The Challenge of Privacy

In a used bookstore, I picked up a late 1960s volume entitled The Price Of Liberty, a collection of essays on "perspectives on civil liberties by members of the ACLU." It's one of those little gems that you pass by in places of that nature, one that I didn't buy at first, but was still in the little "legal" section months later. I have cited it a few times since then. Among its charms, is a prediction (this is in 1968) that computers would within fifteen years be a means to send newspapers, providing banking services, and shopping. A bit premature, but pretty good.

The first chapter is by Harriet F. Pilpel and is entitled "The Challenge of Privacy." It speaks of the threats to privacy (opinion of Douglas) in the modern technological world, including from government watchdogs, especially when dealing with the poor and others who have a special obligation to open their lives to the state. Pipel was in the forefront of the birth control and abortion rights movements. Thus, it is interesting that she but briefly cites Griswold and related privacy over personal decisions. She then goes into an aside on the lack of privacy among the poor, ending that section with a suggestion that the government has an affirmative obligation to protect our rights.

Pipel earlier noted "freedom and personal privacy" are "redundant" -- one cannot exist without the other. Clearly, since people supported and continue to support threats to such privacy, though redundant, it is not patently obvious. At least, not the proper balancing. Such is part of the "challenge." In fact, she later is wary about those who would balance press freedoms via a somewhat lower standard of proof in libel/invasion of privacy cases when "private" facts are involved. See, e.g., Time v. Hill (dissenting opinion), one of many opinions that highlighted the importance of privacy (not always as a constitutional right, but still an important state secured liberty).

And, many cases spoke of the right of the press to report matters of "public concern." The hint that even the press ("no law") is restrained, underlines the importance of privacy rights. It also underlines that privacy is not just a matter of locale, not just a matter of keeping the government out of our homes in respect to searches and seizures. Certain matters are simply private -- the Fourth Amendment this underlines and secures a broader freedom to make private decisions, certain locales of particular importance in this respect. The choices are ours, even if in certain cases they are known to the world. Thus, one case dealt in the press book referenced allowed the media to broadcast illegally obtained (by others) cell phone conversations. At least, if the matter was of public concern.

The ruling did underline the importance of the privacy of our communications, calling to mind the NSA wiretap controversy:

"In a democratic society privacy of communication is essential if citizens are to think and act creatively and constructively. Fear or suspicion that one's speech is being monitored by a stranger, even without the reality of such activity, can have a seriously inhibiting effect upon the willingness to voice critical and constructive ideas." President's Commission on Law Enforcement and Administration of Justice, The Challenge of Crime in a Free Society 202 (1967).

One cannot thrive in a fishbowl -- one's freedom to communicate only thrives with some degree of privacy. This sort of thing is what Justice Douglas' meant in Griswold when he argued that privacy gave life to the enumerated liberties found in the Bill of Rights. And, more generally, when he noted -- like Pipel -- that liberty in this nation boiled down to a right to privacy ... in all its forms. A privacy that the government both threatens and helps secure (as it does all our rights, its very purpose for being).

Quite a "challenge," huh?

Going All The Way

In one of his final entries before moving to Salon, Glenn Greenwald addressed the uncomfortable fact of how the Democrats are going rather softly on the war/occupation of Iraq. As Russ Feingold explained in a Daily Kos diary announcing his opposition to the Warner/Levin "anti-surge" resolution:

We owe it to ourselves to demand action that will bring about change in Iraq, not take us back to a failed status quo.

Democrats in Congress have seemingly forgotten that we were in power when Congress authorized the President to go to war in Iraq. . . . We also have to remember that in November, Americans sent over 30 new Democratic Representatives and eight new Democratic Senators plus a very progressive Independent to fix a failed Iraq policy. The public is craving change in Iraq and a resolution like this one will not cut it. Now is the time for strong action.

In fact, GG cites an opinion piece from John Yoo of all people (co-written with attorney Lynn Chu, who gets top billing):

[B]ehind all the bluster, the one thing all the major Democratic proposals have in common is that they are purely symbolic resolutions, with all the force of a postcard. . . .The fact is, Congress has every power to end the war — if it really wanted to. It has the power of the purse. . . . Not only could Congress cut off money, it could require scheduled troop withdrawals, shrink or eliminate units, or freeze weapons supplies. It could even repeal or amend the authorization to use force it passed in 2002. . . .

The truth is that the Democrats in Congress would rather sit back and let the president take the heat in war than do anything risky. That way they get to prepare for the next election while pointing fingers of blame and spinning conspiracy theories.

This sort of thing does not sit too well -- Yoo is the guy who wrote books discussing how the President didn't need no damn Congress to use force and move around the military. So, this talk about "amending" the authorization is a bit too cute, isn't it? Likewise, if the resolution was "purely symbolic, with all the force of a postcard" why all the concern, the need to filibuster, the remarks from up high that it helps the enemy? Of course, "Congress" includes the Senate, which does not have a Republican-free filibuster. In fact, even though Lieberman seems not to be able to toss the Senate to the dogs, he still holds the balance of power vote-wise. And, cutting funding with troops in the field is not exactly easy politically.

Finally, the last paragraph is clearly blather, underlining the not to be taking on face value nature of the first. It is downright amusing that "pointing fingers of blame" is supposed to be a bad thing or something. The implication, obviously, is that there isn't any. Clearly, yes, it is not so easy to act, and just being on record against the President matters. This is why we have Yoo sympathizers writing editorials talking about such resolutions being constitutionally troubling "no confidence" votes or something. I know we shouldn't give too much (if any) respect to this guy, but GG quoted him. The two also voices sentiments shared by some others, though some of them are johnny-come-latelys, suddenly seeing the light, and wondering why the Dems aren't truly serious?!

Still, his arguments sound somewhat credible. This is because they are up to a point -- taking away the b.s. Congress can do more. Many tend to be risk-adverse, including my own senators (including Chucky Schumer who is on record thinking Iraq will go away by '08). But, resolutions, strong oversight, clearly turning the conversation a different direction, and other things (e.g., Dodd put forth a measure to save habeas, hearings are in place dealing with largely unregulated contractors, etc.) matter. We also have to face up to the limits in Congress as well. But, defeatism is not the way to go. Sen. Feingold has the right sentiment -- the fear of failure is a pretty lame reason not to try.

And, the failures will generally be worth the effort (consider his censure proposal), partially since would underline the reprehensible nature of those who block them. Let the taunts of Yoos embolden us. Getting out of Iraq is the ultimate goal. We cannot allow ourselves to forget that, even though immediate reachable victories and threats (e.g., Iran) might fill our heads. The election suggests we stopped digging the hole. It's time not only to raise a few feet, but get out of the thing entirely. It's possible.

Let's demand it.

How Free Can The Press Be?

And Also: So, the Dixie Chicks won five awards. Two were for country music, three general. I was a bit confused that they won for album and record -- sounds like the same thing. Is "record" the same as "single?" IOW, for the song "Not Ready To Make Nice." And, if so, why did they also win a separate award for song? See here for the answer.

Potential books from all ends -- stops at bookstores, mentions in movies, cites online, book reviews, and simply passing them in the library. And, they flow hydra-like, for instance, find one book/author, and there is likely to be other books by said author that might be of interest. Thus, I saw a book in the store, asked someone to try to find it for me, and she found another book by said author -- How Free Can The Press Be? by Randall P. Bezanson (I saw his follow-up, a similarly titled book on religion). The pattern is to take a few cases and discuss the issues arising from them, including some excerpts of the actual oral arguments with some commentary (a good strategy).

Mixed bag. One problem is that I don't think he properly addressed the contours of the issues, leaving out some important details along the way. For instance, take the Pentagon Papers. The idea here is that the press can be restrained as long as there is a grave immediate threat (not emphasized, there also was the problem of the executive acting on his own authority). The book took for granted this matter, also raising various possible examples, like threat to diplomatic efforts that would affect lives. But, should the press really be responsible for the possibility that release of compelling information will lead to loss of life? Let's say, to take an extreme, if we release the fact the President murdered x person, it will lead to failure of peace efforts, and the continuation of a war. Is the press required not to print it?

IOW, freedom can lead to serious consequences -- beyond a reasonable doubt might result in the freedom of someone more likely than not guilty of a serious crime. Likewise, yes, it's ideal if the media had a responsibility to include all sides. Some support a "Fairness Doctrine" (remarkably not mentioned in the book) to promote this end. But, it is problematic to force newspapers to include a "right to respond" to criticism. See, Miami Herald Publishing Company v. Tornillo. But, and the chapter on the case failed to note the point (ridiculing the thinness of the opinion), the opinion in that case addressed the concerns. Likewise, the concurring opinions supported some press responsibility (e.g., possibility of an obligation to retract libelous material) in some areas, Justice White particularly noting as much. Why exactly was this not covered?

I know books can only do so much, but it is not unfair to say such things, since it is one thing not to dwell on a matter, it is quite another to omit important material. It was particularly annoying to read RB damning Tornillo without noting that, yes, the justices did realize media monopoly etc. has led to problems. The question was not the problem, but the solutions. Still, the book did provide an important service in examining important issues, making some challenging arguments along the way. For instance, are special benefits to the press in fact counterproductive since it makes the press responsible to the government? Is the press responsible not to the truth per se (somewhat unknowable), but the attempt to reasonably try to so determine (e.g., reckless prong of "actual malice")? And, what exactly is "public concern," or rather, should more things be kept private? How?

Thus, though I felt the book poorly reasoned at times, it was a worthy read.

(Lack of) Due Care Takes You Pretty Far

And Also: I finally -- Comedy Central shows are repeated so many times after all -- saw The Sarah Silverman Show, the new effort by the foul mouthed/kewpie voiced comedian. She's a mixed bag: her outrageousness sometimes can be pretty funny, but other times, it is just outrageous. The episode I saw, where she takes in a homeless man, was the latter. She also is one of those people you think would have better careers, but then wonder ... well maybe it's just that they aren't THAT talented. Think John Candy. He was in loads of lousy stuff, even if he was likeable in much of it. Sorta lazy really.

Sounding like Justice Blackmun in his swan song dissent against the death penalty, a criminal defense attorney that has some experience in postconviction appeals noted that the moral opposition to the death penalty is in effect almost besides the point. One need not go there to underline the fatal (NPI*) problem with the "government program" at issue -- simply put, as a due process matter, it is a mess. Last time, I linked to two of my posts on the matter, one putting a "fiscal" criticism of the penalty in some context. Basically, I agreed with the general sentiments, but was wary about some implications. But, you need not agree with everything to be on a certain side. Sometimes, in fact, it is best to emphasize areas of agreement, not dwell on controversial matters.

TPM rightly points out that this issue arises respecting war with Iran -- yes, the "evidence" that Iran is seriously arming insurgents is problematic, but ultimately, the important matter is the bottom line. Two parts: first, even if they are arming them, it is an insignificant part of the broader problem. Relatedly, going to war with them (or invading them, if one wants to use semantics) still is a stupid idea. This really arose four years back. The evidence was dubious, but even if it was not as dubious (and this part damns Clinton sorts), war simply was not a good idea. It's sort of like prosecutorial discretion. I'd add, per recent discussion on Clinton's comments, that even a resolution focusing UN emphasis on Iraq was a bad idea. Surely in the "do this or else" means used.

Meanwhile, the House of Representatives resolution against the surge is refreshingly blunt, a limited, but important rejection of the President's judgment that is superior to some watered down pabulum that might get some "adult" Senate Republicans to come on board. The chatter is that the resolution also will get a decent number (maybe as much as a third ... think c. 300 total votes) of House Republicans. It states:

Disapproving of the decision of the President announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That—

(1) Congress and the American people will continue to support and protect the members of the United States Armed Forces who are serving or who have served bravely and honorably in Iraq; and

(2) Congress disapproves of the decision of President George W. Bush announced on January 10, 2007, to deploy more than 20,000 additional United States combat troops to Iraq.

It is but a start, but I can support that.

---

* No pun intended.

Go Chicks!

And Also: Slate had a piece on how the public is turning against the death penalty as the Supreme Court might be going the other way. My .02. Zoe Heller's novel What Was She Thinking? [Notes on a Scandal], the basis of the Oscar nominated film, was rather good. I'm not sure how much you are supposed to sympathize with the narrator (the older teacher), but I did.

A nod to the winners of the Grammy Award for Best Country Album:

I'm not ready to make nice,
I'm not ready to back down,
I'm still mad as hell
And I don't have time
To go round and round and round
It's too late to make it right
I probably wouldn't if I could
Cause I'm mad as hell
Can't bring myself to do what it is
You think I should

I know you said
Why can't you just get over it,
It turned my whole world around
and i kind of like it.

Natalie Maines' latest hair style is pretty nice too. Check out Shut Up and Sing! and their videos on YouTube. "Goodbye Earl" is particularly amusing. Actually, though I saw them win the country music award, their success was much more complete than that, winning each category for which they were nominated:

After death threats, boycotts and a cold shoulder from mainstream country radio, the Dixie Chicks gained sweet vindication Sunday night at the 49th annual Grammy Awards, capturing honors in all five of the categories in which they were nominated...

The Dixie Chicks took home Grammys for the top three awards: record, song and album of the year. Their "Taking the Long Way" (Open Wide/Columbia) won best country album and "Not Ready to Make Nice" also captured best country performance by a duo or group with vocal. That song is an unapologetic response to the furor set off in 2003 when the band’s lead singer, Natalie Maines, made an off-the-cuff antiwar remark to London concertgoers: "Just so you know, we’re ashamed the president of the United States is from Texas."

But Sunday’s awards were the Recording Academy’s rejoinder to the country music radio establishment. Accepting the award for song of the year, Ms. Maines joked, "For the first time in my life, I’m speechless." When the trio returned to the stage for the best country album Grammy, Emily Robison, another member of the group, added that the band had been in a "strange place to be sometimes, without a genre."

Go Chicks!

Sports Update

Only caught parts of the Second Half, but the Pro Bowl turned out to be pretty good. A long return and a fumble (via Vince Young) recovery made it three times for the NFC (via Tony Romo) to get back in the game late. They did it the third time, failed a two point conversion, but managed one a second time (after regaining an onside kick). The AFC, after a pass interference call pushed it to the 1, won it with a game ending field goal. No, not by Adam V.

Meanwhile, "[i]t's time for pitchers and catchers."

Hillary Clinton's CYA

And Also: Per a recent comment, I'm told "we are pregnant" is getting popular, and some couples even have couple baby showers. Women need their time too, but that's a pretty good idea. Also, enough with this self-righteous annoyance at the lastest gossip. Apparently, this tendency to focus on gossip over "serious stories" is a sign of the times. People didn't focus on gossip in the past. They also all went to church, didn't say bad words, and brushed their teeth after each meal.

[See her original speech in 2002 here, including a distasteful connection to 9/11. Typical having it both way, pure CYA.]

"I have taken responsibility for that vote. It was based on the best assessment that I could make at the time, and it was clearly intended to demonstrate support for going to the United Nations to put inspectors into Iraq.

"When I set forth my reasons for giving the President that authority, I said that it was not a vote for pre-emptive war," the former first lady said.

She said the Bush administration forced an end to the final round of weapons inspections and invaded prematurely. The administration is responsible for the status of the war, she said, and for being "grossly misinformed" or for having "twisted the intelligence to satisfy a pre-conceived version of the facts."

-- Hillary Clinton's CYA

Sorry, no. My basic thought, like the majority of the Democratic Caucus in Congress,* was that the resolution was a bad idea. They voted against it. The second in command, so to speak, in the current U.S. Senate (Dick Durbin) voted against it. Sen. Graham, who knew more than most about the available intelligence, voted against it. Top military guy Sen. Levin voted against it. A few Republicans voted against it. This idea that somehow it was pretty ridiculous to think it reasonable that the resolution would not toss the car keys to the drunk or not likely lead to war, was shall we say naive.

This is so especially given (1) war should be dealt with warily and (2) trusting Bush in October 2002 ... when at the very least many should have know the timing of the resolution itself was dubious (and this was not the only reason to be wary) ... was stupid. We are supposed to accept DLC sorts like Clinton because though they are somewhat more conservative, they are realistic sorts, not wild-eyed idealists like those Deanites. But, damn, do Clinton defenders come off as naive morons. Wah!! He lied to us! Wah! No way of knowing! Oh, give me a break.

What was the NAME of the resolution? "To authorize the use of United States Armed Forces against Iraq." Who determined if such force was necessary? The president: "as he determines to be necessary and appropriate." Necessary and appropriate to what end? To "(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and (2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq." But, wait! The point was to give the President an edge when he went to the U.N., and to show Saddam Hussein that we meant business! Bush abused the power!

But, was it "not a vote for pre-emptive war?" What authority was given? Again, a look at the actual resolution, not what individual senators wanted it to mean, is useful. Let's remember that something with a bit more teeth was quite possible. Something that gave Congress more of a check that it would not be used to go further than people like Clinton (and Kerry) said they wanted it to go. Say, a second vote. Or, more stringent language. Such an alternative WAS offered. Let's look at what did pass. The President, on his judgment, needs to inform the leadership of Congress (by then both Republicans) within forty eight hours of use of force that:

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

By giving him this authority, by definition, we were not trusting in the actions of the U.N. alone. So, the fact -- but he promised! -- that Bush ignored the majority of the Security Council is not really conclusive. The resolution gave HIM the final determination. Yes, he was made the decider. And, darn -- the flowery whereas clauses included -- he had a pretty thin line to cross here. "Adequately protect?" What the hell does that mean? And, what exactly "is consistent" (#2) supposed to mean? Sure, it turned out to be quite dubious, especially the "evidence" available of WMDs, but that is a pretty low bar. And, that is btw really a misplaced complaint -- that is a reason (whereas clause, and there were others) for the power, not part of the actual authorization. A fair criticism, if one others saw pass at the time (also often forgotten and damning to the judgment of others), but again, the why, not the what.

Again, looking at the resolution itself. So sorry. The resolution DID authorize a preemptive war. It did not demand it, surely. But, the power was there for the taking. Did Bush use lousy judgment? Sure. But, the Congress cannot refuse to accept some liability here -- the power was GIVEN to him to use that lousy judgment. Hoping it would not be so aside. If there was not real fear that it would come out badly, why did a majority of the Democrats -- including some top names -- vote against it?

Finally, let's say that the power was not given. Hmm. He misused an authorization to go to war. Darn, that is horrible. Clinton should have been on the front lines demanding justice, from the beginning. Now, Kerry did voice strong concern, real impressive really (as in of no real value), right away. Not sure Clinton did. But, anyway, if the President went to war on false pretenses, twisting the intel along the way, that's IMPEACHABLE. I put it in caps, since apparently, she does not think so. It is seen as a somewhat bad thing, more or less, but just a bad judgment.

Which is sort of damning actually ... the implication was that it was just that ... handling authority badly. IOW, again, the authority was there! YOU VOTED FOR IT! So sorry. You are not getting my primary vote. At least, Edwards -- who was on the front lines with Lieberman at the time so is no saint -- admitted error. Not saying I will vote for him either, after all, he already got two of my votes. I'm not an idiot, so if Clinton makes it to November, I will likely vote for her then. Doubtful the Republican would be better -- Hagel voted for it and voted for the filibuster too, and he is the best of the lot.

But, I'm sick of this shit. Not just Clinton but those who defend her, usually making it all Bush's fault. Oh shut up. Please shut up. I explained myself, so this is not just an O'Reilly (and said "please"), but I stick by it. Enablers who theoretically should know better are pretty low in my book.

---

* The votes were 296-133 and 77-23. Only one Republican senator nay vote, Dems controlling Senate by same vote as now. In the House, 81D for, 126 against. Doing the math, yes Virginia, "everyone" did not support the President. A majority of the Democratic Caucus did not. The fact most of them were representatives does not change things. It just damns the Senate a bit more. But, Congress authorizes war, not the Senate alone.

Bloggers In The News

And Also: Maria Maggenti took a decade to provide a follow up to her charming "first love" indie The Incredibly True Adventure of Two Girls in Love with an equally charming (in a different way), Puccini for Beginners. This time we have a lesbian off a break-up finding herself dating both a man and his ex. It has some too cute touches, but overall is enjoyable and intelligent fare. Good NYC feel. The lead was great, if in a very different role, in Sweet Land. Gretchen Mol also here has a nice The Notorious Bettie Page follow-up.

A favored technique is to use a single event for the purpose of discussing broader themes and goings on. Thus, the Dred Scott case, as shown in Don Fehrenbacher's seminal book on the subject, is actually a reflection of the antebellum age. Some wish to see things in a vacuum. This is the path to fiction. Libby's trial is sold that way to some people -- nothing there, you see, maybe a single lie. Nothing to see here. B.S. It is a reflection of how their handled the war, how the establishment press handles sources, how Cheney et. al. operated, how they corruptly blocked any investigations of their actions, etc.

[Balkanization now wants to target Cheney -- we must have a "no confidence" vote for dangerous vps! But, a means is there. Agnew was forced out for things pettier than this! Cheney's involvement in the Plame business alone is impeachable. Again, let's not whine too much about our powerlessness. It is as much a matter of will.]

And, less importantly, the Edwards' blogger story also is in effect much bigger than the ultimately small scale nature of the individual acts involved. You can check out sources like Glenn Greenwald, Talking Points Memo, Salon, and so forth to get the background, useful links, and further commentary. Basically, the Edwards campaign hired two bloggers, who some distasteful self-claimed Catholic defense sorts targeted as hateful types. And, they made some comments on their personal blogs -- a medium known for such openness and lack of restraint -- that were a bit blunt.

Some sympathizers wondered why Edwards, especially with his nice guy persona, chose these two in particular. It was also noted that one of the two made blog comments on the Duke trial, and Edwards' former law partner is on the defense team. And, some other comments that were not really thought through. [see TPM] OTOH, the fact Edwards himself is Catholic was not made clear in the early accounts I read.

GG suggests that he thinks, though the campaign denied it when first reported, the two were fired, but there was a negative backlash, and the campaign changed course. Edwards ultimately said that he opposed some of the negative language used, but the two assured him of their bona fides. As a comment here noted, he even wily challenged one of the main critics involved. A few were not satisfied, thinking this still gave in to hypocritical blowhards. This was the sort that seemed to think this was some sort of make or break decision, a sign of how he will fold on major issues. "Now, I can't vote for him!" Or, the type the spoke of a "bunker mentality" when the Edwards campaign took a few hours to decide what to do. Oh, grow up.

I respect that you need to deal with these attacks, but as GG noted, he did. And, the NYT actually wrote about the negative tone of the other side as well. Yes, one fears a "pox on both houses" mentality, but the bloggers are still there, and it was all handled quickly. It also shows that as blogs grow in importance, they will be used against campaigns, even for low ranked staffers. With power and success, comes pressure. This is expected and must be handled in a sound fashion. And, yes, there are going to be some missteps (were these good hires? not clear) and some a bit messy choices made partially to look good. Such is politics, such is life. Beside, it is rather early, and dealing with the edges like this is the point of long campaigns, right?

Anyway, check the blogs etc. for further thoughts on the matter. In sum, I see it both a reflection of the importance of the blogosphere as well as the importance of a bit of caution/perspective in this 24hr news cycle. Heck, when someone mentioned that the story got just a blip, someone pointed out that Wolf Blitzer talked about it. Well, yeah, that's the point -- not too many hang on what he says, even with blogs like Crooks and Liars now providing movie clips to key cable news moments. And, yes, as a warning on the care one must take in handling attacks. Overall, I think Edwards did pretty well, though mentioning the tone of specific past blog entries might be a bad precedent.

Oh, did I say that the putative top two Republican candidates -- Johnny and Rudy -- skeeve me out? No? Well, that's because we have to focus on what Congress and the President we have now is doing. Except when we don't, I guess.

Various

The PBS Supreme Court series did not look promising, compressing too much in a few hours, and (as usual) making us assume nothing much important happened before John Marshall. Sorta okay History Channel special fare. Meanwhile, Myra MacPherson's new bio on I.F. Stone is just too long. Good story, too much glorified (somewhat simplistic) historical filler. And, sad early end to Anna Nicole Smith.

100% Something

And Also: So, without a sham resolution respecting Congress' alleged duty to fund whatever the President says is militarily needed, Republicans won't let a nonbinding resolution go to a vote. This includes faux moderate sorts. No shame. Well, hopefully the House will do the job, underlining the fiction that the Senate is somehow where adults reside.

Before we examine one of the top sex gossip stories of the day, I would like to give a respectful nod to another decent "lifestyle" feature in the NY Daily News with a women friendly slant involving sexual dynamics. Today they managed to find some of them, all normal looking (all white, btw), and have them discuss their sex lives ... with a sign including saying the last time they had sex. From last night to never; though one is 28, they basically are all thirtysomethings. And, have serious things to say about the subject, including one who is Catholic (not the virgin), and decided to wait until she gets married to have sex with her current mate.

[There also was a pregnant woman, who spoke about how "we" are pregnant. Oh? Were "we" nauseous? Seriously, that is a nice way of looking at it -- it surely is in many ways an event both parents share. Still, sounds a bit funny.]

The Kinsey scale, whatever its limitations, was premised on the assumption that sexual orientation in human populations is not a matter of either opposite-sex or same-sex, or of healthy desires and polluted ones; rather it involves a continuum of possible orientations that are spread across a population distribution-- as are so many other human traits. What Haggard and his friends particularly want to deny is this fact, because it changes the meaning of normalcy and undermines their way of seeing the world.

-- Jack Balkin

Anyway, yes, there are various top gossip laden sex stories out there. There is the story, with at least one detail that we didn't need to know, about the crazed woman astronaut. Also, there is the update of the saga of Rev. Ted Haggard, who we now learn is "100% heterosexual," just in time for Alexandra Pelosi's (yes, the daughter) HBO documentary on conservative religious movements, which included comments from him -- before the scandal broke. In it, he spoke about the healthy sex lives of evangelicals, a statement with which many of both sexes would agree. And, they are not just full of it either, since you can obviously be conservative and have a healthy sex life.

Still, people like TH here do ruin it -- Glenn Greenwald might be right that many of that class have selective vision when it comes to this sort of thing when looking for leadership (so Rudy might actually have a good shot), but this sort of thing only underlines the stereotype that they are a bunch of hypocrites. People who say this should be a bit careful -- consider that even Al Sharpton warned a local black leader to be wary about making support for Barack Obama a "black thing," since the senator is supporting the white mayor of Chicago over black opposition. (h/t Democracy Now!) And, we all know that moralists on the left are hypocrites too ... or, rather, human. It is not a right/left thing, and neither side as a monopoly on moral outrage. We just have to focus on what sort is at issue.

The news does emphasize the problem with trying to work around "accepted wisdom" that leaves something to be desired. I referenced the point last time respecting faith in God that is defended on a quasi-scientific basis (e.g., some form of teleological reasoning). If one works upon some premise, one that is "true," the very unlikely quite possibly might be brought out to defend it. This works both ways. One might consider the resurrection of Jesus as rather unlikely; thus, any number of things, including psychological visions, can be used to examine how it was accepted as true. Some might be deemed a bit unlikely, but much less so than resurrection from the dead (especially under the conditions put forth here). If you do believe in the Resurrection, on the other hand, some of this might seem like trying to stretch things to avoid "the truth."

This sort of thing cannot be seen in a vacuum. The idea TH can, after a short period of counseling and such, be declared "100% heterosexual" is quite honestly ridiculous. It is a bit hard even under the premise that homosexuality is not a part of oneself, but a fake "identity" that grows out of particular conduct. So, if someone stops having that sort of conduct, you are not a "homosexual." One wonders ... don't you need some grace period to determine this fact? It's like an alcoholic declaring himself "dry" after a few weeks -- you need more time than that to prove you won't fall back. Or, let's just say that he was always "100% homosexual," a long term affair notwithstanding. Still, even if you stop murdering, you are still a "murderer," right? It is a bit confusing.

[A comment in the entry linked in the opening quote references those who label themselves "black," even if they are biracial. This is a real issue and reflects the universal issues addressed here. But, in this sense, race is a social construct of sorts, while homosexuality is to my understanding ultimately something deep inside of someone. If TH means "socially" he is heterosexual, I might accept it in some fashion. But, I think he also means in a sexual sense. That is, from now on, he won't be attracted to guys, or have his life affected by such attraction. This doesn't quite fly.]

Seriously, TH appears to at least in part like guys -- at least, he appears to be a bisexual. To be fair, one really cannot know without looking close at his case, or closer than I have (perhaps, there is enough stuff on public record to make a good judgment ... I simply have not researched the point). Basically, I do feel comfortable saying that he has some homosexual tendencies. It is not credible to say otherwise given the information available. So, basically, one has to lie to oneself ... selectively look at the evidence to promote a presupposed viewpoint. One cannot cabin this tendency that easily. It will flow over to other areas, especially related ones (sexually, etc.). And, this is a great area of concern -- people are particularly concerned given the disproportionate influence granted to this group.

So, we can make fun of TH's "100% heterosexual" bona fides (sounds like one of those online tests you take where you can get an icon for your website/blog), but it won't stop there. This mentality helps promote bans on gay marriage and so forth. An actual reasoned out policy that passes the laugh test is ideal and all, but it isn't quite how the world works. The world works this way -- especially in the area of sexuality -- if teenage girls can act more slutty than Kelly Bundy and still be "virgins," TH can be 100% heterosexual. It's just a way of looking at things.

You know. Like criticism of a failed disastrous policy is "bad for the troops." Right, McCain?

[This blog is politics heavy, but again, the open-ended nature of this problem goes way beyond politics. It's like dating a liar. The person's a liar ... s/he might be selectively so, but quite often it's a consistent thing. They don't just lie about one specific thing.]

"Indisputable My Ass" -- Four Years Later

Four years has passed since Colin Powell gave his con job -- which he so generously admitted was wrong once Bush was re-elected (elected). Shortly afterwards, Tim Noah (Chatterbox at Slate) wrote a piece on how it is clearly obvious now that Saddam Hussein had WMDs though it might be sound judgment to keep the inspectors in for strategic reasons. This added to his "reluctant hawk" reasoning to back the war with the usual Thomas Friedmanesque hesitance.

I was not alone in finding this B.S. though the "conventional wisdom" now is supposed to be that "everyone" did until some unclear time afterwards, though even now we really shouldn't do TOO much about it, except give the backers of the failed and mishandled policy more time and to be real concerned about things. In fact, true assholes thinks this is a step too far. John McCain actually had the bloody nerve to suggest that not supporting a failed policy you truly believe is only worsening the situation (including killing and maiming our troops to little good end) somehow disrespects the troops. Other more "reasonable" sorts allow partisan concerns to delay votes on critical nonbinding resolutions, including ones they co-sponsored. This is so even though the delay moves are obviously in place as sham jobs to make Dems look bad.*

February 2003, on the Slate Fray (links here):

More of the bloody same bullshit. This is war we are talking about, and this is supposed to be a hesistant hawk, someone pushed into a hardline policy because of necessity, because things are bloody obvious. Indisputable, pardon my French.

Noah challenged someone to dispute the Powell presentation to the UN, which could be broken down into three parts: terrorist (Al Qaeda ... we know Saddam has connections to Palestian terrorists), chemical and nuclear. Noah himself says the terrorist connection is disputable. The nuclear part, which he seems to ignore here, has been disputed by many ... it is deemed by some the weakest part of the case. That leaves the chemical. Noah (being a good sport) agrees that maybe that wildman Alexander Cockburn and Hans Blix might have a point that a couple points were disputable. But that leaves a few that clearly aren't. Therefore, a fraction of Powell's presentation is indisputable enough for Noah.

Didn't take Noah that much to go to the war camp, huh? I bow to JackD who posted a bit before I to answer his snide comments as to the possibility that inspections might have some value, but apparently not much.

btw Noah didn't have to go to Wild Cockburn to dispute the testimony. Newsweek [www.msnbc.com] gave a rather mixed report as well. Also, if Noah thought only a little smoke was enough, the presentation might have been enough. But, if (as some of us do) he thought a compelling case had to be made to impress the UN enough to declare a pre-emptive war on Iraq, it is a bit more tricky.

---

PS I attach the Newsweek analysis of key bits of Powell's case below. Suffice to say that other publications, like The Guardian, put forth a more damning case than Newsweek. All the same, if a middle of the road publication put forth such doubts, perhaps Noah should be a bit less cocksure of himself.

In a somewhat related vein, I was asked over the weekend to specify the difference between "atheist" and "agnostic." I think the main difference deep down is in strength of feeling -- atheists (as a recent debate suggested) tend to have a more doctrinaire side that tends to be a bit tedious. Anyway, it was suggested that there must be a God, since how else do you describe those lovely mountains etc. Not surprisingly, the same person was quite upset at God when someone close to said person died badly. There is a selective belief process here. Faith that seeks out something to hold on to, even if it is pretty weak. A priori thinking.

Not a reason to go to war. Got it this time?

---

* Two Republicans likely to have tough re-election campaigns, one perhaps from Al Franken, voted for cloture. Some note this somewhat sarcastically, but that is the point of elections -- to pressure public officials to be concerned with what their electorate supports.

"Geography and the Machinery of Death"

And Also: Dan Froomkin's (h/t Glenn Greenwald) "lessons we [especially, "we, the press"] should have learned from Iraq" such as "Provocation Alone Does Not Justify War." And, I thought to myself, "if Lieberman did this, he is truly an asshole." Well, like, no duh, huh? Alito? Nah, can't filibuster, but can vote meaninglessly against. Different in important matters, huh?

[Also in legal news ... national id.]

There are a few issues addressed in this article, including the importance of postconvinction appeals to determine the legitimacy of trial judgments. Though some have direct experience that underlines the fiction of the point, many focus on the trial as the end. Consider a regular episode of Law and Order.

Another factor involved here, and one that arose in the past few years (partially in my posts), can be called "local option" rules. Thus, a recent article underlined the point that the Bush Administration pushed to have a more "one size fits all" policy as to capital decisions, less discretion given to local prosecutors, prosecutors who under Clinton was given more control to respect local opinion on the matter or make strategic moves (including to make deals, save resources) to choose life.

[Btw, political removals of such federal prosecutors from up top is a controversy in the news ... see, e.g., Talking Points Memo.]

This local option kicks in here if it was determined that the death was done on "Indian land." Another sort of local option controversy arose when states did not per our treaty obligations notify the home governments of non-citizens that they were in custody. Given the U.S. is in the distinct minority in allowing the death penalty, the execution of other nations' citizens is also of central concern to those nations.

And, the federal grand jury is an important factor here, especially with a White House that is more centralized. The local DAs in NYC, for instance, are elected, and can be affected be local political control more than their federal opposite numbers. So, this added level of security, constitutionally secured (a grand jury has not been determined as a federal constitutional right for state trials), to what cases are even brought to trial is at times potentially quite useful. Consider, e.g., drug crimes.

Anyway, interesting article, and one hidden in the middle of the paper, and not accessible by many free of charge even on the NYT site.

Wet and Wild

BTW, the Super Bowl looked like some high school mudball contest with multiple back to back turnovers, Adam V. missing a gimmee field goal at the Half, and the wet ball leading to a missed extra point. Oh, and a chunk of Chicago's offense on the opening kickoff return and one long run. A local radio host said that three or more Bears' turnovers would be a problem. Implied ... especially without any offense.

Chicago Does A New Orleans

That is, show some life, but then stop. Yes, you need some offense to win. The defense held on, until it didn't, and the Fourth Quarter was mostly garbage time. The My Boys marathon was pretty good though. MVP of the playoffs ... yes, the Colts Defense. Commercials rather lame too.

Political News

And Also: When I stopped to pick up a book at the library, I checked first to see if it was ready via the Internet. The computer gives us fifteen minutes of Net time. This is a nifty way to not spend too much time online.

Joshua Holland discusses "Hugo Chavez's scary 'enabling law' and Bush's fast-track authority." IOW, nothing to be TOO excited about, but it is rather hypocritical for top U.S. officials to be soooo upset about it. Likewise, he notes:

This week, Senate Democrats agreed to join Richard Lugar, Chuck Hagel and up to eight other Republicans (so far) in a somewhat watered-down resolution opposing Bush's troop escalation. As far as the politics go, it's a sound, even smart approach.

But politics is a grand game and Iraq is deadly serious business; it's the reality on the ground that should convince Democrats that this is no time for a non-binding resolution -- a resolution filled with loopholes, I should add -- that expresses the displeasure of Congress to a president who's made it abundantly clear that he doesn't give a damn what Capitol Hill thinks.

Thus, the likes of Sen. Dodd thinks this move toward bipartisanship (oh boy! Sen. Warner was actually criticized by conservative backbenchers! must be sooo "reasonable" now) is a tad weenie. Agreed. The fact even this is deemed dangerous by some (hey Joey L!) underlines how pathetic they are. Of course, this allows various Senate presidential wannabees to have difficult takes on the whole matter. This includes loquacious Sen. Biden, who submitted this bit of wisdom:

Mr. Biden is equally skeptical—albeit in a slightly more backhanded way—about Mr. Obama. "I mean, you got the first mainstream African-American who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy," he said. "I mean, that’s a storybook, man."

This brought out LOADS of discussion with even Talking Points Memo going on a bit too long on comma placement. Really, is it worth even linking to that sort of stupidity? I guess, even if Biden is not seriously a likely choice, anything to fill column space and such. The guy talks so much that even suggesting he uses commas is a bit dubious at times. Some noted that "first" is clearly wrong ... hey look at Al Sharpton and that one term Illinois woman senator ... they appeared to be serious as well. Ah ... Jesse Jackson, sure, maybe "mainstream" and worth mentioning. Though, honestly, no one seriously thought he would have a shot at winning.

The others (going back to Shirley Chisholm) really were not. Are we so PC that this is not allowed to be mentioned? It is going to be a long political season.

Four-Scored

And Also: I picked up a bio (a bit too big, but starts well) of Izzy Stone, someone I know but by reputation, and Molly Ivins had a nice blurb on the back. And, then I saw that she died. Paul Krugman has a nice column today about her, Iraq edition. I shall always think of Shrub, her prophecy of sorts of the Bush Administration. Picked up a copy at the library in Spring, 2000. Sorry, his administration should not have been THAT much of a shock to people. If, like Izzy and Molly, you did your homework. And, were not blind to what you found.

Something came up the same day, so my mind wasn't totally on it, but went to a pretty good show last night at the Brooklyn Academy of Music (BAM) ... conveniently accessible by a local subway. Never been there, but found it easily enough -- just follow the signs to the exit and ask someone going that way (just down the way, and to the right). I often see movies and shows advertised at "BAM," so it was nice to go there. And, know that if a movie (sometimes a special release) is available there that I would like, it was fairly straightforward to get there and all. Many places in NYC are like that -- the charms, truly, of the Metropolitan Transit Authority. Not bad for $2, really.

Anyway, I learnt about the show basically by You Tube. On a computer faster than mine, I have recently started to get a bit addicted to the service. I'm not really alone -- some blogs, including Atrios, now have video clips on a fairly regular basis. Anyway, I saw Suzanne Vega, or rather, a few of her songs. She does a great "Luka," with some distinctive eye glances at key points of that song about child abuse. Her website informed me that February 1 would be an appearance with three other female singers at BAM. Since the balcony seats were a reasonable $25, I decided to check it out. Sort of a final Christmas present ... recently having finished with my gift cards and all.

The show was entitled "Four-Scored," since along with an orchestra provided by BAM, the night also starred Nellie McKay, Laurie Anderson, and Joan Osborne. I like Joan's song discussing if God was one of us. I saw McKay, as I recall, on Dave -- at least on You Tube. As to LA, checked a You Tube clip, but not familiar with her work. She was okay -- electronic sort of thing, kinda artificial, but McKay (first) was great ... she was a bit goofy (were those ad libs she slipped into a couple songs?), out of breath, and assured us that she favors late comers (one couple sitting during her performance), since who wants people early? You know ... while you are still getting ready and all.

SV was good as well as was Joan (a bit bland, but looked nice), but NM was the best. She was fun. SV did not sing "Luka" -- perhaps it is not the best to sing with the Brooklyn Philharmonic (sounded good, who am I to judge?) and its "young music director" (per the blurb in the NY Daily News), but did sing "Tom's Diner." This required some audience participation (clapping and mm hmm like noises ... like many, I was not quite game, lol), so a fitting one to include. We are informed that it was not a nearby diner, but the same one used in "Seinfeld," a show that I have not watched for some time (no, I needed a break long before the Michael Richards incident). Interesting trivia.

The seat was small, but it was an end seat, and actually not bad -- they were all rather small (not quite like ants), but it was a nice view from up from the third floor. Now, yes, someone asked me the time midway thru Vega's numbers, which is annoying -- people don't like wearing watches or having pens, but darn if they need one. But, she is forgiven, partially because of basic cuteness. And, overall, again it was a nice show. Special thanks to McKay.

A Face

And Also: Another herpes commercial is cracking me up. An Ali MacGraw sort informs us she doesn't have herpes, unlike her boyfriend (hubby?). Still, with the medication taken, they get to have sex, ride bikes, and view a wonderful sunset. BTW, talking about unpleasant sex acts, House was very good yesterday. Much less laughable though. Seriously, are we supposed to take that commercial seriously? Looks like a comedy routine.

In the mid-90s, the Supreme Court in Romer v. Evans recognized a basic point:

we cannot accept the view that Amendment 2's prohibition on specific legal protections does no more than deprive homosexuals of special rights. To the contrary, the amendment imposes a special disability upon those persons alone. Homosexuals are forbidden the safeguards that others enjoy or may seek without constraint.

IOW, they treated homosexuals as "persons" that deserve to be treated the same basic way as everyone else, having basic constitutional rights. This was not treating them "special," but actually, the alternative would be clearly wrong. The state "cannot so deem a class of persons a stranger to its law."

As Kayla Williams mentions in her book Love My Rifle More Than You, war tends to lead to the dehumanizing of those deemed enemies. Not only combatants, but everyone in the broad class of people deemed potential enemies. She found this harder to do given her job meant she had to personally interact and learn more about their language and culture.

It came to me that just the photo* of Maher Arar is quite important since it humanizes him. The ability of some like himself who were detained as alleged "enemy combatants" to provide various types of testimony in the public sphere furthers this goal. To call to mind that these are "persons," who have rights. Deserve some basic respect inherent to being human. This is somehow deemed foreign to some people.

The same general concept underlines why it is fundamental that Wesam al-Delaema is being tried in the criminal courts, in the open, and protected (to the degree it does offer protection -- is our word enough? some would question it given our general lack of respect of international law) under a special agreement -- he is not some mostly faceless person in solitary confinement somewhere.

He is a person with rights. A human being. Even if it makes us uncomfortable to think of even those charged with attacking our troops in that fashion. If some are way -- like Phoebe on Friends to even eat an animal "with a face," imagine the value of seeing people ... the human connection is a key reason for the confrontation clause etc.

To bring out the person in view of the community to be tried. Not hidden away or tried only by some military tribunal or special representative of the President. They are wary of us seeing their faces. Such humanity makes bare jingoistic verbiage a bit harder to take. One hopes for more, and many in the homosexual community surely are demanding it, but sometimes even the basics are ignored.

A basic reminder, even a look, of basic humanity is sometimes an important first step. Just ask the slaves of the 19th Century.

---

* See "cf" link in last entry.

Items

Items: RIP Molly Ivins ... again, her Shrub informed us what the deal was before the election. Seems, see Ghost Plane, the Germans are now targeting those CIA agents that illegally seized protected persons from Europe. (Corrected.) Cf. And, besides underlining a Gitmo issue, this discusses the general horrors of solitary confinement.

In the News ...

And Also: Don't usually see AP movie reviews, but this one is prime, with this comment singling out a scene prime for a future You Tube clip: "The only moment that feels vaguely real in the entire movie comes when Moore is asked to describe what an orgasm is like. She does so quite accurately and convincingly and without making you want to cringe. It's the one time in the film that no one is faking it." Mandy Moore has her moments, doesn't she?

Some quickie thoughts respecting issues currently in the news ...

Just because the Supreme Court decides something does not mean things are over. Thus, allowing affirmative action in some cases for state universities led to efforts for a state constitutional ban on such preferences. Michael Dorf examines the issue in a thought provoking essay entitled: "Universities Adjust to State Affirmative Action Bans: Are the New Programs Legal? Are They a Good Idea?" This includes the legitimacy and value to the alternatives, the motivations behind the options made, and so forth. For instance, is "equality" sacrificed for "merit," and if it is, to what end? And, yes, the quotes are supplied advisedly, given the debatable nature of the terms and how they are carried out in practice. More here.

Bush is dubiously compared to past leaders as much as the current conflict is compared to much more scary ones in our history. Glenn Greenwald has a particularly biting rejoinder, again citing actual history to underline the point, showing us what real leaders do -- let's call this the "Churchill Edition." Meanwhile, the NYT cites a new move by the administration to submit administrative agencies to more political control from the White House. As noted here, there is some justice to this policy, but the problem simply is that we really have no reason to trust his judgement. Thus, it's a bad sign. And, Kevin Drum properly sneers at TMQ's continual defense of our apparently environmentally friendly President.

Relatedly, we look next on the enablers. BTC News discusses John Dickinson's different recollections respecting a key moment in Ari F.'s testimony in the Libby trial. How amusing. How confusing ... hey, maybe Libby did forget! Ha ha. Yeah right. Maybe, Johnny boy here can remind how he and his fellow press enablers helped to promote the lie filled smear job of Joseph Wilson, smeared because he dared to criticize the Bushies for selling the war like a used car salesman might sell a clunker. And, then, there is the whole Plame mess ... But, JD sorts focus on "the process" or whatnot, denying the message they are sending, while the core facts are ignored. See also, the (latest) Broder example.

Oh, and John Dean also brought up a lesser reported tidbit from the recent Gonzo appearance in front of Congress related to why we cannot trust these people, and those who do (including members of his party) are played as suckers. This includes John McCain, a big enabler, who recently obtained the support from two more -- the gentle ladies from Maine. As comments suggest, maybe they had little to choose from (you know, since they are not Judases to the party ala Joey L.), but why announce it now? Seems dumb.

Anyway, Barbaro has died. It is remarkable how much effort was taken to try to save that horse, one who had an injury that would usually have merited a quick bullet in the head. To be blunt about it. Seriously, much might be said about selective kindness (rightly so, up to a point), but such acts do underline how society does care about (certain) animals. Again, up to a point, something to be happy about. You know, like if another Colt (or more than one) fell ...

Hey Yogi!

Book Notes

And Also: The "important but never done" theme showed up recently when I was looking at notary procedures. The notary is supposed to orally give an oath/affirmation (without it, there is probably no perjury, since you never "sworn" to anything) or acknowledgement (did you do this willingly?). Few seem to do so. But, this really ruins at least half the point of these things ... they aren't just to determine the person is who they say they are.

A few final thoughts on the Love My Rifle book ...

Yes, it seems, you can be a vegetarian while serving in a war zone

After being upset about how long it took, why exactly did she not even mention her promotion ceremony? (A picture is supplied, after all.)

She mentions various people, by name, in a bad light. Did this, you know, like cause any problems?

Who exactly is Michael Staub, who you wrote the book "with" (small print on cover page)? Why not mention a little bit about the guy, except for a brief mention? [See this interesting reference. Wrote?]

I like your bite ... it's a bit bitchy, not in that way (see book), but funny/impressive too.

The early picture of you in your fatigues, "outside the barracks," is pretty cute.

Lots of respect ... Arabic! Spanish is too tough for me.

Meanwhile, recent book store stop-bys led to views of some other books. For instance, a new book (Supreme Conflict) on the Supreme Court looks promising, including things as up to date as Harriet Miers. Likewise, it suggests that Thomas warrants more respect as a strong judicial actor, not some Scalia suck-up. I respect this -- my problem was his overall lack of judicial experience (and/or young age) plus the Anita Hill controversy. This reflects my problem with Scalia -- it is not his judicial philosophy, per se, though I disagree with it. Overall, what bothers me is his inability -- given his complaints at times rather hypocritically -- to act judicially. He acts like a bully and puts forth bluster over argument, or rather, too much of the former.

Thomas has a somewhat similar problem -- putting forth quite controversial conservative think tank like reasoning as if it was so bloody obvious. Failure to take part in oral arguments rankle as much as his "legal lynching" bit -- using the race card while otherwise so self-righteously being against it. But, his legal reasoning per se, if perhaps simplistic at times, is not really my ultimate problem with the guy. It is not why he rubs me the wrong way. Again, this is what annoys me about the approach by Sandy Levinson -- referenced already here -- that focuses on Bush's incompetence. Fine enough, but that is not really why you dislike the guy, right? You think what he is doing is illegitimate. The asshole part is just adding insult to injury. If a competent person authorized torture, you would be upset too, right?*

Kermit Roosevelt has a book out on the myth of judicial activism. A glance makes it appear to be general liberal theory (mention on Balkanization), including favoring an equal protection security for the right to choose an abortion. (Privacy is fine, guys, you just have to do it right.) Rather dismissive take on Kelo -- what's all the fuss, etc. Respects Lochner as a somewhat behind on its times, but not horrible decision for them ruling. Underlines the problems with Dred Scott is not because it upheld slavery per se.

And, notes the valid application of "substantive due process" reflects Samuel Chase's argument in 1798 that certain legislative acts are mere "acts" (nice point there) because the nature of our government only supplies it a limited legitimate sphere to make "law." IOW, SDP is in effect a charge that a certain law is not valid, which even procedurally means that "due process" is not met. Handles something deemed patently ridiculous calmly and succinctly.

I appreciated as well as his overall tone -- various things might be a problem doctrinally, but this doesn't make it "illegitimate." etc. It is tedious, if not surprising, the level of rancor out there. The fact SDP can easily be justified suggests the "uh, you have nothing" nature of some of that sort of thing. This is worse than just being wrong. It flows into being an asshole. I know that the liberal reasoning set forth in the book can be deemed very wrong-headed, making it a harder trudge for some. But, this is again different from suggesting something is inane ... that is where you go into Scalia sarcasm territory, leading to dismissive self-righteous material that ironically (if expectantly) tends to be question begging and/or downright wrong itself.

The new book on Beatrix Potter -- see recent movie -- also looks nice. That is, it has great cover art and such. A glance also suggests it might be interesting too. But, that "look" alone will probably get some sales. Nice pictures, appropriate given the subject, as well. [I might buy it ... I reserved two other books for future library pick-up, though not the KR book ... though I see I could have.]

---

* Frank Rich made a comment in his Sunday column that sorta rubbed me the wrong way too. He suggested in effect that John Edwards was going on one knee to apologize for his vote in 10/02, which FR didn't think people like HR necessarily needed to do. It's what they do from now on. Was that some sort of slam on Edwards? Why? Sure, later events showed such a vote was not quite as asinine as many people thought at the time (you know, yours truly), but I think it's a good approach.

Slate mentioned yesterday in the Today's Papers feature that HC noted that with the "judgement" of the time, her vote stood up. This sorta pissed me off. I'll take the mea culpa ... heck, I just might not vote for anyone who voted in the affirmative in the primary. But, if I did, a simple "I made a mistake" trumps the idea that someone could not use the same "judgement" as the second in command of the Senate right now, Dick Durbin, used. You know, vote against the damn thing!