Mister Rogers' Neighborhood: A Visual History

I finished the new coffee table style book on the show and it is good with lots of pictures and information. I did not watch the show or the Tom Hanks movie yet, but did catch parts of two documentaries (there is a longer one and then a shorter television one). His faith in humanity and basic goodness is a model for our times. It is unfortunate the book did not cover this, even though he is interviewed and it is covered in at least one of the documentaries.

Supreme Court Watch (2020 and 1860-ish Edition)

I read a pair of Civil War related books with a legal focus and have a split decision. The topic of Uncivil Warriors: The Lawyers' Civil War was interesting, but the follow thru left a lot to be desired.  It was somewhat worthwhile and the last chapter that provides a quick "epilogue" was rather interesting, covering more atypical ground than the previous ones on such questions like the Prize Cases.  But, various things turned me off.

First, it was fairly one-sided, even if lawyers had more of a role on the Union side. For instance, works have covered civil liberty issues on the Confederate side too. The failure to even mention the Confederacy never had a Supreme Court underlines the paucity of the coverage.  Second, the actual discussion was rough going repeatedly. One rather glaring example was the false statement that only Peter Daniel joined Taney's opinion in the Dred Scott case -- even without reading Justice Wayne's concurrence that expressly says he joins the whole thing, the average account mentions it.  And, the author is not just a historian, but has a legal background as well.  Expect more from the author in question.

The Lost Indictment of Robert E. Lee probably was a bit too long near the end [perhaps to fill in about 200 pages, but overall was more enjoyable. I admit that until fairly recently I was not even aware Lee and others (the book for some reason doesn't really go into the over thirty people indicted with Lee and some of the names are simply not familiar) was indicted by a federal grand jury (familiar with Jefferson Davis).  The book also examines Robert E. Lee himself, myth v. more tainted reality, which I am more familiar with in past writings. Early on, it (citing a book I read) notes Lee had more troops at least at the beginning of his final battle than often assumed.  But, this point is not really dwelt upon as it should be in at least an end note. The army's total lack of resources is relevant to the Lost Cause myth making.  If Lee himself was misinformed (some confusion was involved in an important incident involving his family's slaves), that too would be useful to get a full sense of the thing. 

Those who have a very low opinion of Andrew Johnson should appreciate at least his view on treason trials though in the end it ended with a whimper.  The book puts much of the blame here of Chief Justice Chase, who it was felt needed to be involved as a presiding judge (the other Virginia judge was a radical Republican type many didn't think much of), but kept on finding a reason to delay things. Chase was a bit of historical missed chance -- he simply wasn't there long enough to put his stamp on the Supreme Court, other things restraining him as well. And, then Johnson's own impeachment trial did.  Finally, it was decided though it was obvious treason, jury nullification was likely. And, the public probably didn't want the leaders to be executed either.

Basically, I hold to my sentiment, shared by many at the time, it just was unlikely you would get a conviction in Virginia by a civil treason trial or any sort of criminal trial really, except perhaps for some special reason.  When a military tribunal approach was not available, convicting conspirators in the Lincoln assassination was not possible.  Lee himself was involved in invasion of Maryland and Pennsylvania, so the most strict "where it happened" rule would surely make it possible to do so there.

Secession is nothing but revolution. The framers of our Constitution never exhausted so much labor, wisdom, andforbearance in its formation, and surrounded it with so manyguards and securities, if it was intended to be broken by everymember of the Confederacy at will. It was intended for “perpetual union,” so expressed in the preamble, and for the establishment of a government, not a compact, which can only be dissolved by revolution, or the consent of all the people inconvention assembled.

The book tosses in some of those interesting touches that are intriguing. This is from a letter from Lee in January 1861, his view changing later on.  Also, the very end covers the dedication of a gigantic Lee statute in 1890. The negative response was also covered, including a local black journalist who also served in the Richmond City Council.  Looking it up, Richmond: The Story of a City notes this was a thing into the 1890s.  I was aware of limited black political involvement in certain Southern states that late, but was not aware that there was notable black involvement in the very capital of the Confederacy.  It suggests that history of disenfranchisement was not totally a given if that late in the day blacks could serve in the government.

===

The Supreme Court had less than 70 cases to hear for oral argument so it was expected that they would take a few more.  On Friday, they granted three more, involving prescription drugs and other matters of some import. The government in each case agreed they should be taken for review, so it was an easy enough call.  The breadth of what some call a "Lochner" First Amendment might be touched upon in a case with this question:

Whether the government-debt exception to the Telephone Consumer Protection Act of 1991’s automated-call restriction violates the First Amendment, and whether the proper remedy for any constitutional violation is to sever the exception from the remainder of the statute.

The first conference of the new decade is followed by the first order day and two weeks of oral arguments. The Order List is long but doesn't seem like much significant happened with no separate opinions. My usual lament holds: a lot still is there and an Explainer (see Chief Roberts report on judicial assistance of civics understating) would help a lot for the average reader. A hot button case will be heard next week involving government aid to religious schools. Will Roberts have some more responsibilities soon? 

Division Round

After some wild card surprises, figured this week would be less so. The Vikings started off well vs. SF, but was totally outmatched in the Second Half. Titans went up by 14, missed a shot to go up by more before the Half (instead Ravens made it 14-6) but dominated second half too. Upset! 28-12. Texans was blown out after being up 24-0 and then doing something really stupid. Packers held on though up 21-3 (28-23). Net, one surprise, two epic collapses.

Meanwhile, Giants have a new head coach (teams are moving fast) -- Joe Judge, an under 40 special teams/wide receivers coach from the Pats. Third or whatever time the charm head coach-wise? Young but has eight years of NFL experience. Some fans might feel better if the GM lost his job too, especially after admitting in a recent interview he failed at his job.

Repeat Performance

There are various well know classic Christmas movies including something different ones like The Apartment. This one, with a New Years Eve turn, deserves a look. I caught part of it and then reserved it to see the whole thing and it was rather good. A woman kills her husband and then gets to live the year again, but fate seems to be hard to avoid. Some good performances and a "hey! that's Mrs. Howell!" supporting role. Good ending.

Little Women (Did Joey from Friends see it?)

I saw the version in the 1990s with Susan Sarandon as the mom and now it's Laura Dern. This version has received a lot of praise and unlike Ladybird by this writer/director (which I didn't really like) basically agree. It starts with them as adults and flips back and forth in the story, which mostly works. It seemed to start a bit slow but got into the story. Liked the actresses though Meryl Streep didn't really add much to her role. Florence Pugh as "Amy" (I saw her in Lady Macbeth, not Shakespeare) is notable here since she is a bit less known; her voice is distinctive. Males are mixed bag. Felt time appropriate but think another version might be able to really highlight that sort of thing. Also, maybe more for Beth to do.

Wild Card Weekend: NFC

The excitement continues. Vikings gave up a turnover early. Stop (FG) and their own FG. A trick play leads to a TD. They drive/stopped and only get a FG. But, Saints get a turnover themselves. Saints miss a makeable FG earlier and then seem to play for OT & make a longer one. But, Vikings win the toss and THIS time, on third down (after being pushed back), do score on 1st and Goal. Upset. Vikings fought adversity and their defense held Saints.

Seattle had reason to find losing next week and getting the Eagles over the Vikings not a bad thing, even if they missed a home game. More so when ex-Jet (and various other teams) Josh McCown had to come in for the injured Eagles QB. Seattle scored near the end of the Half to make it 10-3 and after the Eagles had to kick a short FG on the other end, Seattle quickly scored again. 17-6. Game was basically over then though the final score was merely 17-9 and could have been even closer if the Eagles didn't go for it somewhat late. That was the same score with the regular QB in when they played in November. Blah if expected.

So three wild card teams won; one lost in OT.

Wild Card Weekend: AFC

Football can be fun. Bills v. Texans seemed evenly matched, both flawed teams and fine if either wins. Figure they would lose next week anyhow. Rather messy game. Bills went ahead 16-0, but could not pull away. Lost in OT 22-19. For some reason went on it 4th and 27 instead of punting and pinning Texans back deep with three time outs. Still managed, barely stopping them first, to get to OT. To torture their fans a bit more. Entertaining.

After the Dolphins (HA HA HA) beat them, the Pats had to play the Titans. Pats have not done well needing to win an extra game. But, they still were favored, if with everyone seemingly figuring they could easily lose. I skipped this one, but checked, and right before Half, the Titans made it 14-13. Which it somehow basically stayed until the Titans punted with twenty five seconds left to the Pats goal line, the Pats having flubbed the catch, allowing Titans to bleed ten seconds off clock. Turnover and it was 20-13 (went for two and failed), Titans. No miracles for Pats (actually they muffed the catch) in the last nine seconds. THE END?!

ETA: Multiple silliness including a possible flub rules-wise in the opening of the Second Half of the Bills game that could have affected the outcome though the Bills seem destined to lose.

The Killer Shrews (Hey, that's Roscoe!)

Not Svengoolie, but could be [updated: it was! changed the video] -- it was on an additional channel added to FIOS, the Sci-Fi Channel Comet. It is a 1950s horror movie [which actually had a sequel with the lead, James Best, fifty years or so later]. It was fun "B" movie fare.

The Soleimani Strike [Trump Makes Iran Situation Worse]

The words of this song continue to be quite relevant, especially after a top Iranian leader was killed (will avoided weighted terms) by U.S. military forces.  Yes, though not alone, one person ultimately decides and our current law likely makes how Soleimani was killed somehow "legal." As noted by the author there, this doesn't mean the strike was a good idea or that even that the current law is either.  One some level, at least, the reach of the two authorizations of military force is a tad insane on a constitutional level.  But, there is a range of reactions to make here so it's okay to cry foul too.

[There are reports that the reasoning offered for the attack are dubious and will affect the legal argument.  The details are of some importance both politically and as a matter of diplomatic policy, but dubious if the case is so bad that they would really have trouble in a legal sense. Realistically, there is no actual check there other than impeachment. Which is still pending.  It might help support of additional limits of the sort cited below.  Maybe.  Trump is now threatening attacks on Iranian cultural sites in a way that would violate international law.  But, what is going to happen?  Arrest at the Hague? To be continued.]

"One person" deciding -- in practice it's a bit more complicated -- to the degree involved, including using laws from the 9/11 era violates good constitutional policy.  Including due process matters in particulars.  We had a few cases, e.g., involving "targeted killings" that involved U.S. citizens.  I was loathe -- as some blithely did -- to just call these illegal "assassinations."  If an Al Qaeda member who is a U.S. citizen is killed by a drone, it very well might have been in 2004 legal to do so.  We killed lots of American citizens in the 1860s.  But, if Shelby v. Holder can hold the Voting Rights Act criteria for preclearance rules out of date, we might find something set up to deal with 2001/2 events too.

I thought this -- down to the "to his credit" comment -- a good analysis of the whole decision here though totally admit my ignorance on this sort of thing (making me on this mainstream).  Likewise, actually taking the people in this Administration at face value is a fool's game.  We've been down this road before, often with some of the same conservative leaning voices (not always of the same political party).  I was loathe to accept that invading Iraq in 2002/3 was a good idea, thinking that should be made as a last resort. The people in power didn't help my trust in judgment calls much more.  The Libya bombing under Obama, e.g., has been subject to serious criticism.  I'm open to that sort of thing, but both the parties involved and the specific details were different.  Yes, here, decision-makers can be key.

As noted here (including a link to the Washington Post, which I will cite below), the decision-making of Trump and to be clear "et. al" in various respects, should basically never be trusted.  Noting the grain of salt we should add to any analysis of insider decision-making, especially as events basically continue to occur, things like “Benghazi has loomed large on his mind" or how "tremendously bold" (not necessarily a good thing) it made him look stands out.  Ditto, his concern for media optics of not using force against Iran in the past.  For Republicans, "Benghazi" involves a lot of b.s. and Obama/Clinton bashing.  Motivated by that?  Ugh.

While the attack evoked the frequent rocket fire that rained down on U.S. troops in Baghdad and other locations in the years following the 2003 invasion, such incidents have been uncommon in recent years. The United States has found itself in the odd position of fighting on the same side as Iranian-backed militias against the Islamic State. But the rocket attacks resumed in recent months as the Trump administration continued its “maximum pressure” campaign of economic sanctions against Iran, growing in intensity until the Kirkuk attack.

The analysis provides the complexity involved here regarding what is occurring in the region ("a mess" as much as "very complicated" both fit) and the dead person's role in it.  There is a reason why Bush and Obama chose not to kill this guy.  Why Obama and others wanted to lower the temperature.  But, Trump wants to be anti-Obama; who wants lower temperatures?  Global warming for all!   Killing a top military leader, close to the leader of Iran apparently, is dangerous stuff.  If one of ours were killed, we would feel a need to retaliate.  The immediate reaction from some parts (talk of domestic terrorism etc.) is a tad scary.

[There was a constant tendency of those -- including people like Elizabeth Warren and Julian Castro [who ended his campaign; reports are Booker actually had good funding numbers though doesn't seem to translate into poll numbers] -- against the killing to lead with him being a horrible person.  This will lead many readers to stop reading and be glad he's dead.  If you oppose this attack as dangerous, lead with that. Don't hedge using the other side's own argument.  Someone noted if the people didn't start that way, they would be deemed "soft" on terror or something.  But, they would anyway if they ultimately speak out against the killing.  At least, don't lead with him being horrible.]

An incompetent asshole who was impeached for only part of his crimes worsened the situation and then had the power to very well possibly make things worse.  A basic principle when talking about constitutional issues here is the importance of the abilities and character of those in power. Because especially in this context one person is going to have a lot of power, in fact, it made some degree of sense (especially in non-modern times) to give one person such power.  Ultimately, a committee might in effect have some role in these things, but one person makes the final call.  Trump has no fucking business being the one to do that. I continue to be very pissed that this is not basically seen as obvious by more people. Including media hedging.

There are some means in place to restrain executive action here, including updating the AUMF and putting limits on actions in Iran. There should be a bipartisan group in place with the Rand Paul types out there to do that. But, as noted in the legal analysis above, one was recently filibustered in the Senate even though the House and a bare majority of the Senate supported it.  Senator Kaine (VP on Earth 2) is pushing for a war powers resolution on Iran.  One thing that can be added is some clear statement on the need to notify top people in Congress (not done here) before killing top Iranian leaders.  Of course, that might cause a veto or involve language that the executive department will find ("find") some loopholes in.

There is a barn door problem there but we need to start somewhere. If Republicans cannot understand a need to have limits here with Trump in power ... well, that's an old line.  The Iowa caucuses occur in a month. Unlike earlier, we do have a reason to start thinking seriously about the 2020 elections.  It is a basic necessity here to have the right result. 

2019 Year-End Report on the Federal Judiciary

“Those principles leave no place for mob violence,” the chief justice wrote. “But in the ensuing years, we have come to take democracy for granted, and civic education has fallen by the wayside. In our age, when social media can instantly spread rumor and false information on a grand scale, the public’s need to understand our government, and the protections it provides, is ever more vital. The judiciary has an important role to play in civic education.”

As Chief Justice Roberts -- as of now -- is due to preside over an impeachment trial (remember that? he was referred, blithely, as "the President" on MSNBC today -- it made me so angry), first we have the usual end of the year report ... dropped at 6P.M. as the year bleeds out.  His message raises two sentiments.  First, yes, civic education and talk of judges doing their job with "humility, integrity, and dispatch" (some thought this was a subtweet to various judges who write blatantly ideological opinions, at times in long pedantic ways, especially when referencing the crisp understandable nature of Brown v. Board)  is on some level fine and important.  I do respect him on some level as a public figure.

On the other hand, given the messenger, well you know a "fuck you" sentiment is hard to avoid.  Democracy? From the author of Shelby v. Holder?  Ah, yes, no mob violence, but it's fine for his ideological friends to be chose by someone who incites the mob.  (Again, I KNOW some words of caution on some level helps, but it rankles ... especially concerns for "integrity" with Gorsuch and Kavanaugh there, doing things like hanging out with Mitch McConnell or getting cheers from the Federalist Society).  Also, he shout outs various judges, including by title, well, let me quote the NYT article on the report:

That judge is Merrick B. Garland, who was nominated to the Supreme Court by President Barack Obama in 2016 but denied a hearing by Senate Republicans. Mr. Trump appointed Justice Neil M. Gorsuch to fill the vacancy.

Oh, that guy.  People also wanted a bit more than such nice words. For instance, what about live coverage (I"m okay with "live on tape," but sure; have at least audio of opinion announcements; show some film of handing down of orders or some such etc.)?  What about ethical rules?  (I'm not sure how that will work for justices -- how will you make them binding? But, didn't he say they were working on that?)  I know you aren't going to talk term limits or anything here, but yes, I'm open to the idea.  I also think de facto we have court packing, and when I think about it, it really upsets me.  It wasn't just an "election has consequences" thing. The rules were abused.

Also, more easier perhaps, maybe improve your own website. Why isn't there one of those introduction to the Supreme Court videos posted on the website, the one you would be shown if you visited?   You have media pages. Add video of justices -- after all them reaching out to educate the public is honored here -- giving speeches or interviews.  Make it more bilingual. etc.  Explain order lists (so many confusing terms).  But, you know, we appreciate -- up to a point -- the civics talk.  Yeah.

See you soon, Mr. Roberts. 

===

I'll toss this here since it's more of an old theme, but it shows how things are all connected and more defensible than some might think. Was listening to the oral argument of Stanley v. Georgia, which protected the right to possess obscene materials in the home.  The advocate referenced a recent case Redrup v. New York, which in relevant part flagged the sort of materials that would more likely be deemed unprotected:

In none of the cases was there a claim that the statute in question reflected a specific and limited state concern for juveniles. In none was there any suggestion of an assault upon individual privacy by publication in a manner so obtrusive as to make it impossible for an unwilling individual to avoid exposure to it. And in none was there evidence of the sort of "pandering" which the Court found significant in [an earlier dubious case].

The "pandering" case is dubious, but there is something there to the degree the material is geared toward people who might not want to see it. There is a certain privacy angle there.  The Georgia opinion is a mix of privacy and free speech and reaffirms how if obscenity can be banned, it should be for limited purposes.  (The broader possibility of the opinion was lost there as the Court became more conservative ... see recent book review entry).  This concern for "private" matters with exceptions such as to protect children pops up in Lawrence v. Texas (intimate conduct) too.  See also, to go back to the late 1960s, Powell v. Texas, where public intoxication was differentiated (in another opinion by Justice Thurgood Marshall) from private conduct.

When determining the reach of open-ended terms and unenumerated rights, a common law approach that respects precedent and accepted principles such as the types of things deemed "private" and "public" (including legitimate public purposes of regulation) is one thing to take into consideration.  The Georgia case referenced a late 19th Century case that interpreted a statute to not cover the mailing of private letters though an amendment was later deemed to cover that.  The opinion had this interesting phrase: "the purpose was to purge the mails of obscene and indecent matter as far as was consistent with the rights reserved to the people." That last part reminds one of the wording of the Tenth Amendment though a Ninth and Tenth Amendment argument was blithely rejected when obscenity laws were uphold in Roth v. U.S.  See also, the concurring opinion here.

A typical common law approach is for courts to avoid certain things if at all possible because of accepted rules and norms.  Even if they are not explicitly written down.  The case there showed some concern even in the 19th Century for the privacy of personal correspondence. Privacy rights weren't invented in the mid-1960s.

A Decade Slips Away

The political winds of this decade started fairly well and then dropped off. 2016 was a travesty. 2018 (including in NY) brought things more in the right direction. Impeachment, flawed as it might be, was a key moment in 2019. Personally, the decade was rather mixed too, but new decade, so you know ... Happy New Years. (Will skip the latest Biden stuff.)

HA HA HA HA (Week 17)

excuse me what https://t.co/pOoBpVvEaI

— Molly Knight (@molly_knight) December 29, 2019

Bills limp into playoffs with loss vs. Jets, but the upset of the day is Dolphins (who were slaughtered in the first match-up), who came back to win (with very little time left, which was key, since they were only up by three) to deny the Pats a bye. Giants didn't play spoiler, Eagles play Seattle (loser of final game by a damn hair at the goal line) with Titans getting final AFC spot. Saints wound up 13-3 with no bye, with dubious late calls in two games helping out. Stuff happens, but you know they also missed the Super Bowl that way too.

Meanwhile, a bit more Christmas movie fun, if on demand since all channels other than Hallmark stopped showing them. A Date Before Christmas (flagged on Twitter because of a charming performance by Morgan Fairchild as Mrs. Claus though she isn't the only Friends face that pops up) was cute. The Holly and the Ivy, an old British film, is also charming.

THE LONG REACH OF THE SIXTIES: LBJ, Nixon, and the Making of the Contemporary Supreme Court

"Kalman presents an accessible, lucid brief on how our Supreme Court appointment system became the mess that it is." The author is careful not to promise she was teaching any big lessons as she covered the LBJ and Nixon appointments. The book also was published early 2017, before any Trump asshole justices. Felt it started a bit slow but got into it more later. You almost was optimistic early in the Fortas CJ nomination process, but it still seems the whole thing was a total screw-up on LBJ's part. Good but maybe not great read.

Trump Commits More Impeachment Worthy Offenses (aka Another Day Passes)

Trump is trying to out the alleged Ukraine whistleblower on Twitter.

Some will not take someone that even the likes of the head guy at liberal leaning Dorf on Law has dismissed to me personally as a kneejerk types a good judge. But, when it comes to how bad Trump is, that level of disgusted cynical partisan (though repeatedly he still leaves something to be desired) is appropriate.

Trump retweeting right wing conspiracy b.s. on a steady basis is not okay.  "Trump being Trump" at this point is akin to "arsonist being an arsonist" -- you'd keep the person out of sensitive buildings without close supervision.  President Andrew Johnson, in a largely forgotten bit, was partially impeached for "attempt to bring into disgrace, ridicule, hatred, contempt and reproach, the Congress of the United States." This calls to mind Trump's campaign rhetoric and like with the Ukraine Extortion Racket, he is a repeat offender here.  The problem is that we saw how far criticizing this in 2016 went with people mostly resigned about how uncouth the guy is.  Yeah.  LBJ was uncouth.  This guy is f-ing disgusting.

"Facebook has a policy against naming the whistleblower, and told BuzzFeed News on Thursday that any mention of the name of the person believed to be the whistleblower violates its coordinating harm policy."

Even with Andrew Johnson, when a Johnson even campaigning itself was notable and there was a higher degree of propriety regarding public speech, there was not enough support to even bring it to a vote.  But, Trump at some point makes Johnson's "Swing Around the Circle" rhetoric tame, particularly given the reach of his Twitter. Calling Comey "scum" is notable enough. [See Aaron Ruper Twitter.] No wonder serious splits among evangelists (note it always was much more "white" evangelists anyhow, a qualifier notable in its absence) are starting to come out. This guy is in the minds of many after all the President of the United States.  But, retweeting the supposed whistleblower?

How exactly can this be handwaved?  As I said there, it isn't the case that there was no coverage.  Newsweek (where one can find out, including by links to Buzzfeed, that Twitter said retweeting would not violate its standards, but outing the alleged whistleblower would violate Facebook standards).  I continue to be wary at the limited impeachment counts though hold to my belief that (1) the "consistent/previous" type language makes it wider than some make it out to be (2) realistically, it's a synecdoche of wider wrongs as seen repeatedly when people talk abut them. Nonetheless, the ongoing actions here suggest the value of an obstruction of justice count. Among other things.

It's hard to keep up the outrage without, especially since there is a general feeling by many that reality is not as bad as all that. At least, you cannot hold up that level of outrage and disgust on a steady basis.  Thing is that at times it is warranted.  Jim Crow was a thing, a bad thing, even if only a small minority was strongly against it in practice. As a new decade approaches -- I'll take the side that thinks 2020 is that -- we need to stay firm here.  It's basically holiday time as is, making it harder to spread the news, but so it goes there.  As some attempt is made to pressure a few Republican senators to at the very least make the impeachment trial kinda actually a trial, we continue to see horrible things that were there all along. As with Ukraine, this all is "consistent" with "previous" stuff.  It's still real bad.

Mr. Biden was asked by The Register whether he stood by previous comments that he would not comply with a subpoena to testify in the impeachment trial. He said he did, and explained that complying with a subpoena and testifying would effectively allow Mr. Trump to shift attention onto Mr. Biden and away from the president’s own conduct. Mr. Biden made similar comments to reporters aboard his campaign bus on Friday night.

While the idea of witnesses called on behalf of the Senate, or at the request of the House of Representatives in the form of managers putting on a case, is put out there, this latest Biden thing to me didn't help.  Biden is obviously right that there really is no good reason for Biden to be subpoenaed as a whole and it is likely just a way for Trump/Republicans to throw smoke. OTOH, I'm not sure how unlike that is as compared to many witnesses called in various civil and criminal trials. And, the rules are more lax in impeachment trials.  Biden had no grounds to say that.

Some with less concern for legal niceties appreciated Biden's comments; my reaction (colored somewhat by not being a fan anyway) was negative. My thought was not only that he had no right to challenge but it would give aid and comfort to the other side's refusal based on what basically amounts to "they aren't going to be fair" allegations.  Democrats are trying to get support for witnesses. Preemptively refusing theoretical subpoenas is not really ideal.  And, as noted in that article, Biden finally got around to realizing it.  More depressing dubious strategic decision-making.

It is realized, concerned people will be sure to emphasize, that this is a lesser problem to Trump aiding and abetting right wing trolls against the forces of proper government.  The lesson is that being a whistleblower is a dangerous affair and you shouldn't make waves.  The putative executive head rather help war criminals.  We knew this in 2016. It was ridiculous then to think he was a credible person for the job.  One party refuses to admit this or even be "disturbed" (as the gentle lady from Alaska is reportedly of Moscow Mitch totally being in hoc with Trump on impeachment, as you know as the leader of a separate branch naturally should be) that much.  Impeachment is a sort of "you know, I have concerns" thing, not "obviously he should be, I'm just concerned on it being so limited."  The state of things as the decade runs its course.

The 2010s left something to be desired for me personally. It is ending rather dubiously for the country though impeachment was a little sign of sanity. Well,at least we aren't the UK!

Holiday Season Marches On

Today is Boxing Day ("boxes"/presents for servants; United Kingdom) and the first day of Kwanzaa (has candles like Hanukkah but seven days and principles that sort of remind me of Unitarian-Universalism; it is an African cultural holiday and secular humanist in origins).

Merry Christmas

NFL Update

We are coming down to the wire. After three Saturday games where the underdog put up a fight but lost in the end (including the Bills vs. Pretty Boy), the Jets (the Steelers QB lacks starting to become an issue; 16-10) and Giants (needing OT after the back-up for the Redskins put up some tying drive, making it 35 all late) won. Arizona upset Seattle though it still will come down to their final game vs. the SF. Bengals managed sixteen points in the final minute but still lost on the final play of overtime vs. ... of course, the Dolphins. MNF: Packers clinched division, the Vikings defense faltering eventually, offense never really showing up.

Happy Hanukkah and Festivus

Hanukkah this year runs from the evenings of the 22nd until 30th. I again provide this past discussion (and later versions on this blog) and [still] wish to find a good book that provides the surrounding history for the general reader. Both the immediate Maccabees revolt and developing holiday. The Slate article was written by a Jewish scholar who co-officiated Chelsea Clinton's wedding some years afterwards. Happy Festivus (today) as well.

The Secrets We Keep (and Telling the Whole Story)

Before leaving, they leave quicker there I guess, the defeated governor of Kentucky went on a bit of a pardon binge that involved some rather controversial cases. These were highlighted, especially one or two involving horrible crimes and apparent financial bias [think Marc Rich]. But, as seen here, the guy not only also pardoned more sympathetic types but showed some concern for criminal justice during his term. Criticism of heavy-handed solitary pardon power is valid -- it should be done in an organized way -- but there is a reason multiple criminal justice warriors were wary of the criticism.

A trip to the library brought two good finds, Good Talk and also The Secrets We Keep, a Reese Witherspoon [she has a book club] pick as it turns out. It a fictionalized account of real events, on one front about the author and his "Lara" of Doctor Zhivago (I have not read/seen it), and on the other, the plan to sneak copies into the Soviet Union. Meanwhile, we get a look at some of the women who worked at the CIA both as "typists" and spies. Good stuff at the website and more video can be found online. It also is being made into a movie.

On the impeachment front, the last comments on this thread are ... well, amusing is one way to put it. The guy continuously challenges my good faith (easier than actually refuting my arguments), and then tacks on (with a dig that ignores the repeated efforts of mine to do historical research on matters) something that basically supports my agnosticism on something I said was "academic" anyway. If I wanted Moscow Mitch to lose, that would be a rather piss poor way to do it. Anyway, in his own way, he's as bad as the B. trolls there.

History: IMPEACHED!

The Pelosi moment pic.twitter.com/dfqzuiicpN

— Jennifer Epstein (@jeneps) December 19, 2019

Two Dems, one planning to change parties, who voted against the inquiry voted "no" while one voted "no" on the second (Obstruction of Congress). Not a single Republican even voted for the rule that allowed for the debate/vote today. Two Republicans didn't vote; one Democrat also was away. Tulsi Gabbard voted "present" on both. Amash "yes" on both.

It's depressing how so many Republicans talked about how the Democrats just "hate" Trump and so forth. At least one said Jesus had more due process from Pilate. I figure a handful at best suggested Trump maybe did something wrong but wanted the process to continue. Democrat after Democrat said how serious it is, how they weren't gleeful (many honestly noted they at first didn't want to impeach) etc. Some very powerful remarks. Touching to me, even if one can be all cynical or want more or expect it just to die in the Senate. Enjoy the moment. Fight for the best fairness and punishment of Republicans possible in the Senate.