during an interrogation. The dissent raises an important, if debatable point, one even one of the original concurring judges agreed was troubling. Thus, this makes the snarky concurrence particularly troubling, the snarkiness suggested by this passage: "But we are not free to rewrite the law. And that is where I part company with Judge Trott and his merry band of dissenters." "Merry" they were not in this particular case, but this opinion suggests snarkiness among the judiciary is not just the realm of Justice Scalia. It remains amusing, but on some basic level one would hope that judges did not write with the maturity of little children sticking their tongues out at people they don't like.
About Me
- Joe
- This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
Saturday, March 13, 2004
Melissa Ann Rowland: A tragic case that is getting some media attention involves a woman charged with murder for refusing to have a Caesarian section, which allegedly led to the death of one of the twins she was carrying. The case is infamous because of the claim that she refused because she didn't want a scar. A more complete account: Prosecutors allege [she denies it] that Rowland told a nurse during a January visit to a hospital that doctors wanted to cut her "from breast bone to pubic bone" and she would rather "lose one of the babies than be cut like that." It is also noted that in actuality, such an invasive procedure will not be necessary; only a "bikini incision" would be used in most cases.
The case is even more complex. The women later noted she already had scars from past caesareans. Also, Rowland has a history of mental illness, including apparently suicide attempts. The stress of the moment for such an individual is apparent. This is the sort of person the state charges with murder, surely likely to make her case a cause celebre? As noted by Rachel Roth in Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights and others, the "typical" case (the situation is far from typical, obviously) involves a woman with religious claims or who are worried about the dangers of such an invasive procedure (one known to be performed unnecessarily in some cases). Also, the women often are very emotionally vulnerable, and sometimes not properly handled by impersonal medical authorities.
The details, especially given medical privacy rules, continue to be hazy and will become less hazy over time. Suffice to say, the case is troubling, including the stereotypical way some are presenting it. The use of a case of this sort to influence policy as to totally competent women or women whose personal actions (smoking, drug use, and so forth) affect their pregnancies would be misguided. The problems of mentally troubled and emotionally unstable women, on the other hand, should be addressed with these sort of cases in mind.
The case is even more complex. The women later noted she already had scars from past caesareans. Also, Rowland has a history of mental illness, including apparently suicide attempts. The stress of the moment for such an individual is apparent. This is the sort of person the state charges with murder, surely likely to make her case a cause celebre? As noted by Rachel Roth in Making Women Pay: The Hidden Costs of Fetal Rights and others, the "typical" case (the situation is far from typical, obviously) involves a woman with religious claims or who are worried about the dangers of such an invasive procedure (one known to be performed unnecessarily in some cases). Also, the women often are very emotionally vulnerable, and sometimes not properly handled by impersonal medical authorities.
The details, especially given medical privacy rules, continue to be hazy and will become less hazy over time. Suffice to say, the case is troubling, including the stereotypical way some are presenting it. The use of a case of this sort to influence policy as to totally competent women or women whose personal actions (smoking, drug use, and so forth) affect their pregnancies would be misguided. The problems of mentally troubled and emotionally unstable women, on the other hand, should be addressed with these sort of cases in mind.
The Close: A Young Woman's First Year at Seminary. Rev. Chloe Breyer recently wrote an article about her part in an interfaith effort to rebuild a mosque in Afghanistan. It was interesting and down to earth, leading me to read her autobiography. The book's theme perhaps could be found in her discussion of her internship in Bellevue in which one of her roles was to lead a discussion group among prisoners. One prison was upset that the even experts were not sure about the meaning of the Bible -- he wanted a religion that provided answers, while she liked the fact it had so many fascinating questions.
The book is like that -- it doesn't have many answers about the complexities of her religious faith, but examines the questions as she deals with her first year at an Episcopal seminary. Rev. Breyer is clearly in the liberal Christian tradition, unsure about her faith and true calling, struggling to serve her God. On the other hand, and this didn't quite please this skeptic, at the end of the day she is mostly accepting of the mysteries of her faith. For instance, she starts out saying Paul's letters at some points seemed a bit unsavory, but ends up saying she accepted their truth, even quoting one feminist religious scholar that argued he'd be supporting gay rights if alive today [uh ... unsure about that]. The book isn't an apologia of the faith though; it is an expression of her individual story and faith. And, it serves it's purpose on that end. For some, she and her faith might be deemed too human; for others, including to a large part myself, it is inspiring.
[Rev. Breyer comes from a mixed faith household -- her mother is Anglican and father is a secular Jew. She also is pretty well off, as suggested by her references to her travels and education. The sense of privilege seeps out at times and is a bit annoying. It is not addressed at all in the cited article or book, but she is the daughter of Justice Stephen Breyer.]
The book is like that -- it doesn't have many answers about the complexities of her religious faith, but examines the questions as she deals with her first year at an Episcopal seminary. Rev. Breyer is clearly in the liberal Christian tradition, unsure about her faith and true calling, struggling to serve her God. On the other hand, and this didn't quite please this skeptic, at the end of the day she is mostly accepting of the mysteries of her faith. For instance, she starts out saying Paul's letters at some points seemed a bit unsavory, but ends up saying she accepted their truth, even quoting one feminist religious scholar that argued he'd be supporting gay rights if alive today [uh ... unsure about that]. The book isn't an apologia of the faith though; it is an expression of her individual story and faith. And, it serves it's purpose on that end. For some, she and her faith might be deemed too human; for others, including to a large part myself, it is inspiring.
[Rev. Breyer comes from a mixed faith household -- her mother is Anglican and father is a secular Jew. She also is pretty well off, as suggested by her references to her travels and education. The sense of privilege seeps out at times and is a bit annoying. It is not addressed at all in the cited article or book, but she is the daughter of Justice Stephen Breyer.]
Thursday, March 11, 2004
Mail Call: Apparently, I was right to be suspicious of the El Gordo Spanish Sweepstake Lottery Company S.A. notice I got in the mail today. Apparently, it is a snail mail scam akin to the Nigeria Email Scam, one that has gotten some notice already. As someone else said, I did get a nice Spanish stamp. Also, one must respect the effort given to some of these things.
I also got my Edwards Campaign DVD, timely, I guess, since Sen. Kerry was today reported to have the delegates needed for the nomination. It is somewhat hard to flip through, but it's a good idea with a typically personal/down to earth interview, campaign commercials, a slide slow, personal message, and linkage to his website. The DVD was "free" with a $10 contribution [$35 would get you a copy of his book, also a good idea], and as noted, I used the $13 I received from a CD lawsuit payout to buy it. Kerry doesn't seem to have this sort of thing (he does have clothing and so forth) ... he should think about it. It's easier than downloading stuff off the website, a bit more personal, and is a cute little "gift" for supplying a small donation.
[Update: The middle road taken by the participants as a whole in a Nation article on outsourcing suggests a problem I had with Edwards' emphasis on trade limitations. Bit simplistic. While there, check the review on CJ Rehnquist's new book on the election of 1876; a good warning as to the limitations of "law office history" or even originalist judging as any.]
Finally, I welcome any free stuff. This includes sample music CDs to promote musicals, address labels, and catalogs trying make me spend more money. Okay, that isn't always a good thing.
I also got my Edwards Campaign DVD, timely, I guess, since Sen. Kerry was today reported to have the delegates needed for the nomination. It is somewhat hard to flip through, but it's a good idea with a typically personal/down to earth interview, campaign commercials, a slide slow, personal message, and linkage to his website. The DVD was "free" with a $10 contribution [$35 would get you a copy of his book, also a good idea], and as noted, I used the $13 I received from a CD lawsuit payout to buy it. Kerry doesn't seem to have this sort of thing (he does have clothing and so forth) ... he should think about it. It's easier than downloading stuff off the website, a bit more personal, and is a cute little "gift" for supplying a small donation.
[Update: The middle road taken by the participants as a whole in a Nation article on outsourcing suggests a problem I had with Edwards' emphasis on trade limitations. Bit simplistic. While there, check the review on CJ Rehnquist's new book on the election of 1876; a good warning as to the limitations of "law office history" or even originalist judging as any.]
Finally, I welcome any free stuff. This includes sample music CDs to promote musicals, address labels, and catalogs trying make me spend more money. Okay, that isn't always a good thing.
TV Update: Echostar (Direct TV) and Viacom solved their differences ... David Letterman has returned! Game Over (Wednesday 8PM UPN) is billed as the first Prime Time show that solely uses computer generated images (CGI). Reboot was the true pioneer in CGI, a Saturday Morning Cartoon with creative storylines, fully formed characters, and eventually, a serious story arc that is more often seen in anime than regular animated cartoons. I was a bit hooked on it and the email addy for this blog is a takeoff of one of the characters. It ended badly -- new episodes were funded, a mixed bag, and then it ended with a cliffhanger that never was resolved!
[Update: I caught some of the show ... a bit lame though Patrick Washburn (Puddy from Seinfeld, now Lydia's boyfriend on Less Than Perfect, is always fun.).]
---
The Barbarian Invasions: This won the 2003 Best Foreign Film Academy Award (Canada/Quebec). The movie is a sequel of sorts to The Decline of the American Empire (which I did not see, but apparently it is a bit of a talkfest, not quite as deep as the title implies), and the gang of fun loving academics come together again to be there for their dying friend. Roger Ebert suggests that few want to see a film where someone has a hard time dying (except, perhaps, if Mel Gibson directs), though I think that's the problem here -- things (with a lot of help with his son's money) are a bit too perfect. And, though Remy went to Burlington for medical treatment, Gov. Dean did not have a cameo!
The characters and dialogue still are adult and intelligent, the dramatic moments still present, but it all has a sense of unreality that troubled me some. It also was a bit too flippant. Still, in a day where it's so much trouble to get medicinal marijuana, it's nice to see that some can get medicinal heroin (go to the police station, ask the local narcotic detective ...) without too much trouble. The title itself is a metaphor made after a clip of the attack on the twin towers is shown (will the attacks be but a first of a stream of "barbarian invasions?"). I don't know if the film quite earned the right to such a weighty metaphor, but there is enough to it that the audience still respects its use. Perhaps, enough that it won an Oscar, though I think the fact it was Canadian (and the other nominees a tad obscure) helped some as well.
---
News: More on how the Bush Administration inhibited democracy in Latin America because they didn't like the democratically elected leadership. A satirical look at current events that is funny enough that I just might put it on my blogroll. It is especially tragic when nonmilitary die in overseas conflicts, including a reporter in Haiti and a human rights activist specializing in women rights (one of the victims of those pretending to be Iraqi police). [Update: Some reports that it might have been a real police officer. See, e.g., here with fuller story about victim.]
[Update: I caught some of the show ... a bit lame though Patrick Washburn (Puddy from Seinfeld, now Lydia's boyfriend on Less Than Perfect, is always fun.).]
---
The Barbarian Invasions: This won the 2003 Best Foreign Film Academy Award (Canada/Quebec). The movie is a sequel of sorts to The Decline of the American Empire (which I did not see, but apparently it is a bit of a talkfest, not quite as deep as the title implies), and the gang of fun loving academics come together again to be there for their dying friend. Roger Ebert suggests that few want to see a film where someone has a hard time dying (except, perhaps, if Mel Gibson directs), though I think that's the problem here -- things (with a lot of help with his son's money) are a bit too perfect. And, though Remy went to Burlington for medical treatment, Gov. Dean did not have a cameo!
The characters and dialogue still are adult and intelligent, the dramatic moments still present, but it all has a sense of unreality that troubled me some. It also was a bit too flippant. Still, in a day where it's so much trouble to get medicinal marijuana, it's nice to see that some can get medicinal heroin (go to the police station, ask the local narcotic detective ...) without too much trouble. The title itself is a metaphor made after a clip of the attack on the twin towers is shown (will the attacks be but a first of a stream of "barbarian invasions?"). I don't know if the film quite earned the right to such a weighty metaphor, but there is enough to it that the audience still respects its use. Perhaps, enough that it won an Oscar, though I think the fact it was Canadian (and the other nominees a tad obscure) helped some as well.
---
News: More on how the Bush Administration inhibited democracy in Latin America because they didn't like the democratically elected leadership. A satirical look at current events that is funny enough that I just might put it on my blogroll. It is especially tragic when nonmilitary die in overseas conflicts, including a reporter in Haiti and a human rights activist specializing in women rights (one of the victims of those pretending to be Iraqi police). [Update: Some reports that it might have been a real police officer. See, e.g., here with fuller story about victim.]
Wednesday, March 10, 2004
Well, I'm pretty forceful in expressing my opposition to the Bush administration. And there is a certain danger, which I actually turned into almost reality, that because I consider the policies extremist, that I myself become an extremist. And that actually -- if that happens, then I have failed because I think that I am -- I believe in an open society ["nobody has -- is in possession of the truth, and therefore you need a critical process"], I recognize that I may be wrong -- and in fact, I'm admitting that I may actually be actively wrong by being so rabid -- but I feel that I have to state my view in a very straightforward -- and I feel passionately about it.
-- George Soros
-- George Soros
One of those moments: A day is truly worth living if there is at least one truly amusing, thought provoking, or deep moment special to it -- hopefully all of the above. An example occurred as I was on the subway coming home today. On the way out, I heard someone tell her someone who asked her occupation that she was in marketing ... for Philip Morris. "Philip Morris?" Yes, Philip Morris. This led me to think, as I trudged through the teeming masses, of various follow-ups ... "You know, I help market cancer, and so forth." Oh, did I say that a twisted sense of humor is a must, as well? Just a few pearls of wisdom I supply free of charge.
---
More on Martha: Celebrity Justice is generally atypical justice, but it does provide some insights into the general activities of the system itself. An article that looks at the sentencing procedure using Martha Stewart a guide (the article assumes she will get a higher sentence than many other sources) is such an example. Not only do we learn that very few actually win on appeal (a tiny amount get a full acquittal at the end of the day), but some of the troubling principles applied. For instance, there is the well known principle that even if you later show remorse, using your constitutional right to a trial (including if there is a decent chance for a lesser sentence or even an acquittal) will get you in trouble. Less well known is that even elements of the "crime" not proven beyond a reasonable doubt very well might be weighed in sentencing. And, often quite constitutionally so.
More on the intricacies and pratfalls of criminal appeals.
Tuesday, March 09, 2004
David Letterman Deprivation: Though it apparently is not of much interest to my daily paper, a contractual dispute between Direct TV and Viacom has resulted in a blackout of various stations in my areas (the exact contours depends on the locale), including: CBS, Comedy Central, BET [forgot that one! Boondocks will be glad.], MTV, VH-1, Nickelodean, and Noggin Network. This followed another dispute between YES Network (Yankees) that resulted in my need to listen to the games on the radio; I need to do the same for Mets games when I'm visiting my mom because of the increased fees required to have FSNY coverage. I know I'm a bit too young to be nostalgic, but this sort of thing was not a problem in the past. The games were on broadcast t.v. and CBS was not blocked. In fact, I think a local station like CBS should be required via some sort of "must carry" rule, or the corporation involved should pay a lot more than they do now to use public airwaves.
TV Update: Talking about TV, I caught an amusing new series entitled Significant Others (Bravo, Tu 9:30PM) about couples dealing with relationship issues. The cast of mostly unknowns came off well. I also caught some of the press conference of the formation of a new PAC entitled (this is serious, but still funny) Godless Americans PAC. Idealistic bunch ... amusing problem -- the fact that a candidate would not want to be endorsed by them. This led to a whole exchange on how they might formulate a quid pro quo in order not to do so!
---
Best of JET: I was perusing my blog and found an old post of mine [I don't keep a copy of most of what I write online, so I guess future biographers will just have to do with an incomplete account of my life's opus.] that seems to fit the current times as good as any. It is entitled God's (or Nature's) Law Enforcement ... I have been told it has a bit of Camus to it, but (though I found The Plague quite rewarding) it was in no way consciously influenced by him.
---
Trivia ... Why are storks associated with babies
TV Update: Talking about TV, I caught an amusing new series entitled Significant Others (Bravo, Tu 9:30PM) about couples dealing with relationship issues. The cast of mostly unknowns came off well. I also caught some of the press conference of the formation of a new PAC entitled (this is serious, but still funny) Godless Americans PAC. Idealistic bunch ... amusing problem -- the fact that a candidate would not want to be endorsed by them. This led to a whole exchange on how they might formulate a quid pro quo in order not to do so!
---
Best of JET: I was perusing my blog and found an old post of mine [I don't keep a copy of most of what I write online, so I guess future biographers will just have to do with an incomplete account of my life's opus.] that seems to fit the current times as good as any. It is entitled God's (or Nature's) Law Enforcement ... I have been told it has a bit of Camus to it, but (though I found The Plague quite rewarding) it was in no way consciously influenced by him.
---
Trivia ... Why are storks associated with babies
Monday, March 08, 2004
The people of Iraq, striving to reclaim their freedom, which was usurped by the previous tyrannical regime, rejecting violence and coercion in all their forms, and particularly when used as instruments of governance, have determined that they shall hereafter remain a free people governed under the rule of law.
These people, affirming today their respect for international law, especially having been amongst the founders of the United Nations, working to reclaim their legitimate place among nations, have endeavored at the same time to preserve the unity of their homeland in a spirit of fraternity and solidarity in order to draw the features of the future new Iraq, and to establish the mechanisms aiming, amongst other aims, to erase the effects of racist and sectarian policies and practices.
- opening of provisional Iraqi Constitution; does the U.S. also respect "international law?" Did it when it repeated aided the "previous tyrannical regime?" Does it "reject[] violence and coercion?" Is its constitutional vision one that is closely intertwined with the UN or world community, the latter of which is something its Declaration of Independence did appeal to?
--
Book Review: I have recently read a compilation of Constitutional Law Stories edited by Michael C. Dorf. The word "stories" is apt -- though the Supreme Court take cases these days mainly for their broader implications [which has troubling implication itself; see, e.g., here], individual cases have their own "stories" that are of interest and help in miniature to examine the broader issues. So is the case here; though some of the chapters are better than others, on the whole, the book provides an interesting and thought provoking analysis of some of the top rulings in constitutional history. The lay reader and those who have examined many of these opinions/issues in detail both will benefit from this volume. Each chapter is an independent discussion, so one can pick and choose among those that are of particular interest. Overall, a good addition to one's library or reading list.
---
News: I discuss various issues involved in the Martha Stewart verdict, including comparisons to her acts and those of President Bush, here. Two Supreme Court rulings handed down today are dealt with here. Sadly, the long expected death (suicide) of monologuist Spalding Gray was confirmed when his body was found. The newly appointed UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is discussed here.
These people, affirming today their respect for international law, especially having been amongst the founders of the United Nations, working to reclaim their legitimate place among nations, have endeavored at the same time to preserve the unity of their homeland in a spirit of fraternity and solidarity in order to draw the features of the future new Iraq, and to establish the mechanisms aiming, amongst other aims, to erase the effects of racist and sectarian policies and practices.
- opening of provisional Iraqi Constitution; does the U.S. also respect "international law?" Did it when it repeated aided the "previous tyrannical regime?" Does it "reject[] violence and coercion?" Is its constitutional vision one that is closely intertwined with the UN or world community, the latter of which is something its Declaration of Independence did appeal to?
--
Book Review: I have recently read a compilation of Constitutional Law Stories edited by Michael C. Dorf. The word "stories" is apt -- though the Supreme Court take cases these days mainly for their broader implications [which has troubling implication itself; see, e.g., here], individual cases have their own "stories" that are of interest and help in miniature to examine the broader issues. So is the case here; though some of the chapters are better than others, on the whole, the book provides an interesting and thought provoking analysis of some of the top rulings in constitutional history. The lay reader and those who have examined many of these opinions/issues in detail both will benefit from this volume. Each chapter is an independent discussion, so one can pick and choose among those that are of particular interest. Overall, a good addition to one's library or reading list.
---
News: I discuss various issues involved in the Martha Stewart verdict, including comparisons to her acts and those of President Bush, here. Two Supreme Court rulings handed down today are dealt with here. Sadly, the long expected death (suicide) of monologuist Spalding Gray was confirmed when his body was found. The newly appointed UN High Commissioner for Human Rights is discussed here.
Sunday, March 07, 2004
Justice Blackmun Papers Released: As I note here, though it's important to remember that public officials are not average citizens, to have respect for their office, it is also important to sometimes keep in mind the more human aspects of their personalities. A public official is not just a machine, but a human personality, and this is both interesting and important in that it affects how s/he serves the public. Therefore, it useful that Justice Blackmun's papers are being released, as agreed upon, five years after his death along with interviews with a former law clerk that were part of an oral history project. Four hours of the interviews were aired over the weekend (a bit too concerned with his retirement), and are accessible with further background materials here.
A modest, shy, hard working, and somewhat tentative individual (he never quite was sure if it would have been better if he went into medicine), Justice Blackmun was an ideal public servant. Others on the bench overshadowed him, but that only made him that much easier to relate to. He is best known for writing Roe v. Wade (and for some, his dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, now the law of the land), but his career is much richer than that. Over time, his concern for the "little people," average individuals in need of justice truly showed itself. As Justice Blackmun noted "It's their [the people's] Supreme Court." And, in the end, he was their (our) justice.
---
Good Snack: Hummus ... especially on Ritz Crackers.
---
Excellent analysis of President Bush by a disheartened Republican can be found here. Putting aside the subject matter of this particular post, the guy in general deserves a regular column in some major magazine. He is consistently excellent, if perhaps a bit too eloquently expansive sometimes. A bit of the William Buckley Jr. disease, perhaps. lol.
A modest, shy, hard working, and somewhat tentative individual (he never quite was sure if it would have been better if he went into medicine), Justice Blackmun was an ideal public servant. Others on the bench overshadowed him, but that only made him that much easier to relate to. He is best known for writing Roe v. Wade (and for some, his dissent in Bowers v. Hardwick, now the law of the land), but his career is much richer than that. Over time, his concern for the "little people," average individuals in need of justice truly showed itself. As Justice Blackmun noted "It's their [the people's] Supreme Court." And, in the end, he was their (our) justice.
---
Good Snack: Hummus ... especially on Ritz Crackers.
---
Excellent analysis of President Bush by a disheartened Republican can be found here. Putting aside the subject matter of this particular post, the guy in general deserves a regular column in some major magazine. He is consistently excellent, if perhaps a bit too eloquently expansive sometimes. A bit of the William Buckley Jr. disease, perhaps. lol.
Saturday, March 06, 2004
Martha Stewart: Talking about InstaPundit, one of his readers quipped that "she has been found guilty of covering up crimes the government couldn't prove she committed." This is in reference to the fact that the insider trading charge was dropped by the judge, so she was punished for covering up something they couldn't prove. I don't claim to know the particulars, since honestly I don't fully care, but this fact is not particularly remarkable. Quite often, police use indirect means to prosecute, and the same applies when big boys and girls are involved.
Some consistently oppose the practice, but many now defending Martha wouldn't be too upset if it was some petty drug dealer in the dock. A message is being sent, and in this day and age, a message that you shouldn't obstruct governmental investigations or play fast and loose with regulatory rules is not necessarily a bad thing, is it? I leave the particulars to the experts ... she might not deserve punishment. But, the particular charges are not patently unjust in my view just because "government couldn't prove she committed" the underlining charge. Good meme to promote, though.
Some consistently oppose the practice, but many now defending Martha wouldn't be too upset if it was some petty drug dealer in the dock. A message is being sent, and in this day and age, a message that you shouldn't obstruct governmental investigations or play fast and loose with regulatory rules is not necessarily a bad thing, is it? I leave the particulars to the experts ... she might not deserve punishment. But, the particular charges are not patently unjust in my view just because "government couldn't prove she committed" the underlining charge. Good meme to promote, though.
InstaPundit Watch ... some of the more stupid comments:
This [after 9/11] is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long. ["This is what Blair gets, and the war critics don't."]
This is what InstaPundit doesn't get: war critics realize that the world changed after 9/11, but not SO much that an ill advised war based on poor intelligence, bad planning, and sneering at the world community is a good thing. It clearly is a matter of a different mindset, one that leads many (like the anti-communists of the old) to support this President, even though they fully know he is doing a poor job in many respects domestically and even internationally. I feel sorry for Andrew Sullivan -- a "deal killer" for him is not respecting this mindset, but so is cynically depriving people (read gays) of constitutional rights for political reasons. The devil or the deep blue sea, hmm Andy?
And Rush Limbaugh would be off the air for much less than this [latest targeted Howard Stern material] -- in fact, he was taken off ESPN for much less than this, with no noticeable hue and cry from Stern's current defenders.
Well, actually, some of his defenders on the free speech side were upset that Rush was fired. I, for one, felt he should not have been. Second, the comment is stupid in that (ahem) Rush was fired by private actors, while Stern is being targeted by the government. Do you see the somewhat different problem here?
Hey, the North Koreans like him [Kerry]!
Two things. Yes, it wouldn't be horrible if a dangerous nation with the BOMB might be able to work better with Kerry. Second, again, what exactly is the implication here? Clearly, voting for Kerry is in some fashion voting for the Kim Jong-il. Way to go snide boy! btw Iran in '80 seemed to be more positive about Reagan (waiting until he came to office to let out the hostages, etc.) ... they eventually saw that he was no great prize, didn't they?
LT Smash looks at who's complaining about the Bush commercials and discovers that they've been doing that themselves for quite a while.
Actually, he only talks about two of the critics. There are more families of survivors, firemen, and people in general who are upset about the ads [criticized for other reasons]. And, sure, part of it is that the ads are just part of a wider problem of his failure to do all he can and the use of 9/11 to explain away a ton of problems (bad management of the war and economic decisionmaking, especially). The snide remarks that the critics are just partisan whiners is equally distasteful -- some might be oversensitive, but hell, if you are going to be oversensitive about something ...
Yep. They [The media] want people to forget [about 9/11], so they'll think that stories like Martha and Kobe are actually important -- and so that they'll be more likely to vote for a Democrat.
Yup, vote for Kerry, vote for the biased liberal media! To take the strawman argument, obviously 9/11 and the way it changed our lives, and how we as a nation must respond is an appropriate issue for the election. DUH! I don't think people will "forget" if the President is careful not to use certain emotionally tinged imagery of Ground Zero, do you?
There is a reason why some on the left side of the aisle don't like Instapundit too much ... and it's not just because they disagree with him on substantive issues. This selection from recent posts might be worse than most, but from experience, it isn't totally out of character. And, it's the sort of biased reporting that closes off debate. It's on both sides, sure enough. I'm sensitive to particular forms of it given my beliefs (e.g. my libertarian side leads me to appreciate certain more conservative blogs, even if they [fairly] criticize certain liberal views of which I agree), but the above should be a warning for both sides.
This [after 9/11] is not a time to err on the side of caution; not a time to weigh the risks to an infinite balance; not a time for the cynicism of the worldly wise who favour playing it long. ["This is what Blair gets, and the war critics don't."]
This is what InstaPundit doesn't get: war critics realize that the world changed after 9/11, but not SO much that an ill advised war based on poor intelligence, bad planning, and sneering at the world community is a good thing. It clearly is a matter of a different mindset, one that leads many (like the anti-communists of the old) to support this President, even though they fully know he is doing a poor job in many respects domestically and even internationally. I feel sorry for Andrew Sullivan -- a "deal killer" for him is not respecting this mindset, but so is cynically depriving people (read gays) of constitutional rights for political reasons. The devil or the deep blue sea, hmm Andy?
And Rush Limbaugh would be off the air for much less than this [latest targeted Howard Stern material] -- in fact, he was taken off ESPN for much less than this, with no noticeable hue and cry from Stern's current defenders.
Well, actually, some of his defenders on the free speech side were upset that Rush was fired. I, for one, felt he should not have been. Second, the comment is stupid in that (ahem) Rush was fired by private actors, while Stern is being targeted by the government. Do you see the somewhat different problem here?
Hey, the North Koreans like him [Kerry]!
Two things. Yes, it wouldn't be horrible if a dangerous nation with the BOMB might be able to work better with Kerry. Second, again, what exactly is the implication here? Clearly, voting for Kerry is in some fashion voting for the Kim Jong-il. Way to go snide boy! btw Iran in '80 seemed to be more positive about Reagan (waiting until he came to office to let out the hostages, etc.) ... they eventually saw that he was no great prize, didn't they?
LT Smash looks at who's complaining about the Bush commercials and discovers that they've been doing that themselves for quite a while.
Actually, he only talks about two of the critics. There are more families of survivors, firemen, and people in general who are upset about the ads [criticized for other reasons]. And, sure, part of it is that the ads are just part of a wider problem of his failure to do all he can and the use of 9/11 to explain away a ton of problems (bad management of the war and economic decisionmaking, especially). The snide remarks that the critics are just partisan whiners is equally distasteful -- some might be oversensitive, but hell, if you are going to be oversensitive about something ...
Yep. They [The media] want people to forget [about 9/11], so they'll think that stories like Martha and Kobe are actually important -- and so that they'll be more likely to vote for a Democrat.
Yup, vote for Kerry, vote for the biased liberal media! To take the strawman argument, obviously 9/11 and the way it changed our lives, and how we as a nation must respond is an appropriate issue for the election. DUH! I don't think people will "forget" if the President is careful not to use certain emotionally tinged imagery of Ground Zero, do you?
There is a reason why some on the left side of the aisle don't like Instapundit too much ... and it's not just because they disagree with him on substantive issues. This selection from recent posts might be worse than most, but from experience, it isn't totally out of character. And, it's the sort of biased reporting that closes off debate. It's on both sides, sure enough. I'm sensitive to particular forms of it given my beliefs (e.g. my libertarian side leads me to appreciate certain more conservative blogs, even if they [fairly] criticize certain liberal views of which I agree), but the above should be a warning for both sides.
Friday, March 05, 2004
Comments From The Right: I just checked Volokh Conspiracy [good website to get a conservative/libertarian view of legal matters and some public affairs], and saw a couple partisan pieces by libertarian Randy Barnett. The second deals with conservative backlash to big government President Bush. It quotes three strands of thought, two reminding people the importance of beating Kerry, one because hey the likes of the leadership of Iran and Syria would just LOVE if he wins. We get a list chock full of the horribles a President Kerry will bring.
The other piece was worse since it had more personal commentary, mostly Dean bashing, and talking about how horrible the 60s were. He quotes (clearly supportingly) how cynical and selfish the people represented by Dean truly were. And, ends about how back then "there was only one voice heard" unlike today in which "thanks to talk radio, the internet, and now FoxNews, there is a genuine contest." Oh please -- one voice? One wonders how President Nixon was elected given the uniformity of public thought in the era. I thought Professor Barnett, who I met once and who has some interesting libertarian views, was above this type of crap.
The other piece was worse since it had more personal commentary, mostly Dean bashing, and talking about how horrible the 60s were. He quotes (clearly supportingly) how cynical and selfish the people represented by Dean truly were. And, ends about how back then "there was only one voice heard" unlike today in which "thanks to talk radio, the internet, and now FoxNews, there is a genuine contest." Oh please -- one voice? One wonders how President Nixon was elected given the uniformity of public thought in the era. I thought Professor Barnett, who I met once and who has some interesting libertarian views, was above this type of crap.
Owner v. Guardian (and Passion v. Contemplation): When I first responded to an article discussing how the move to replace the word pet (companion animal ) "owner" with "guardian" is a reflection of our anthromorphising of animals, I let my passions get away with me a bit. [For instance, the post implies the author doesn't think animals are moral objects, which is not fair.] It's a occupational hazard for those who frequent message boards, though I think there is a certain truth that comes out all the same. I provide it as an example in all its unedited glory. Lol. Still, if only they had a delete function!
Besides, I think I ended up with my underlining principle coming through: pets are not mere things, they are complex thinking beings that require us to have certain moral obligations that in some sense do make them a sort of "person." And, though labels have theirs limits, "guardian" does suggest what is at stake. You "own" a television set; perhaps you should do more than "own" a dog. Finally, the author does try to prove too much by implying society's humanizing of animals (again, I think he exaggerates for effect) was somehow a recent development or that on some level it was largely a bad one. I think not, and very few, even those who he is directly disputing truly equalize humans with animals. My annoyance therefore had more than a core of truth.
The fact I was guilty a bit as well doesn't save him, especially since he had more time to contemplate things. And, got a stipend for his efforts!
---
Under The Tuscan Sun: I recently watched this movie on DVD, having already seen it in the theater. The reason was largely because it has an audio commentary (by the director/screenwriter) track, which I consistently find quite interesting. Not only does watching the film without the original audio provide a new look, but the commentary allows you to hear a behind the scenes discussion that supplies an additional level to the film experience.
The director/screenwriter does a good job here, and it is specifically valuable in this case because it helps you better respect the complexities of a film that is on some level a predictable story of a divorced woman getting over heartache by buying a villa in Tuscany. All the same, it is much more than that, though Diane Lane and the scenery alone make it worth watching. As the commentary notes, the Diane Lane storyline was being developed already when the director read the book, and the book served mainly as useful scenery and metaphor.
While at the video store, I also passed Soldier's Girl, which is based on a true story. A tragic love story with some "behind the scenes" commentary supplied on the DVD. The makeup featurette just might surprise you. I also saw that the School of Rock DVD has a commentary track with Jack Black, and given his style and performance at the Academy Awards (one of the few things after the opening worth watching), I'm looking forward to listening to that too!
Besides, I think I ended up with my underlining principle coming through: pets are not mere things, they are complex thinking beings that require us to have certain moral obligations that in some sense do make them a sort of "person." And, though labels have theirs limits, "guardian" does suggest what is at stake. You "own" a television set; perhaps you should do more than "own" a dog. Finally, the author does try to prove too much by implying society's humanizing of animals (again, I think he exaggerates for effect) was somehow a recent development or that on some level it was largely a bad one. I think not, and very few, even those who he is directly disputing truly equalize humans with animals. My annoyance therefore had more than a core of truth.
The fact I was guilty a bit as well doesn't save him, especially since he had more time to contemplate things. And, got a stipend for his efforts!
---
Under The Tuscan Sun: I recently watched this movie on DVD, having already seen it in the theater. The reason was largely because it has an audio commentary (by the director/screenwriter) track, which I consistently find quite interesting. Not only does watching the film without the original audio provide a new look, but the commentary allows you to hear a behind the scenes discussion that supplies an additional level to the film experience.
The director/screenwriter does a good job here, and it is specifically valuable in this case because it helps you better respect the complexities of a film that is on some level a predictable story of a divorced woman getting over heartache by buying a villa in Tuscany. All the same, it is much more than that, though Diane Lane and the scenery alone make it worth watching. As the commentary notes, the Diane Lane storyline was being developed already when the director read the book, and the book served mainly as useful scenery and metaphor.
While at the video store, I also passed Soldier's Girl, which is based on a true story. A tragic love story with some "behind the scenes" commentary supplied on the DVD. The makeup featurette just might surprise you. I also saw that the School of Rock DVD has a commentary track with Jack Black, and given his style and performance at the Academy Awards (one of the few things after the opening worth watching), I'm looking forward to listening to that too!
Thursday, March 04, 2004
Politics: The Kerry v. Bush Race has started ... sigh ... this looks to be messy. The President's first ads use images of 9/11 and Ground Zero to promote him as a strong and resolute [too firmly resolute? you decide] leader in troubling times. They have gotten some criticism from fairly interested parties (you know, victim families and such) as tawdry politicizing of the tragedy. Two amusing aspects: the same group that pushes back the Republican NYC Convention to September says Kerry is the one politicizing the issue. Second, the fire fighters in the ads are from out of town. On a somewhat lighter subject, here's some alternatives to the currently proposed anti-gay marriage amendment.
To throw the President a bone, some ridiculed his State of the Union mention of steroids in sports. The issue is now a big issue in my local paper given some top baseball stars are accused of using the substance. And, baseball is our national past time. It's not a trivial issue, especially given his former connection to the Texas Rangers. The connection to illegal drug use in particular is also evident. I surely disagree on the particulars on how to deal with the issue, but, yes, he was right to bring it up. Oh, things like the environment might have been talked to as well ...
To throw the President a bone, some ridiculed his State of the Union mention of steroids in sports. The issue is now a big issue in my local paper given some top baseball stars are accused of using the substance. And, baseball is our national past time. It's not a trivial issue, especially given his former connection to the Texas Rangers. The connection to illegal drug use in particular is also evident. I surely disagree on the particulars on how to deal with the issue, but, yes, he was right to bring it up. Oh, things like the environment might have been talked to as well ...
West Wing: Maybe, I should start to having a running "what I said about issues touched upon in West Wing this week" segment. After all, the politicalization of scientific funding/research has been a concern of mine, and the politics of the judicial nomination process surely has been. A word ... citing Supreme Court justices that were recess appointed, justices that later easily were confirmed for that matter, is not quite an answer to those worried about recess appointments of controversial lower appointees the Senate has already blocked or held up. I'm glad no major social problem was solved this week (such as Social Security) as is happening a bit too often these days. I also enjoy Toby's new aide and the Vice President is a keeper ... remember, Gary Cole previously played the role as Mike Brady in a television movie.
Talking about ongoing concerns, it is good to know that the new touch screen voting systems seemed to work well yesterday, their first big test. The problem of security is ongoing, but it's a good start.
Talking about ongoing concerns, it is good to know that the new touch screen voting systems seemed to work well yesterday, their first big test. The problem of security is ongoing, but it's a good start.
Wednesday, March 03, 2004
Various: Amy Goodman (Democracy Now!) put forth a good alternate view on the whole Haiti mess, as suggested by her show's website. I discussed the limitations of Supreme Court review here, receiving a couple interesting replies. I'm wary about plans by the federal government to loosen restrictions on same sex public education as suggested by an old essay of mine.
And, surely President Kerrywould assure us of various important things, even with limitations inherent in the political situation (and his own personality) ... see here for a good summary ... but let's not take this as a reason to just paper over problems or assumed problems that Kerry must face as a candidate. For instance, the "flip flop" issue (an abbreviated list is offered here). We change our minds, especially as information and our understanding of the world develops over time. In some cases, the alleged change is not really a change. Still, it's an issue Kerry must face, especially in his worse "overnuance" moments. Ignoring it or claiming the other side is just bashing him is not the way to win. And this is from someone who is fully aware that a win is essential.
Anyway, I think I need a break from this whole race ... how about those Mets? Just might have a decent season ... got a few pretty good pick-ups ... dare to dream of .500?
---
Happy Birthday ... Jessica Biel and Casimir Pulaski, especially for you Chicago residents.
So It Begins Wednesday: mmm Julia Stiles has this nice black number on David Letterman. Okay now ... I seriously wish the primary season (well, okay ... yes, other states get to vote and all ... expect Kucinich to get a few more delegates) didn't end so soon, and that it was more of a race. Sen. Kerry did well in the end, most think, by getting through the Dean Boomlet days. And, adapted his campaign to answer competition. All the same, I don't think he was properly vetted, and we had some serious candidates this time around, candidates that deserved more of a look. And, too many Democratic voters were and still are worried about Kerry for him to clinch things on March 2. We also will be thoroughly sick of Kerry vs. Bush long before November, doncha think?
Well, I do like Teresa Heinz-Kerry. She's a keeper, and I don't even like ketchup. Oh, it's nice that Dean won Vt, so each of my candidates won a state. Now, let's hope my candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes. Anyway, since from the beginning ... with a moment of indecision inbetween ... Kerry was the frontrunner, why not just make it Kerry/Edwards? It actually has a lot of good things going for it, though Kerry/McCain is refreshingly outrageous, and other choices might work. For now, I'm looking toward baseball season.
Well, I do like Teresa Heinz-Kerry. She's a keeper, and I don't even like ketchup. Oh, it's nice that Dean won Vt, so each of my candidates won a state. Now, let's hope my candidate wins at least 270 electoral votes. Anyway, since from the beginning ... with a moment of indecision inbetween ... Kerry was the frontrunner, why not just make it Kerry/Edwards? It actually has a lot of good things going for it, though Kerry/McCain is refreshingly outrageous, and other choices might work. For now, I'm looking toward baseball season.
Tuesday, March 02, 2004
Super Tuesday: With John Kerry being expected to accomplish a LOTR sort sweep, I did my civic duty ... voted for Sen. Edwards. I went to the nearby public school qua polling place, signed my name, and went into that nostalgic connection to the past -- the manual lever polling machine. I noticed something a bit unexpected -- you checked individual delegates (two of Sen. Edwards' delegates are local public officials of mine, not that I got anything in the mail or anything from their offices to vote for the guy ... excuse me? a bit more effort please). For state elections, we in NY get useful booklets on the candidates with a discussion on the voting process itself. I think the same should be the case for presidential elections, including in local papers. It is a shame how we still don't make it as easy and understandable as it could be, and truly do our best to promote basic aspects of citizenship.
Talking about my candidate, David Brooks criticizes Sen. Edwards for talking about poverty the wrong way ... Brooks wants the focus to be on values, not jobs or money. [Toss in some welfare bashing and the implication the poor are so much better now under welfare reform.] This is interesting in a nation whose founders felt the two were deeply intertwined. The reason why those without property could not be trusted with the vote, the argument went, was that they had nothing to defend, so would not have the virtue needed to be independent citizens. As usual, they had a point.
You can talk all about values, and surely it is an important subject that Democrats too often are loath to discuss, but surely having a good job, education (another thing the Democrats focus on), and so forth are essential in building an ethos that furthers such values. And, Edwards not only talks about how he was an American success story (by working hard, studying, and believing in himself), but talks about how voters will trust a person like him ... the "values of a small Southern mill town" subtext is apparent. I'd take this over the AWOL "compassionate conservative" of President Bush that Brooks almost amusingly pines over.
---
Haiti: Not too long ago, I saw a very good documentary about the attempted coup against President Chavez of Venezuela, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The Bush Administration right away supported the rebels, even though Chavez was democratically elected, and the coup was clearly illegal. The situation was less messy than in Haiti, but somewhat similar, in that the society was deeply divided with Chavez having much support among the poor. On the other hand, he was very controversial, and ruled with a heavy hand that resulted in some justified criticism. He now is ridiculing the President of the United States as an unelected official, one that he will outlast. Given past events, I don't think we can blame the guy.
The U.S. looked pretty bad, for those who paid attention to what to most amounted to a sideshow (though Venezuela's oil and more stable society made it harder to just write it off as another Third World basket case), and the same applies to Haiti. Again, we supported the rebels, again we seemed to ignore that a democratically elected official was being chased out of office by violent means. What message does this send?
Also, we too have a greatly divided nation with a President who came into office under a cloud, and one who many strongly oppose. So, we have a chance, if not an obligation, to show that there is another way besides violence and coups. The fact we aren't dealing with angels is besides the point ... such is how things work in the real world. The important thing is the process ... and looking the other way as Aristide is chased out of his own country while thugs benefit is not the process I'd hope this country would want to be seen to support.
[After I first wrote this, I read a pessimistic view of the current situation as reported by the NYT. Simply put: those in control are not the democratically elected government or those next in the line of succession once the President resigns, but "men with guns." Or rather, those who used them in the past to reap disorder and terror. The more things change ...]
Talking about my candidate, David Brooks criticizes Sen. Edwards for talking about poverty the wrong way ... Brooks wants the focus to be on values, not jobs or money. [Toss in some welfare bashing and the implication the poor are so much better now under welfare reform.] This is interesting in a nation whose founders felt the two were deeply intertwined. The reason why those without property could not be trusted with the vote, the argument went, was that they had nothing to defend, so would not have the virtue needed to be independent citizens. As usual, they had a point.
You can talk all about values, and surely it is an important subject that Democrats too often are loath to discuss, but surely having a good job, education (another thing the Democrats focus on), and so forth are essential in building an ethos that furthers such values. And, Edwards not only talks about how he was an American success story (by working hard, studying, and believing in himself), but talks about how voters will trust a person like him ... the "values of a small Southern mill town" subtext is apparent. I'd take this over the AWOL "compassionate conservative" of President Bush that Brooks almost amusingly pines over.
---
Haiti: Not too long ago, I saw a very good documentary about the attempted coup against President Chavez of Venezuela, The Revolution Will Not Be Televised. The Bush Administration right away supported the rebels, even though Chavez was democratically elected, and the coup was clearly illegal. The situation was less messy than in Haiti, but somewhat similar, in that the society was deeply divided with Chavez having much support among the poor. On the other hand, he was very controversial, and ruled with a heavy hand that resulted in some justified criticism. He now is ridiculing the President of the United States as an unelected official, one that he will outlast. Given past events, I don't think we can blame the guy.
The U.S. looked pretty bad, for those who paid attention to what to most amounted to a sideshow (though Venezuela's oil and more stable society made it harder to just write it off as another Third World basket case), and the same applies to Haiti. Again, we supported the rebels, again we seemed to ignore that a democratically elected official was being chased out of office by violent means. What message does this send?
Also, we too have a greatly divided nation with a President who came into office under a cloud, and one who many strongly oppose. So, we have a chance, if not an obligation, to show that there is another way besides violence and coups. The fact we aren't dealing with angels is besides the point ... such is how things work in the real world. The important thing is the process ... and looking the other way as Aristide is chased out of his own country while thugs benefit is not the process I'd hope this country would want to be seen to support.
[After I first wrote this, I read a pessimistic view of the current situation as reported by the NYT. Simply put: those in control are not the democratically elected government or those next in the line of succession once the President resigns, but "men with guns." Or rather, those who used them in the past to reap disorder and terror. The more things change ...]
Monday, March 01, 2004
[O]ne way or another the U.S., either through its action or inaction, enabled a coup to dispose of a democratically elected leader. Yeah, yeah, I know Aristide is no Mandala, but doesn't the principle of the thing bother the Bushies at all? Aren't they the ones running on Moral Clarity and the spreading of democracy far and wide? Just what kind of message is this sending (and I know they're big on setting examples) to goons all across the world? Go right ahead and topple your democratically elected leader, just as long as the Bush administration don't like him America won't lift a finger.
-- Battlepanda
I am honestly overwhelmed by the number of blogs out there ... one can get lost trying to keep up with them as shown by the excellent insight I found on the blog of someone who left a comment on Legal Fiction. She also is a fan of TNR, referring to a new article there on Haiti. I share the views put forth by both. It is the definition of nuance that something doesn't have an easy answer, and Haiti is a clear example -- you can argue that Aristide had to go (or Saddam for that matter), but be upset on how it was accomplished. The whole thing is rather symbolic in this particular case as well -- as Legal Fiction himself said when comparing recent Bush rhetoric with how we treated the Haiti situation. And so it goes.
---
Super Tuesday: I need not be coy ... I'm voting for Sen. Edwards tomorrow. It really amounts to a protest vote, since it's pretty clear he is a long shot. Still, this was true about Dean, who I liked a lot for various reasons, and even for Gen. Clark, who I liked too. I don't like Sen. Kerry. I respect him, but don't really care for him. I expect he has a decent shot, but worry about him. And, he continues to piss me off. That's distastefully blunt, but it is the emotion that comes to mind once too often. Let me give you a couple examples.
For the second time in as many debates, Sen. Kerry brought up his plan to add 40 thousand more troops to Iraq. This might be necessary. Anyway, it surely is controversial, since many feel we have too many already, and feel if anything we should drop off some (let more UN troops handle it, let's say) after we nominally hand power over to the Iraqis. So, it would be nice if he said how he'd do it. Rep. Kucinich, showing he has a role if a forlorn one, called Sen. Kerry on it -- twice. Sen. Kerry just ignores him and goes into his boilerplate anti-Bush spiel. What is the point of being so far ahead, if it doesn't allow you to actually say something besides blather? As I said already, I'm sick of his blather, thoughtful it might be. [I defend against criticism of it here, but really, the guy has a point.]
And then there's gay marriage. Okay ... I admit it is a bit of a side show, though I hold fast to my belief the underlining social issues involved are very important and really matter. Sen. Edwards says "leave it to the states ... if a state accepts it, federal benefits would accrue, but leave it to the states." A bit of a copout, but hey, it's probably the best way out these days. What does Kerry do in the NY Debate? First, he gratuitously says that he personally (when not directly asked, it is a bit stupid to do something like this on controversial issues) doesn't think "marriage" applies to same sex couples [he was married twice, so he'd know, right?], but then adds he went to a same sex "wedding" ceremony, so he's not a bigot or anything. Oh please ... makes him sound like a total hypocrite. He can't stop himself -- he has to overnuance things and then outsmart himself, while complaining when someone calls him on it.
The problem is that he has the delegates and the twenty years in federal office that Edwards does not. Still, he does have his own problems, and doesn't need my vote yet. I'll give it to him when I have to ... for now I offer this:
---
Anyway, what is with this near 60 weather? I guess the Staten Island groundhog might have been right ... a bit of early Spring over here.
-- Battlepanda
I am honestly overwhelmed by the number of blogs out there ... one can get lost trying to keep up with them as shown by the excellent insight I found on the blog of someone who left a comment on Legal Fiction. She also is a fan of TNR, referring to a new article there on Haiti. I share the views put forth by both. It is the definition of nuance that something doesn't have an easy answer, and Haiti is a clear example -- you can argue that Aristide had to go (or Saddam for that matter), but be upset on how it was accomplished. The whole thing is rather symbolic in this particular case as well -- as Legal Fiction himself said when comparing recent Bush rhetoric with how we treated the Haiti situation. And so it goes.
---
Super Tuesday: I need not be coy ... I'm voting for Sen. Edwards tomorrow. It really amounts to a protest vote, since it's pretty clear he is a long shot. Still, this was true about Dean, who I liked a lot for various reasons, and even for Gen. Clark, who I liked too. I don't like Sen. Kerry. I respect him, but don't really care for him. I expect he has a decent shot, but worry about him. And, he continues to piss me off. That's distastefully blunt, but it is the emotion that comes to mind once too often. Let me give you a couple examples.
For the second time in as many debates, Sen. Kerry brought up his plan to add 40 thousand more troops to Iraq. This might be necessary. Anyway, it surely is controversial, since many feel we have too many already, and feel if anything we should drop off some (let more UN troops handle it, let's say) after we nominally hand power over to the Iraqis. So, it would be nice if he said how he'd do it. Rep. Kucinich, showing he has a role if a forlorn one, called Sen. Kerry on it -- twice. Sen. Kerry just ignores him and goes into his boilerplate anti-Bush spiel. What is the point of being so far ahead, if it doesn't allow you to actually say something besides blather? As I said already, I'm sick of his blather, thoughtful it might be. [I defend against criticism of it here, but really, the guy has a point.]
And then there's gay marriage. Okay ... I admit it is a bit of a side show, though I hold fast to my belief the underlining social issues involved are very important and really matter. Sen. Edwards says "leave it to the states ... if a state accepts it, federal benefits would accrue, but leave it to the states." A bit of a copout, but hey, it's probably the best way out these days. What does Kerry do in the NY Debate? First, he gratuitously says that he personally (when not directly asked, it is a bit stupid to do something like this on controversial issues) doesn't think "marriage" applies to same sex couples [he was married twice, so he'd know, right?], but then adds he went to a same sex "wedding" ceremony, so he's not a bigot or anything. Oh please ... makes him sound like a total hypocrite. He can't stop himself -- he has to overnuance things and then outsmart himself, while complaining when someone calls him on it.
The problem is that he has the delegates and the twenty years in federal office that Edwards does not. Still, he does have his own problems, and doesn't need my vote yet. I'll give it to him when I have to ... for now I offer this:
---
Anyway, what is with this near 60 weather? I guess the Staten Island groundhog might have been right ... a bit of early Spring over here.
Politics: Balkanization [2/28] among others discussed the removing of two dissenting voices from the President's bioethics panel (irony of ironies, the removal was argued sometimes as neutral, when it was surely likely not). This is just a part of the administration's hard time in accepting debate, especially when it's politically problematic for them. When this seeps into scientific and intelligence areas, we are really in trouble. Bioethics is inherently divisive, and such a panel MUST be allowed to include dissenting views. This is a troubling example of a broader trend. My comments on the NY Debate are here and Kerry's recent foreign policy speech, here. And lousy or no, the U.S. did not do a great job of dealing with the fall of Aristide. Same old, same old.
---
Oscars: Billy Crystal's open montage and musical numbers were fun but then we had a long period of mostly dullness. The show could have been over before March, if all the technical awards (and a few more, such as song) were handed out to Lord of the Rings all at once. Before 11, if all the awards from New Zealand and Australia were handed out together. Things perked up when the winner for Documentary Short gave an eloquent speech for her work Chernobyl Heart [Tim Robbins gave a nice speech too with a great end bit about victims of abuse.] The performances for "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" (A Mighty Wind) and "Belleville Rendez-ous" (The Triplets of Belleville) really gave a needed energy as things approached hour three. Also, the "words to the 'you're done' instrumental" by Jack Black and Will Farrell was hilarious as well.
The LOTR swept, except for those wherein they weren't nominated. A few "what were they thinking" presenter match-ups (the worse, John Travolta and Sandra Bullock). Charlize Theron has an emotional speech as did Renee Zellweger (the best part of Cold Mountain, but Patricia Clarkson was better). I'm truly annoyed Sean Penn won over Ben Kingsley or Bill Murray ... his overacting didn't match their excellent performances. The winner of the "Short Film" (Live Action) went long. Sofia Coppola was sweet when she accepted her award for Best (Original) Screenplay. And, the winner for Finding Nemo impressed women everywhere (except those who thought it too corny) by sweetly saying how he passed a note to his now wife in school. Overall, the 76th Annual Academy Awards were rather dull.
---
Oscars: Billy Crystal's open montage and musical numbers were fun but then we had a long period of mostly dullness. The show could have been over before March, if all the technical awards (and a few more, such as song) were handed out to Lord of the Rings all at once. Before 11, if all the awards from New Zealand and Australia were handed out together. Things perked up when the winner for Documentary Short gave an eloquent speech for her work Chernobyl Heart [Tim Robbins gave a nice speech too with a great end bit about victims of abuse.] The performances for "A Kiss at the End of the Rainbow" (A Mighty Wind) and "Belleville Rendez-ous" (The Triplets of Belleville) really gave a needed energy as things approached hour three. Also, the "words to the 'you're done' instrumental" by Jack Black and Will Farrell was hilarious as well.
The LOTR swept, except for those wherein they weren't nominated. A few "what were they thinking" presenter match-ups (the worse, John Travolta and Sandra Bullock). Charlize Theron has an emotional speech as did Renee Zellweger (the best part of Cold Mountain, but Patricia Clarkson was better). I'm truly annoyed Sean Penn won over Ben Kingsley or Bill Murray ... his overacting didn't match their excellent performances. The winner of the "Short Film" (Live Action) went long. Sofia Coppola was sweet when she accepted her award for Best (Original) Screenplay. And, the winner for Finding Nemo impressed women everywhere (except those who thought it too corny) by sweetly saying how he passed a note to his now wife in school. Overall, the 76th Annual Academy Awards were rather dull.