Unintelligent Response To Intelligence Proposal: A quick blip during an otherwise slow news cycle (time for President Bush to go on vacation for a month again, isn't it?) involved a twist on the future market, this time as a tool for intelligence gathering. The basic idea is that the markets as a whole are a useful tool to determine information and has been shown to be so even outside the usual economic context. For instance, it has been shown to be a good determinant of political campaigns. Thus, the Pentagon suggested that it be used to collect intelligence ... using financial incentives in a creative, and hopefully successful way. It was struck down as an immoral gambling of human lives. The level of moralistic holier than thou breast-beating involved was a tad sickening.

Various arguments made against it suggest that knee-jerk emotional appeals are as unwise as the term implies. First, the very moral horror at "gambling" is ridiculous given our basic financial system is based on such risk taking, including areas such as insurance and the basic well being of millions of people that surely at some level involves betting on human lives. I don't care what you call it, if "gambling" provides a service, name calling will not make it any less useful. Second, many suggest the information is not as open and verifiable as other markets offer ... but again, in economic and other markets, the information is often not "clean" and at times involves specialized information that means only a limited group can "bet" or "play." A related concern is that the people involved, let's say terrorists, are not rational actors. This is a dubious preposition (e.g. it is a timed honored falsehood that Saddam is an irrational actor and your average suicide bomber does not kill himself for no reason ... and experts in the field will tell you that) and the implication that other markets (e.g. political campaign strategy) do not have irrationality inherent to it is erroneous. All the same, markets have some value in such fields.

Next, some suggest that the market would benefit terrorists. As some note, an intelligent terrorist could benefit from the financial markets now ... for instance, some well timed investments pre-9/11, or how about if one knew a certain captain of industry would die in a car crash the next day? Second, do these critics suggest that any useful intelligence collection techniques be totally secret, and not open to public view? If not, any number of useful techniques has a potential to benefit terrorism ... the argument is that in the long run, openness will benefit the "good guys" more.

A related concern is that "successful" predictions would result in the U.S. stopping the event, and therefore there would be no "payoff." This could be factored in, so the predictions alone would benefit the investor. Likewise, the idea that terrorists or others can "fix" the system would suggest that any number of very important markets also is unwise. Again, the idea is that in the long run we will benefit more than we will suffer. Fear of some kind of foreign policy backlash also is raised ... but if the net result is less harm, I don't quite understand why this is a problem. Is the "this looks bad" factor that troubling to require a potentially useful tool not be used? And note that it is but "a" tool ... some criticism somehow seems to feel that it is misplaced use of money and effort better earmarked elsewhere, as if such alternatives will not be offered anyway. The distrust in this system alone would counsel policy makers not to put too many eggs in this one basket, and to have many other alternatives and even redundant sources of information for those loathe to rely on future markets such as this.

Finally, various other emotional appeals were raised. I will note two that suggest the misplaced concerns that contributed to the quick disposal of a potentially useful idea. Some see this as just one more unsavory technique offered by the Bush White House or the current bunch of intelligence types ... the same class of people who have been criticized for not thinking "outside of the box" or creatively enough to prevent harm ... as if the idea actually came from other fields such as economic theorists. Anyway, the whole concept seems comparable to "Game Theory" (the area John Nash of A Beautiful Mind helped originate), which has been around for around fifty years or more, and also is involved various decisions that affects life and death. One person suggested terrorism has "no demand" or even "negative demand," which is wrong, since obvious someone wants it! Experts, experts the country as a whole in some form pays for and is willing to "gamble" on as worth their salaries, spend their careers analyzing such demand.

The ultimate success of the process, dropped like a hot potato, is unclear, but it was worth trying. I would not be surprised if it is actually tried in some form, perhaps as an unofficial market or as an unpublicized field study of some sort. Putting aside largely misplaced moral concerns, the cost/benefits of potentially risky activities and procedures can only be determined if they are actually field tested. A country that accepted the rather controversial and potentially dangerous concept of pre-emptive war should not be so opposed to the use of a potentially valuable, and probably much less lethal, additional tool in the ongoing struggle against domestic and foreign insecurity.

Political Strategy and Perceptives: Recently, I discussed and took part in discussions about the appropriate winning strategy for the Democrats. First off, I responded to some conservative praise of Prime Minister Blair's speech to Congress. I think Blair put forth an eloquent speech with many Democratic themes, though the overall point of it all was really to support President Bush and his flawed Iraqi policy. This is why conservatives who in most cases don't think much of the Prime Minister's policies went out of their way to rave about his speech. A speech some demeaned as his "white man's burden" speech ... good intentions, but done so in an unsavory, almost colonialist way.

I added some two cents to a more general discussion on "values and arguments" here with some additional comments here (the response that took Dave Barry's quote seriously is amusing). An interesting article by Harmful To Minors author Judith Levine about the alternatives to marriage is found here. I support her general attempt to argue that in the current era there are many "marriage like" relationships that should not all be put into one box known as "marriage," but still receive some governmental sanction for various reasons, including care of children. I also talk about how the current administration is no fan of free trade in a somewhat amusing, though serious, case involving Vietnam and catfish.

While on the political theme, the NYT reports that the President has nominated two more for the DC Appeals Court, where Miguel Estrada is destined to go whenever the filibuster against him fails. There are various reasons why these nominees show yet again the I got to say slimy nature of the Bush judicial nomination process. One nominee is Janice R. Brown, a black conservative [who wrote a key anti-affirmative action decision] that has gotten some controversy, but though I'm not familiar with her record enough to make any conclusions, my tentative belief is she is likely just a conservative pick whose color helps smooth the way.

It is true that many Clinton picks were struck down for ideological reasons, so this is a factor, but it is the least of the problems in this case. First, the President is making three nominations to a key circuit court with openings largely because Republicans blocked Clinton nominees, and also argued there was no need for a full bench. Apparently, now they changed their mind.

Second, the other nominee is thirty-eight year old Brett M. Kavanaugh, an associate White House counsel, a key player in choosing other nominees to the federal bench. Thus, the Democrats in the Senate as well as others involved in the process would likely distrust him, not unjustly seeing him as an ideologue in a time when we need noncontroversial picks to the bench. His age is also a factor ... I do wonder if he is so qualified that it is justified to place someone so young on a federal appellate bench. Finally, guess what else he is known for? Yes! He was a key aide to Kenneth Starr, having a big role in the investigation of President Clinton and writing the infamous Starr Report. You [expletive deleted] got to be kidding me! How in the hell is this guy a good choice, especially to this court when Justice (in California) Brown alone is controversial for her views? It is this sort of thing that aggravates me to no end ... the arrogance, lack of desire to even try not to be divisive, and the lack of guts to even admit the fact half the time that makes by blood boil.

I am unsure who I support among those running for the Democratic nomination, but my basic belief is that many of them are acceptable choices because they share certain basic beliefs. All the same, perhaps my key requirement is someone who does not act like this. Someone with the moral integrity not only to cook evidence but also not have the gall to pervert the judicial nomination process, not willing to give an inch, but instead only inflaming the situation more. He has help, it is true ... the Republicans in the Senate cannot even resolve that a very controversial nominee such as William Pryor crosses some line ... can't throw that bone to the opposition, not even Sen. Spector, who has spoken of his misgivings, but voted with the rest to send his nomination out of the committee. The result? The Democrats might be forced to filibuster ... yes a whopping third of one for a hundred nominations ... thus inflaming things further. And, who is blamed? The Democrats, more often than not! Sigh.

New Threat To The Universe: Apparently, there is new evidence of Dark Energy that is "wrenching the universe apart." A team of scientists has discovered what they called "the shadow of dark energy." This would add to "emerging consensus of a universe dominated by mysterious dark matter and even more mysterious dark energy" that "means that parallel lines drawn across the cosmos will not meet." Like duh.

"If we can just keep collecting a few more clues about it," Dr. Riess added, "we might actually be able to figure out what the heck it is." It is theorized, however, that " the passage of microwaves through the modern universe" might be involved here. Imagine if each had a burrito or worse yet a bag of microwavable popcorn! Or a microwave tiolet.

Anyway, clearly the "Dark Side" is involved and we can use "the force" to stop it.

It also apparently has something to do with credit cards: Dr. Max Tegmark, a cosmologist at the University of Pennsylvania, compared the effect to racking up credit card debts in an inflationary era. "The payback is less than what is borrowed," Dr. Tegmark said. Sounds like an okay deal to me.

"Dr. Scranton, also in an e-mail message, said his team's work was important in validating the dark energy because it relied on sky survey data not available to other teams." They got it from the Brits.

More Baseball and Stuff: The last couple nights gave us some chances to view the results of some recent baseball trades involving Mets personnel. Armando Benitez came on with a four run lead tonight and pitched two innings largely without incident, though he had a bit of trouble getting the third out. Yesterday, John Franco blew a hold opportunity in the ninth, taking the loss ... 3-2 vs. the Braves. Jeremy Burnitz made an error as a Dodgers, but redeemed himself later on with his bat and base running. Also, former Met Rickey Henderson got a home run tonight for the Dodgers, showing he still has something left.

Meanwhile, I saw Swimming Pool, the latest Charlotte Rampling film, an actress many might best remember as Paul Newman's love interest (in a matter of speaking) in The Verdict. This movie is mostly style with little point ... the leads are fine as is the setting ... there is nice eye candy in the form of a young nubile niece. All the same, you are left wondering, "um, will there be like something happening sometime?" Rampling's last movie with this director, Under the Sand, was largely stylistic as well, but there was more meat to it. This has a point, but drags on and on without much of a plot, so one wonders after around a half hour, what the point really is. It can be enjoyed for style alone, but I got bored after a while. It is a movie you can look back upon and admire, but still are left with the realization it really wasn't that enjoyable overall.

Baseball and Stuff: Good All Stars ... Dontrelle Willis [Clemens did w/o incident] should have got a chance to pitch, over either Woody Williams (2 runs) or Russ Ortiz, and it was sad in a way that the NL All Stars blew a 5-1, fifth inning lead, but it was all in all enjoyable. Armando Benitez, who probably couldn't have done worse in the eighth than Eric Gagne (who decided to give up his first save since last summer here ... WHEN IT COUNTS!!!), looked a bit lonely when he was introduced. He now is with the Yanks, for Jason Anderson (young kid, seems to have some potential from the little I saw of him) and two other prospects. Maybe, he will do good as a right handed set-up man ... does suggest the desperation of the Yanks though. They, as much as anyone other than the Braves and the Phillies, know his history. As to Gagne, he helped complete the AL come from behind effort that we saw in Game Six of the Series ... and probably shouldn't have faced two run homer/Blaylock. But then, Dusty Baker left pitchers in too long in the Series as well, didn't he?

I might have saw the first summer blockbluster that I actually fully enjoyed in a summer blockbuster way ... Pirates of the Caribbean, which is no prize in the plot department, but Johnny Depp is fun, as is the movie on the whole. As a fan of the British show Coupling, it was fun to see its "Chandler" sort character play an English naval captain. The movie needed at least one good naval set piece ... battle it had left something to be desired ... but its scale on the whole still was blockbuster worthy. I'm also a sucker for historical fiction, including the tongue in cheek kind.

The President is having a bit of trouble these days with some statements he made in regards to Iraq ... the implication being he defended the path to war based on flawed evidence. Meanwhile, economic numbers continue to look bad, conservatives are upset at his protectionalist moves in regards to free trade, and the administration continues to support big government that interferes with our lives. This led me to start a new series discussing why Republicans and conservatives should feel wary about the guy. One post (targeting doctors who talk about medicinal marijuana use with their patients) that links to my other post (international trade plus "ethics") suggests my overall strategy.

Roger Clemens Too: Well, looks like the another "he shoulda have been an All Star" somehow got to be one ... though Barry Zito was perhaps the late one to know, it was announced the PTB decided he could not pitch, after pitching yesterday. So, suddenly there was a shot for a retiring/300 game winner (eventually). Meanwhile, Mets All Star Benitez decided to blow a save on the last game before the break. Jason Philips saved the day ... and pitch runner's Roger Cedeno's ass (a long double barely got him to third, after he twice stopped to make sure it wasn't caught) ... by hitting the winning RBI in the bottom of the inning. Thus, it was not surprising someone lost their job ... Jeremy Burnitz was traded to the LA Dodgers, probably one of the few teams who might have even a harder time to score runs than the Mets. Unless you count the White Sox, who recently loss a game 1-0 vs the Detroit Tigers. Robby Alomar doesn't seem to have put them over the hump.

Meanwhile, last weekend I caught some of the Degrassi marathon, including the well done date rape episode. The show itself harkens from Canada, is shown over here on the Noggin Network and is a sort of teenage soap opera.

I also recently finally found a book that was fairly enjoyable, Religious Liberty in American: Political Safeguards by Louis Fisher. The book argues that the political process is more important than the courts in protecting religious liberty and provides a history lesson from past to present to summarize how this was true over time. I think he somewhat overstates his case at times (and generally focuses on Free Exercise over the Establishment Clause), but it is a good rebuttal to those who put too much faith in the courts. It also is well written in a style accessible to both a general audience as well as those specifically interested in the field.

Dontrelle Willis Update: The Associated Press reported today that rookie sensation Dontrelle Willis will be on the All Star Game after all, replacing injuried All Star Kevin Brown. Meanwhile, Dodgers fans are gritting their teeth just a bit more, given how their inability to hit will be just that much worse now. The article notes that Willis was originally left off so Kerry Wood could play. As AP points out: "Wood is 9-6 with a 3.19 ERA, while Willis is 8-1 with a 1.98 ERA." The article also says that Dusty Baker apparently suggested at the time the reason why he did not pick DW was because "he had never seen him pitch." If you say so, Dusty.

Terminator 3: The Rise of the Machines: Well, I saw the latest Terminator flick. On the whole, it was a bit lame. The movie really gave us nothing new (besides a female villian ... nothing special), had the intelligence level of your average Beavis and Butthead episode (especially removing the pretentious voiceovers), and less action than its predecessors. Claire Danes did not get much of a role as the love interest. She tricks John Connor early on (given his experiences thus far, it didn't take much), but soon enough she is whiny and scared for her life for half of the film. The ending was a blatant cliffhanger ... not even pretending to be the true end of the film, and left something to be desired (to not spoil anything by submitting plot details). Finally, the action level seemed a bit down and the FX did not show much signs of new twists. It went down fairly easily, wasn't boring or anything, and was basically fun ... unless you thought how a summer flick should be a bit better than this.

Open To Ideas, Including From Outside Our Usual Borders: "Americans' ability to draw on ideas from all around the world, synthesize them and integrate them into our lives and our institutions is one of the abiding features of American ingenuity and one of the abiding strengths of American [society]. Something tells we that we will survive the occasional citation of a European court." A few sound words concluding a criticism (citation in my discussion) of the suggestion that a reference to an European Court decision in the Supreme Court's homosexual sodomy opinion was somehow a threat to our sovereignty. It is but one of a line of often passionate criticisms of Supreme Court justices finding international judicial decisions of some relevance to our system. Others can be guided by us, but not us they ... how sadly parochial.

As I note in the linked piece, it is just a piece of an overall xenophobia. For instance, other nations who disagree with us on Iraq are not just mistaken ... they aren't worth our respect. The alternative is a threat to our "sovereignty" ... a "sovereign" is a king. Aren't we over that? Doesn't the Constitution bar titles of nobility partly because of that very fact? I might be stretching here, but the word continues to leave a bad taste in my mouth. It got my notice when a libertarian party candidate suggested removing sovereign immunity so governments too can be sue for wrongs. They would probably appreciate this too ... a piece (with personal commentary) on how blacks need to change directions in the fight for civil rights, including a good deal of personal effort to help build the necessary foundation for success. If Bob Herbert can listen to views libertarians might honor, we can admit that foreigners have something to teach us as well.

Baseball: Tonight was typical of the Mets ... these guys are not ten or so games below .500 for nothing. After coming from behind in the final game and thus sweeping the Reds (first sweep of the season), they lost the first two games vs. the Braves. No shock. Seo had his third bad game ... the game turned on a pair of three run homers (two pitches). The second game was slow water torture. Jason Roach (filling in for Leiter, who surely had the potential to pitch comparably given his year thus far) pitched six, coming within a batter of leaving with a very respectable 3-2 score. The Braves got the home run though, so it was 5-2. The Mets, on the other hand, missed opportunity after opportunity down to the eighth where an error assisted bases loaded situation (one that even upset the usually copacetic Braves pitching coach) ended with a f-ing pathetic grounder back to the pitcher. Bound to happen. Still, even the lowly Devil Rays and Brewers have their days. The Indians tonight one hit the Yanks. The Mets have so few days against good teams ... and not one truly exciting late inning result that I recall. Tonight would not be the first.

All Star Picks: The added edge of this year's All Star Game is that it will determine home court advantage in the World Series, which also will be the case next year as well. I really do not see this as mattering too much ... both teams generally play to win anyway, except in select moments, such as the somewhat noteworthy home run by Ripkin in his final appearance. On the other hand, I don't recall that being a nailbiter anyway. Also, overall, home team advantage is somewhat weaker in baseball ... it does matter to some degree, especially for certain stadiums. The picks also have been chosen differently in various ways: two more were added to help avoid another tie and allow for a bigger pool of players; also, managers, players, and the Internet all will have a new role this year. It is no big surprise, however, that the result was the same -- some dissatisfaction with the picks.

Some were upset that certain fan favorites, including Sosa, Clemens, and Mariano Rivera were not chosen, even though injuries and not too elite records factored into the equation. This is for the fans, after all, and they want some of these people. We aren't just talking about records here, which is why fans continued to pick Cal Ripkin, even when he past his prime. There is something to this, and my key criticism would be the absence of exciting rookie phenemom Dontrelle Willis . Though he just might get a spot through as an injury replacement or for some other reason, his absence from the first batch of players is annoying because there was really no reason why he could not be chosen, unlike some other picks perhaps mandated by the "every team gets a player" rule. After all, his numbers and record were as a whole more impressive than Braves Russ Ortiz, and that team surely had enough representatives. Also, since Dusty Baker is managing, including his ex-player smells of favoritism.

The need to pick a player from every team has received some criticism since it skewers the choices, but throwing bad teams a bone (usually, most bad teams have a good player anyhow) is not in my view a bad thing. We do have the unlikely (if given the alternatives, reasonable) pick of Armando Benitez as the Mets representative, but only because of the glut of good outfielders, and the injury to Mike Piazza. We also have the pick of Lance Carter, Tampa Bay's average closer, but the rule did not dictate this ... there were other people to pick, including a few decent pitchers. Also, I am not too upset that no Yankee pitcher was chosen ... the roster is still quite respectable, and the Seattle reliever chosen (perhaps over Rivera) actually is pitching lights out (ERA under .90). And, if the game is fairly close, and Benitez blows it in the seventh or eight inning (perhaps to one of the big bats from the Braves) ... Mets fans with a sense of humor can appreciate it.

Blogging Ecosystem Picks Me Up: I found out my little blog actually has web presence ... ok, it is only mentioned as one insignificant pick-up by the "Blogging Ecosystem" project, but it's a start.

Films: While I'm here, let me quickly note that I watched 1776 today, which is probably at least the sixth, if not more times I saw it in various media. For instance, this time was my first DVD experience, which not only has a few added scenes, but commentary from the director (and some other guy). I just love this sort of thing and enjoyed all but one ("Two Week's Notice," where the two stars goof off too much) of the commentaries I have heard so far. It is quite interesting if not fascinating to hear about the film from the director's (or for Crazy/Beautiful, the director and star) point of view. Of course, as they talk, you can only watch the film, which usually provides one with a special perspective. DVDs are so great for movie geeks like myself. For instance, the To Kill A Mockingbird DVD not only had a commentary track, but a full length documentary on the film. btw I also caught 1776 on Broadway, the revival that had Brent Spiner (Data) as John Adams. This too was fun to see, even though I already had seen the film a few times by then.

Well, since this has turned into movie night ... I found the films of the last two months (not counting this week's releases) to be rather lame, leading me to take in some foreign and documentary films instead. This allowed me to see some enjoyable films off the beaten path ... Respiro (mentally troubled Italian mother of three ... bad last third), Whale Rider (New Zealand fable), Jet Lag (comedy French trifle), The Weatherman, The Nazi Officer's Wife (Jew who becomes a wife of a Nazi during WWII), and Human Weapon/My Terrorist (terrorism and a Jewish terrorist victim who decides to speak for the man who shot her). The last three are docs, though second and last one would have made good feature movies.

I summarized the 2002-3 Supreme Court Term here. As to baseball, it is nice that the Mets started on the road of cutting the waste ... Roberto Alomar can thrive or whatever over in Chicago, and hopefully those prospects are actually worth something. Kansas City actually picked up a decent reliever ... their relief staff is on par with the Red Sox these days (both teams also have some pretty good starters, bats, and a couple relievers it can generally trust ... most of the time). They are back on top of their division ... the AL Least ... and it's not like their competition is that dangerous.

Mets lost ... that makes 0 for six vs. the Yanks ... went the "one bad inning" route this time. It is depressing when one hopes for mediocre. The Mets fan that thought "well, they will win tonight, so what? It's only one game out of six," sadly was too optimistic. Jeff Weaver used the Mets as his balm. Can't pitch well against the Devil Rays, but then, the Devil Rays won a few games against the Yanks. In fact, it beat the Braves yesterday. And, it has the benefit of being expected to do bad, and having a payroll about a third of the Mets.

Gays, Abortion Posters, and More: The biggest end of the year decision is a 6-3 vote that broadly (Justice O'Connor voted in a more narrow fashion, but that still left five) struck down the Texas homosexual sodomy law in such a way that conssensual sex of both sexes was broadly protected. I discuss the opinion here. The opinion basically rights the ship by recognizing past privacy cases that protected heterosexuals (doing so in such a way that strenghtens the implications of such cases on the right in matters of heterosexual sex in general) also covers homosexuals. It skims through the history of sodomy to do so (the briefs fleshes it out some more) and honors past privacy cases in broad strokes. The opinion, oral argument, and many interesting briefs for Lawrence v. Texas can be found here [end of March, 2003].

Seventeen years ago, Justice Blackmun ended his dissent of Bowers v Hardwick, overturned by this decision, thusly: "I can only hope that here, too, the Court soon will reconsider its analysis and conclude that depriving individuals of the right to choose for themselves how to conduct their intimate relationships poses a far greater threat to the values most deeply rooted in our Nation's history than tolerance of nonconformity could ever do. Because I think the Court today betrays those values, I dissent." He has passed on, but his voice rings out in Justice Kennedy's decision. At its heart, is an equalitarian vision of one's right to choose one's personal moral path, which is in my view at the heart of liberty.

A more distressing case which I discussed here involves severe limits on prisoners who wish to visit with family and friends. I discuss a NY Court of Appeals ruling that holds that the state is not truly offerring "sound education" to New York City students as the state constitution demands over here, including the core aspects of necessary educational reform. The Supreme Court did not accept an important abortion protest case involving "wanted posters" deemed to be criminal threats. I have mixed feelings about the troubling case, which I write about here. It is a bit surprising that no one dissented from the denial.

Finally, the Supreme Court decided 5-4 that California could not extend its statute of limitations for child molestation without breaching the Ex Post Facto Clause. The opinions are interesting and to a degree amusing to read, but the principle is quite important. I particularly would note that the alternative is extending the statute of limitations potentially decades with all the problems old evidence, witnesses who most recall events long ago, and so forth. Murder has no statute of limitations for a reason ... such limits are an important value and policy judgment that changes the calculus when the crime is tried. It is an inherent part of the punishment and logically falls under the clause.

Sports: The Mets just lost their fifth of six games against the Yankees. Yesterday, they lost 6-4, when Seo decided it was time to have a bad outing (five runs in the first two innings). Today was worse. First, the Mets rookie who did fairly well before the rainout last weekend (called right when the Mets were rallying), did bad, while the rookie long guy did fairly well after it was too late. Clemens pitched eight in the 7-1 game. The nightcap had Glavine vs the Yankee rookie. He did fine ... Glavine was out in the fifth, after giving up six runs. I shut it off when it was 7-0 ... the Mets rallied to 9-8 in the eighth (it was 9-4), and that even after Mariano came in to get some work. Alas (or of course), the final 3 RBIs (with one out) came on a play that ended with an out when the batter tried to stretch it into a triple. Okay ... they still had four outs, right? Easy ones.

Justice or probability warrants at least one win out of five or even one great comeback in say a month, two months even. Didn't happen. Like the sacrifice bunt that made it 4-0 by stopping an inch or so before becoming foul, yet again, is it really just them? Now, it's Weaver (obligatory mentally suspect Yankee fifth starter) v. Leiter tonight ... as was the case Saturday night, one might think the Mets are favored. After all, chances are even a bad team will take one out of three, split a day/night doubleheader, or win when it's rookie v. veteran. Well, the Mets was swept in all of its doubleheaders, didn't reap the match-ups today, so why not get swept in its six games? Weaver is due to have a good outing yet, right? Sigh ... mediocre is bad ... but the Mets are one step below that these days.

Affirmative Action, Internet Filters, and Nazis: I discussed the affirmative action rulings here [summary] and here [Justice Thomas' use of Frederick Douglas]. The Internet filter ruling was discussed here [summary] and here [internet as public fora and libraries as 1A defenders].

To summarize: the affirmative action ruling was an acceptable compromise by striking down a policy that gave minorities an automatic twenty points (but see here) but upholding a more individualized program for law schools ... which are different (less nonracial solutions, narrower problems, etc.) from undergraduate schools anyway. The filter plurality went much too far in saying the internet is not a public forum and that libraries might not have First Amendment interests. Anyway, filters burden adults and (as ignored by all the opinions) mature teenagers as well.

Of the other lesser reported rulings, one worthy of note is a 5-4 ruling (the dissent was written by Justice Ginsburg with Justice Stevens, Scalia and Thomas in agreement ... not a batch that dissents together that over!) which struck down a Californian policy of requiring any insurer doing business in that state to disclose information about certain policies sold in Europe between 1920 and 1945 as an interference with the President's role in foreign policy. The majority/dissent basically disagrees on the nature of said policy ... all the same, unless executive agreements or treaties run counter to what California is doing, it should have the right to conduct its business as it sees fit. The case reminds me of a case that struck down Massachusett's ability to boycott Burma ... where is this interest in states' rights we hear so much about? The same can be said by the 6-3 ruling limiting the discretion of local libraries to decide on their own how to filter their computers without worrying about important funds being cut.

Sports Update: Before the rainout, the Mets seemed to be showing life vs. the Yanks ... they matched them well on Sunday too ... until Benitez could not get that final strike. I honestly don't know why we keep on hearing about the Yanks wanting him ... he continuously shows an inability to perform at key moments. The error assisted meltdown in the 11th suggests, of course, he isn't alone in this department. At any rate, after a good road trip, the Mets are back to losing. Take the good when we can get it, I guess. It is notable, as well, that Clemens lost again today (vs the Devil Rays) 4-2, making his record 7-5. The bullpen often didn't help him, but his decision to retire after this year might be sound ... his habit of not quite making it is starting to be just that ... a bit of a habit.

Some thoughts: The "A" word, Proof Through Repetition, Harry Shows His Teeth, Secret Ballot (Iranian film), and WMDs.

Supreme Court Round-Up:

The article on the trespass regulation dealt with in VA v Hicks is correct to note the limited nature of the ruling. The regulation, which is open-ended in that there are various possible troubling applications to its broad terms (e.g. arguably legitimate expressive conduct, touched upon in the article), was broadly opposed. The test therefore was a high one for the petitioner.

All the same, it troubled me that the Supreme Court (unlike an earlier Findlaw article on this case that partly disagreed with the current article as well as the state courts below) totally ignored why the person was there. This article notes it, but in an arguably snide way: "At the time, he claimed he was delivering diapers to the mother of one of his children." "Claimed?" Is there any evidence he was not there for that purpose? And, if he was, surely it is relevant ... as noted by the earlier article, parental rights (including familial association) have constitutional significance. Arguably, they also have 1A applications.

Something is wrong with a statute, perhaps not as applied here, that doesn't specifically take into consideration that a parent is involved. The unfortunate fact that many in low income housing (proportionately in many cases much more than gated communities in general) are single parents also must be taken into consideration. And, yes, there is some "expressive" conduct involved here. When one visits one's family and children, there is usually some "expression" involved, also known as talking.

As with the decision last term that broadly gave the state power to remove residents from public housing who did not know their fellow residents used drugs (in some cases outside of the residence itself), regulations like this one are on some level obviously a good thing. All the same, they can be applied in troubling ways, especially if the interests at stake are totally ignored. Furthermore, the comparison to "gated communities" is a bit too blase. Many in public housing don't choose to live there ... and yes, when the government runs things they should at times be put to a higher standard. The power of the state as well as the overall limitations applied especially to them warrant it.

So, I'm not too upset at the result here, but I still am uneasy that it was deemed besides the point why Keven Hicks was there. It seems to be a tad bit relevant.

Another case handed by the US Supreme Court dealt with an old law that bars direct corporate contributions to candidates. A law few might have a problem with aside from those concerned with the free speech ramifications of preventing corporations to totally be unable to support candidates that whose interests are supported by them. The importance of funds to issue advocacy is much clearer when non-profit advocacy groups are involved, many of which are corporations for legal reasons. FEC v BEAUMONT dealt with just this sort of case, but did not treat such corporations differently. The rights of freedom of expression, including by associations established for that purpose, at their core raised in cases such as this one. The case therefore suggests the problems of unnuanced application of regulations on corporate spending and probably was wrongly decided for that very reason.

Sports: The NY Mets were involved in three one-hitters in a row (Fathers Day vs Angels, then they were one-hit by the Marlins, and then they returned the favor), winning two of them; the third was a 1-0 loss against Marlins' star rookie, as well as a pretty good return by Tom Glavine. Steve Trachsel went the distance after two poor outings, while Seo had help (Weathers and Benitez, continuing to look great), after he had to leave after 6 2/3 because of a split fingernail. The latter one-hitter was the first times the Mets knocked down the team minimum of opposing batters, the one hitter "caught" stealing (he was probably safe). The game was also close until late, the first run scored via a homer in the seventh, the rest in the ninth. The Father's Day game gave Reyes (grand slam, 5RBI) and Burnitz (two homers) a chance to shine. Meanwhile, Acevedo went to the Blue Jays, and Jeff Weaver continues to suck. The Yanks under Torre never did have a great fifth starter.

Sports: After he was fired, a NYT sportswriter had this to say about Steve Philips: "Phillips was good as a general manager, but overrated. In fact, he has been overrated throughout his career. He was an infielder drafted by the Mets in 1981 - ahead of Roger Clemens. Clemens goes for his 300th victory today, and Phillips ends a so-so front-office career with the Mets by being fired." Well, comparing him to Clemens (fourth time the charm for 300, Roger?) is a bit much, but his firing is past due. In point of fact, he should have gone along with Valentine, because bad moves (i.e. overpaid players prone to injury or subpar performance) over the last few years was surely equally to blame as managing for their problems. I would add coaching, since the decrease of defense alone since 1999 cannot be solely blamed on personnel alone. Anyway, Philips is gone ... what will they do next? Who will they get rid of? I don't know but I think Seo, Wiggington, Reyes (announcers were drooling over this twenty year old prospect as he got a chance in the Texas series ... Texas Rangers), and not much more are untouchable imho.

Yes, it's interleague play, so the Mets weren't playing the Astros, the Yanks were. This, along with the bad omen of Jeff Weaver getting another start, meant it was they who were due to be no-hit. This last happened in the 1950s, but the impressive thing is that six pitchers were involved. After their ace lasted but an inning because of injury, the Yanks must have felt the Astros were in trouble. Instead, it was the Yanks who were in trouble, even against a couple middle relievers whose ERA were far from scary. Mets refugee Octavio Dotel ... who struck out four in the eighth because of a passed ball [the game also had an error, a hit by a pitch, and three walks ... once a combination of all three led to the bases loaded; the count went to 3-0, Posada missed a sign, and swung ... that took care of that threat] ... now not hitting him was not too bad. Not hitting a guy with an ERA of over 5 was a bit more problematic. Have no fear ... they came back from behind (against some of these same pitchers) ... and won the series. And the Red Sox lost, so the Yanks (again) were on top by .5. Be a lot of back and forth, I bet.

btw: below I had some strong things to say about Sosa, who is currently serving a seven day suspension (originally it was eight). Some argued such thoughts are exaggerated. Well, talk about him leaving baseball might have been a tad bit much, but I don't have much sympathy for the guy. He cheated and some of the abuse from sportswriters is influenced by those who know things about him that makes him not quite as great of a guy as some make him out to be. I put that aside, I don't know the details ... I just think the guy has a higher standard to meet, and if he wants the public to think he is just your typical ball player, one who you know cheats now and then, good for him. It just knocks him down a few pegs in my opinion, and probably in many others as well. If he didn't know that there was a risk of that, that corking was even more stupid than it was originally thought.

Other: A review on a book on legal writing piqued my interest, since the review promoted general goals of argument and rhetoric, which has broad value.

Media: I just re-read an interesting little volume entitled A New Birth of Freedom: Human Rights, Named & Unnamed by Charles L. Black Jr. It argues that a good foundation of national human rights law can be based on the Declaration of Independence, the Ninth Amendment, and the Privileges and Immunities Clause of the 14th Amendment. The first, especially the "pursuit of happiness," is basically the core guide for the other two. I think he tries to argue a rather unusual argument as more obvious than it really is, but I am supportive of his efforts. I also think, however, other components of the Constitution (broadly interpreted, in part because those three components encourage us to do so) is an important guide in this effort. Black (not related to the justice, to my knowledge) briefly touches upon this, but probably not enough.

As long as I'm recommending books, "The No. 1 Ladies Detective Agency" by Alexander McCall Smith [woman detective in Botwansa] and "Distant Relations: How My Ancestors Colonized North America" by Victoria Freemen [last chapter drags] also are worth reading. Also, "Whale Rider," was also enjoyable. It concerns, in the words of the NYT review, "young Pai [who] must overcome resistance as she tries to assume her destiny as the leader of a tribe on the New Zealand coast."

Baseball: This is useful information in that lately NY baseball teams do not bear recommending ... Seo started things well v. Seattle, but Leiter/Bacsik was about as successful in the doubleheader as Glavine (hurt) and Trachsel (fever) did vs the Brewers ... in fact, both aces only got to the second inning, and the backenders lasted around five but gave up loads of runs -- Bacsik did have four good innings. Astacio joined the injury brigade and will be out for the rest of the year.

The Yanks? They also won Game One vs. the Cubs. In the second game, Clemens took a 1-0 lead into the seventh until relieved by ... Acevedo. One pitch, it was 3-1, via a home run by the replacement of a player earlier out with a concussion. Acevedo, the latest in a line of relievers after Pettite left way early, also gave up a couple key runs in the rubber game ... when Charles Gibson was picked off first in the ninth, the Yanks scratched back to 8-7. Acevedo this time managed to pitch his first inning with no score ... these two are not long with the club in all likilihood, if anyone wants them.

Further Joe Reading: On impeachment, antiquities loss in Iraq (and also), and WMDs.

Sosa Corked:

"The first thing that went through my mind," said his former Cubs teammate, Turk Wendell, on Tuesday, "was why would a guy like that be using cork? In my eyes, I could see guys who are little shortstops, who hit two or three home runs a year, using a corked bat so they could maybe hit one or two more homers. But Sammy doesn't hit paint-scrapers. He doesn't need help getting his balls to go out of the park. He hits moon shots. So I don't understand why he'd use a corked bat. ... Now everything else he's done has question marks around it. His home run records, everything. It's all surrounded by question marks." [thanks to Jayson Stark for the quote]

Depressing ... Sosa last weekend was a hero for hitting the game winning hit (his first one he got after coming back from the DL) in the 16th inning in a 1-0 game vs the Astros. This time, I presume he timed it since the umpire involved already has his moment in history, he "accidently" (I guess so, it was the Tampa Bay Devil Rays for crying out loud) picking up the corked bat he used to wow the fans during batting practice. This is lame in itself, but again he is just off injury, and that maybe is the reason he used the bat.

[After all, after he came off injury, he struck out eight times, and had to deal with the indignity of having the guy in front of him intentionally walked ... and they got the out. He got his revenge later in the game, but surely, yesterday's game was not the game to cork one's bat, right?]

It taints him. I think McGuire, legal or not, was tainted for using supplements. Now, Sosa does something truly stupid like this. A local reporter over my way said that while he sits out his suspension, the bats in the Hall of Fame from his key home runs should be X-rayed. An investigation will be made, but how can you prove or disprove this? Obviously, most of the bats are gone. If any cork is found, the reporter suggests Sosa should be kicked out of baseball. This very well might be justified ... either way, his record will be tainted forever. Along with past whispering that Sosa is kind of a s.o.b. at times, it will always be used to tar him.

The Cubs can't be in first place w/o being punished, I guess. Well, perhaps they can stop Clemens (again) from failing to get his 300th win ... he is matched up with Kerry Wood ... and the Yanks are having trouble buying a win [16th inning marathon with the Astros? how about a 17th inning marathon with the Tigers?!]. That's always something, right? Mets fans btw would love it if Kerry "accidently" hit him ... when one of their pitchers tried to do it, he missed. The pitcher, Estes, incidentially is now with the Cubs, so it's only fair.

Other Stuff: Thomas Friedman today has a column discussing how there are various reasons why we fought with Iraq, the real, the moral, the right, and the stated. The stated (WMDs), as many have been reporting, is looking more and more to be at best overblown, at worst fraudulent. The real reason was that we needed to fight someone in the Middle East after 9/11, and Saddam was the easiest target. The moral reason was to get rid of a murderous dictator, while the "right" reason (his reason) was to help pave the way to a freer society in Iraq and the region as a whole. The real reason is sadly cynical, the moral reason selective, and the right reason questionable ... there was other ways to go about it. A honest column all the same. Another good column discusses the limitations of the Family Medical Leave Act and the decision that upheld it.