Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
About Me
- Joe
- This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
Wednesday, October 18, 2006
Quickies
It was nice to hear Katherine Lanpher again, if only for a guest appearance to promote her new book, on The Al Franken Show. Love her laugh. ... The Mets failed to win the last Game 6 elimination game (1999). This sort of thing is not generally focused upon, except when Kenny Rogers comes up, the more famous one mentioned. Well, I don't think they will replace this first baseman.
The Final Chapter
And Also: No, you can't just "trust them," huh? Nor, should one go to FOX and company for analysis, even from people (MK) who came off as good in uplifting t.v. movies.
Changing Hearts was on again recently on Lifetime, and it does have the draw you in tearjerker quality. Lauren Holly does a good job playing a woman with cancer who tries to retain her love for humanity and overall hopeful disposition. There is a striking scene when she tells another character (who falls in love with her) about her babies -- they only lived for an hour, but unlike her abusive husband, she made it clear that they truly existed for her.* One can also think of women who had a miscarriage. It is one of those moments where even t.v. docudramas truly can hit you.
The core message of this movie is open to debate. It might be seen as a religious sort of movie in which even a woman suffering from cancer and has her life cut off all too soon (the baseball playoffs reminds one of Cliff Floyd's sister dying in her twenties or Cory Lidle and his instructor dying in a crash, both leaving a wife and kid behind) finds meaning in her suffering -- is able, though have moments of doubt, to retain her faith. Thus, a sort of "pro-life" deal. Mandy Moore also has a movie shown repeatedly on basic cable where she plays a minister's daughter dying at an even younger age that takes a similar path.
But, it is also about her "interest in choosing a final chapter that accords with her life story, rather than one that demeans her values and poisons memories of her." In fact, the personal beliefs involved here underline the importance of supplying some level of discretion to the person involved. And, this is why Justice Stevens -- hard as it might be for some "value" supporters to believe -- also wrote the latter. Or, to cite Justice Breyer's opinion, "personal control over the manner of death, professional medical assistance, and the avoidance of unnecessary and severe physical suffering--combined." See also, Stevens' dissenting opinion here.
I appreciate Stevens' views on the subject since he does a better job than most judges/justices to firmly show how many life and death issues are ultimately not just aspects of personal privacy/autonomy, but matters of individual religious faith with which the state only has limited right to interfere. One can firmly honor the choices made, including disagreeing with them in some fashion, without suddenly thinking the government has some right/obligation to prevent them.
The "right to die" or "die with dignity" (Breyer is correct there -- "dignity" is basically the core issue here; we all die; I disagree with Dr. House to the degree he thinks none can die with dignity) cases involved here raise many striking issues. Justice Souter took one as an opportunity to voice his views on "substantive due process," underlining why I like his style. He explains its long history, even in the face of those who think it is some sort of absurdity (even some liberals argue it to be).
This includes the reality that it is a sort of backdoor given that the Privileges and Immunity Clause (14A version) was castrated some time ago. But, water needs an outlet as does those basic liberties not expressly enumerated in the Constitution. As John Orth notes in his good little book on the Due Process Clause, there was always some substantive reach to "due process" (from the "law of the land" provision of the Magna Charta), some basic rights deemed "fundamental" -- or some other basic phraseology -- to English liberty. Or, natural liberty in general. There also is always the Ninth Amendment.
Justice Souter provides a defense of entrusting the judiciary with securing such rights via "reasoned judgment." This includes realizing the limitations of the institution, which was why he would not support a basic right to assisted euthanasia. The devil was in the details, and given his "common law Constitution" approach of case by case judging (my preference too), he could not say at this point in time that societal understanding is so clear-cut that a legislature would be unreasonable to deny such rights. A majority of justices probably would agree that forced treatment or unbearable pain would be quite different. But, the cases at hand were of a "summary judgment" nature that could avoid such more tricky questions.
As his ruling at the very least indirectly notes, this in no way means there is not some basic "right" to assisted euthanasia. Every right we have that is of some fundamental importance is not secured ultimately by the judiciary. The legislature, our representatives, are an essential security to our rights as well. And, I firmly want them ala Oregon to set up a regime in which assisted euthanasia (suicide if you like, though the path to death has started) is allowed. Also, I would argue for some basic "natural" right to do so in some overall view of justice. Again, see also Stevens' opinions (first citation).
I myself probably would be supportive of Judge Reinhardt's opinion (the New York case was a bit trickier), but the somewhat more middle of the road stance taken by several justices has much merit too. It suggests as well that the presence of rights is not always a slam dunk case. Sometimes, the regulations that are essential in applying them -- and yes, limiting them in some fashion -- should be left to the legislature. A right can make it clear that the courts should take special care before upholding the regulations, but there is a stopping point.
And, of course, some would give a lot of discretion to the legislature. This also depends on who's ox is being gored. Thus, many liberals want to leave chunks of state power to the elected branches, such as commerce matters, that affects our lives in any number of ways. And, many conservatives want to restrain such power -- by the courts if necessary -- while leaving other branches more discretion in other areas. The balance is a complex and somewhat arbitrary calculus, but ultimately, some important area is left to the legislature and executive.
Often, because it is deemed they are more able to settle the question. Deal with the details. But, even if they are given such power, we must remember their obligations to secure our welfare is not trivial. If anything, it is ever more important.
---
* I have a "six degrees of separation" view of life in which it is likely that in some pretty direct way (if only once or twice removed) that I am in some fashion like someone else in some significant fashion. This furthers my belief in equality and respect for others. And, yes, I know someone by let's say one degree of separation who lost a baby some years back, one she only knew for a tiny amount of time. This sort of thing, of course, remains all too prevalent in some parts of the world. And, in some cases, some parts of the country.
We must focus on a narrow focus personally speaking in some fashion, since the alternative is often just too hard, but sometimes it is a bit hard given reality. Likewise, some say "you cannot understand." Yes, probably not in many ways. But, if we cannot understand in some fashion, what good are we? Are we to pass laws and such only when we directly "understand" what is at stake in all ways?
Changing Hearts was on again recently on Lifetime, and it does have the draw you in tearjerker quality. Lauren Holly does a good job playing a woman with cancer who tries to retain her love for humanity and overall hopeful disposition. There is a striking scene when she tells another character (who falls in love with her) about her babies -- they only lived for an hour, but unlike her abusive husband, she made it clear that they truly existed for her.* One can also think of women who had a miscarriage. It is one of those moments where even t.v. docudramas truly can hit you.
The core message of this movie is open to debate. It might be seen as a religious sort of movie in which even a woman suffering from cancer and has her life cut off all too soon (the baseball playoffs reminds one of Cliff Floyd's sister dying in her twenties or Cory Lidle and his instructor dying in a crash, both leaving a wife and kid behind) finds meaning in her suffering -- is able, though have moments of doubt, to retain her faith. Thus, a sort of "pro-life" deal. Mandy Moore also has a movie shown repeatedly on basic cable where she plays a minister's daughter dying at an even younger age that takes a similar path.
The State has an interest in preserving and fostering the benefits that every human being may provide to the community--a community that thrives on the exchange of ideas, expressions of affection, shared memories and humorous incidents as well as on the material contributions that its members create and support. The value to others of a person's life is far too precious to allow the individual to claim a constitutional entitlement to complete autonomy in making a decision to end that life.
-- Justice Stevens
But, it is also about her "interest in choosing a final chapter that accords with her life story, rather than one that demeans her values and poisons memories of her." In fact, the personal beliefs involved here underline the importance of supplying some level of discretion to the person involved. And, this is why Justice Stevens -- hard as it might be for some "value" supporters to believe -- also wrote the latter. Or, to cite Justice Breyer's opinion, "personal control over the manner of death, professional medical assistance, and the avoidance of unnecessary and severe physical suffering--combined." See also, Stevens' dissenting opinion here.
I appreciate Stevens' views on the subject since he does a better job than most judges/justices to firmly show how many life and death issues are ultimately not just aspects of personal privacy/autonomy, but matters of individual religious faith with which the state only has limited right to interfere. One can firmly honor the choices made, including disagreeing with them in some fashion, without suddenly thinking the government has some right/obligation to prevent them.
The "right to die" or "die with dignity" (Breyer is correct there -- "dignity" is basically the core issue here; we all die; I disagree with Dr. House to the degree he thinks none can die with dignity) cases involved here raise many striking issues. Justice Souter took one as an opportunity to voice his views on "substantive due process," underlining why I like his style. He explains its long history, even in the face of those who think it is some sort of absurdity (even some liberals argue it to be).
This includes the reality that it is a sort of backdoor given that the Privileges and Immunity Clause (14A version) was castrated some time ago. But, water needs an outlet as does those basic liberties not expressly enumerated in the Constitution. As John Orth notes in his good little book on the Due Process Clause, there was always some substantive reach to "due process" (from the "law of the land" provision of the Magna Charta), some basic rights deemed "fundamental" -- or some other basic phraseology -- to English liberty. Or, natural liberty in general. There also is always the Ninth Amendment.
Justice Souter provides a defense of entrusting the judiciary with securing such rights via "reasoned judgment." This includes realizing the limitations of the institution, which was why he would not support a basic right to assisted euthanasia. The devil was in the details, and given his "common law Constitution" approach of case by case judging (my preference too), he could not say at this point in time that societal understanding is so clear-cut that a legislature would be unreasonable to deny such rights. A majority of justices probably would agree that forced treatment or unbearable pain would be quite different. But, the cases at hand were of a "summary judgment" nature that could avoid such more tricky questions.
As his ruling at the very least indirectly notes, this in no way means there is not some basic "right" to assisted euthanasia. Every right we have that is of some fundamental importance is not secured ultimately by the judiciary. The legislature, our representatives, are an essential security to our rights as well. And, I firmly want them ala Oregon to set up a regime in which assisted euthanasia (suicide if you like, though the path to death has started) is allowed. Also, I would argue for some basic "natural" right to do so in some overall view of justice. Again, see also Stevens' opinions (first citation).
I myself probably would be supportive of Judge Reinhardt's opinion (the New York case was a bit trickier), but the somewhat more middle of the road stance taken by several justices has much merit too. It suggests as well that the presence of rights is not always a slam dunk case. Sometimes, the regulations that are essential in applying them -- and yes, limiting them in some fashion -- should be left to the legislature. A right can make it clear that the courts should take special care before upholding the regulations, but there is a stopping point.
And, of course, some would give a lot of discretion to the legislature. This also depends on who's ox is being gored. Thus, many liberals want to leave chunks of state power to the elected branches, such as commerce matters, that affects our lives in any number of ways. And, many conservatives want to restrain such power -- by the courts if necessary -- while leaving other branches more discretion in other areas. The balance is a complex and somewhat arbitrary calculus, but ultimately, some important area is left to the legislature and executive.
Often, because it is deemed they are more able to settle the question. Deal with the details. But, even if they are given such power, we must remember their obligations to secure our welfare is not trivial. If anything, it is ever more important.
---
* I have a "six degrees of separation" view of life in which it is likely that in some pretty direct way (if only once or twice removed) that I am in some fashion like someone else in some significant fashion. This furthers my belief in equality and respect for others. And, yes, I know someone by let's say one degree of separation who lost a baby some years back, one she only knew for a tiny amount of time. This sort of thing, of course, remains all too prevalent in some parts of the world. And, in some cases, some parts of the country.
We must focus on a narrow focus personally speaking in some fashion, since the alternative is often just too hard, but sometimes it is a bit hard given reality. Likewise, some say "you cannot understand." Yes, probably not in many ways. But, if we cannot understand in some fashion, what good are we? Are we to pass laws and such only when we directly "understand" what is at stake in all ways?
Don't Settle or You Are Stuck Appeasing Liebermans
The risk is that our activists and donors and party leaders are satisfied with winning when there is an opportunity for a real majority. The difference between governing with a 5-seat majority and a 25-seat majority is night and day. In one scenario you spend your life trying to keep the 5 moderate Democrats from voting with the Republicans; in the other, you are able to achieve a unity that can really enact progressive things.
Carpe Diem
Tuesday, October 17, 2006
Quickie Election Comments
And Also: The Class was again pretty good last night, suggesting a sort of Friends flavor (though on CBS) with a bit more of an edge. The cutesy title and twenty-something cast suggests the former, the somewhat darker plots, the latter. Again, Arizona was sad last night -- advice: score more than three points in Second Half. Don't repeatedly go to failed run plays; and, if you do, don't run directly into a fierce Bears defense. Sad.
Christopher Shays is a moderate (moderately reminding people that Kennedy was involved in a car accident ... you know, like Laura Bush) Republican from Connecticut who is in trouble since as Paul Krugman noted Monday in the NYT, this election is about the letter next to your name, about party control.* So, he has a campaign ad out (playing on the local sports station, for instance) about how independent he is. You'd think that he was running on Lieberman's ticket or something. Sorta funny. Maybe, his progressive voters will take the advice given to them in 2004.
C-SPAN has ongoing coverage of political debates in this electoral system, and I passed by one between the Pennsylvanian senatorial candidates. My rough impression of Bob Casey (D) is that he is a "moderate" sort that I will not like on various issues. It is a no brainer, of course, when you have Santorum going against him. All the same, I caught an annoying tidbit where Casey (perhaps best known for his pro-life views, mirroring his father) called terrorism the biggest threat these days. Honestly, and I'm from NYC, it is not really what I worry about the most.
It is an easy thing to say, but in most people's lives, quite a lot of other things are more important -- even on an life and death plane. For instance, health insurance. This is so even if President Bush wants to take the fear route. It clearly has its place, but perspective would be nice. See also, today's Doonesbury.
---
* Of course, push comes to shove, these "moderate" sorts tend to stay loyal to their conservative wingnut leadership. Such leadership, as well as faux moderates, make it clear that elections ("the people") remain as the important check when you cannot trust the judiciary to rein in governmental overreaching. In this country, all branches of government along with the people themselves are involved in the security of our liberties.
Christopher Shays is a moderate (moderately reminding people that Kennedy was involved in a car accident ... you know, like Laura Bush) Republican from Connecticut who is in trouble since as Paul Krugman noted Monday in the NYT, this election is about the letter next to your name, about party control.* So, he has a campaign ad out (playing on the local sports station, for instance) about how independent he is. You'd think that he was running on Lieberman's ticket or something. Sorta funny. Maybe, his progressive voters will take the advice given to them in 2004.
C-SPAN has ongoing coverage of political debates in this electoral system, and I passed by one between the Pennsylvanian senatorial candidates. My rough impression of Bob Casey (D) is that he is a "moderate" sort that I will not like on various issues. It is a no brainer, of course, when you have Santorum going against him. All the same, I caught an annoying tidbit where Casey (perhaps best known for his pro-life views, mirroring his father) called terrorism the biggest threat these days. Honestly, and I'm from NYC, it is not really what I worry about the most.
It is an easy thing to say, but in most people's lives, quite a lot of other things are more important -- even on an life and death plane. For instance, health insurance. This is so even if President Bush wants to take the fear route. It clearly has its place, but perspective would be nice. See also, today's Doonesbury.
---
* Of course, push comes to shove, these "moderate" sorts tend to stay loyal to their conservative wingnut leadership. Such leadership, as well as faux moderates, make it clear that elections ("the people") remain as the important check when you cannot trust the judiciary to rein in governmental overreaching. In this country, all branches of government along with the people themselves are involved in the security of our liberties.
R as in "Republican?"
Venezuela’s campaign to gain Latin America's open seat on the Security Council next year suffered a setback on Monday when Guatemala, backed by the United States, established a wide lead and maintained it after 10 ballots. ... "In the year 2000, I was in Florida for 31 days," said John R. Bolton, the American ambassador, recalling the post-election fight of President Bush to win the presidency that year. "This has just begun."
-- Venezuela on SC ... almost as scary as Gore in White House, huh JB?
Monday, October 16, 2006
Passion and Anger
And Also: Why is a game where the Bears are playing Arizona, yes Arizona, a national game? [A: To watch AZ choke.] There is that new QB ... Lou does have a new coaching job ... in Chicago. And, the As skipper is out of a job. Good year, sweep/swept. [Mets have another rainout; let's see who pitches for St. Louis.]
Exactly. This was in particular in response to a run by a former military sort running against Curt Weldon, someone who bucked the critics and actually supported changing our Iraqi policy, including redeployment. It helps that Weldon is a bit of a nut who has had various problems, including ethical concerns. All the same, political success is not for the light hearted. This is true even if your message is substantively moderate. Look at Bill Clinton, the demigod of some sorts. He played to the middle, but with a no apology passion against the Right. This is why people on the left remained so loyal to him, even though his policies left something to be desired.
This is also why I supported Howard Dean in '04. Now, honestly, I thought him not quite electable, but there really was not any ideal choice in the mix. I got tired of him being bashed for telling the truth. Thus, some were appalled at his tax policy, amounting to basically telling the truth and noting small cuts to middle class taxes nationally would be shifted to the states. Net gain: negative. [I was helped here by the Slate fray economic expert.] My secondary choice was John Edwards, who looks to be a credible choice in '08 (so his runs in '04 were useful), but clearly wasn't ready yet. And, then there was a bunch of nobodies, including the Republican candidate from Connecticut. As Glenn Greenwald notes in the comments to the piece, the ultimate "safe" choice didn't excite that many people.
This leads to loyal Democrats to defend Kerry and perhaps blame the slime from the Bushies (see Al Franken's book The Truth (with Jokes)). You sometimes get the idea that they really didn't think Kerry was going to win, but figured that he would give us a respectable loss. Or, they lied to themselves and made him in a better candidate than he was (e.g, Legal Fiction was unable to see Kerry was in trouble ... thinking the fact he did good in the debates somehow clinched it -- thus, he was shocked on Election Day even though the polls suggested it was a toss-up*). And, we had to ignore his weasel on Iraq in '02, especially since many (Al Franken, anyone?) actually bought it at the time. There is always the "Ohio was stolen" path (still would have won popular vote ... but hey, that isn't an issue ... oh wait ...).
Democrats tend to be by nature careful, partially perhaps because they aren't quite used to be out of power in D.C. (they did control the Senate '01-2, so it's not like it was for too long), and willing to let it all out. This perhaps is why liberal anti-free trade Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown (against far from safe seat DeWine) voted for the Military Detainee Act of 2006. Since, hey, can't expect totally consistent liberal votes ... such as not voting for stripping habeas corpus and supporting immunity for torture and mistreatment of people in various cases not even guilty of anything. [On our respect for due process, and Iraqi judicial independence, see here -- note a U.S. citizen is involved, albeit, you know, not a white one or anything.] Or, not having Sen. Clinton voice support of torture in the phony "ticking time bomb" scenario.
Let's be realistic, right? F-that. I have written against those who want to spin passionate support of certain candidates (or opposition to people bad for our country's interests) as unreasonable petty "anger" and have been reminded that anger often is a useful rallying tool. Point taken, though it should be noted that my overall point was that the negative spin on "anger" was the phony issue. The idea people were just being led by irrational distaste for Bush and company, not for quite reasonable despair at what they did to the country. Being "realistic" would be to understand that people do not support change dispassionately, playing it safe. They tend to be quite passionate, often supporting people who do not just play it safe, but firmly address their concerns and fears.
Such passions and firm candidates helped lead to Republican control, including grass roots moves that led to local control throughout the country. Since the truth is on our side, can we not too work this route some? Firmness of principle, especially given what a mess Republicans made, should be our watchword. Success does not come from cowardice. If Oliver Perez (3-13) could gut it out for a win versus a flawed team, cannot the Democrats? Or, should we pussyfoot around, walking troublesome sorts, and suddenly being shocked when there is some upset?**
I know that would upset me.
---
* I also didn't like the clubby nature of the in effect group blog, it becoming some sort of clique in which a group of regulars interacted with each other (again) promoting a viewpoint I did not quite buy. This general sentiment, especially when involving commenters that I honestly don't like, feels too much like some high school "in crowd" drama.
** The charm of yesterday's game was possible comparisons to 1998, when the "couldn't be stopped" Yanks hit a snag, being behind 2-1 in the second round. Since I was there, I know they clinched in six (Cone hanged on after the Yanks went ahead early). And, they had El Duque to stop the bleeding -- the Mets only had him having a throw session, hopeful for a World Series start. BTW, some job by the Saints -- holding the ball for the last eight or so minutes, ending the game with a winning FG over the Eagles -- who earlier went ahead 24-17.
The virtues of passion and anger. ... They ["reasonable" sorts] preach a mindset of fear and defensiveness -- never articulate a view too strenuously and never be driven by principle or passion because to do so renders one an unmoderate extremist who will alienate normal Americans.
-- Glenn Greenwald
Exactly. This was in particular in response to a run by a former military sort running against Curt Weldon, someone who bucked the critics and actually supported changing our Iraqi policy, including redeployment. It helps that Weldon is a bit of a nut who has had various problems, including ethical concerns. All the same, political success is not for the light hearted. This is true even if your message is substantively moderate. Look at Bill Clinton, the demigod of some sorts. He played to the middle, but with a no apology passion against the Right. This is why people on the left remained so loyal to him, even though his policies left something to be desired.
This is also why I supported Howard Dean in '04. Now, honestly, I thought him not quite electable, but there really was not any ideal choice in the mix. I got tired of him being bashed for telling the truth. Thus, some were appalled at his tax policy, amounting to basically telling the truth and noting small cuts to middle class taxes nationally would be shifted to the states. Net gain: negative. [I was helped here by the Slate fray economic expert.] My secondary choice was John Edwards, who looks to be a credible choice in '08 (so his runs in '04 were useful), but clearly wasn't ready yet. And, then there was a bunch of nobodies, including the Republican candidate from Connecticut. As Glenn Greenwald notes in the comments to the piece, the ultimate "safe" choice didn't excite that many people.
This leads to loyal Democrats to defend Kerry and perhaps blame the slime from the Bushies (see Al Franken's book The Truth (with Jokes)). You sometimes get the idea that they really didn't think Kerry was going to win, but figured that he would give us a respectable loss. Or, they lied to themselves and made him in a better candidate than he was (e.g, Legal Fiction was unable to see Kerry was in trouble ... thinking the fact he did good in the debates somehow clinched it -- thus, he was shocked on Election Day even though the polls suggested it was a toss-up*). And, we had to ignore his weasel on Iraq in '02, especially since many (Al Franken, anyone?) actually bought it at the time. There is always the "Ohio was stolen" path (still would have won popular vote ... but hey, that isn't an issue ... oh wait ...).
Democrats tend to be by nature careful, partially perhaps because they aren't quite used to be out of power in D.C. (they did control the Senate '01-2, so it's not like it was for too long), and willing to let it all out. This perhaps is why liberal anti-free trade Ohio Senate candidate Sherrod Brown (against far from safe seat DeWine) voted for the Military Detainee Act of 2006. Since, hey, can't expect totally consistent liberal votes ... such as not voting for stripping habeas corpus and supporting immunity for torture and mistreatment of people in various cases not even guilty of anything. [On our respect for due process, and Iraqi judicial independence, see here -- note a U.S. citizen is involved, albeit, you know, not a white one or anything.] Or, not having Sen. Clinton voice support of torture in the phony "ticking time bomb" scenario.
Let's be realistic, right? F-that. I have written against those who want to spin passionate support of certain candidates (or opposition to people bad for our country's interests) as unreasonable petty "anger" and have been reminded that anger often is a useful rallying tool. Point taken, though it should be noted that my overall point was that the negative spin on "anger" was the phony issue. The idea people were just being led by irrational distaste for Bush and company, not for quite reasonable despair at what they did to the country. Being "realistic" would be to understand that people do not support change dispassionately, playing it safe. They tend to be quite passionate, often supporting people who do not just play it safe, but firmly address their concerns and fears.
Such passions and firm candidates helped lead to Republican control, including grass roots moves that led to local control throughout the country. Since the truth is on our side, can we not too work this route some? Firmness of principle, especially given what a mess Republicans made, should be our watchword. Success does not come from cowardice. If Oliver Perez (3-13) could gut it out for a win versus a flawed team, cannot the Democrats? Or, should we pussyfoot around, walking troublesome sorts, and suddenly being shocked when there is some upset?**
I know that would upset me.
---
* I also didn't like the clubby nature of the in effect group blog, it becoming some sort of clique in which a group of regulars interacted with each other (again) promoting a viewpoint I did not quite buy. This general sentiment, especially when involving commenters that I honestly don't like, feels too much like some high school "in crowd" drama.
** The charm of yesterday's game was possible comparisons to 1998, when the "couldn't be stopped" Yanks hit a snag, being behind 2-1 in the second round. Since I was there, I know they clinched in six (Cone hanged on after the Yanks went ahead early). And, they had El Duque to stop the bleeding -- the Mets only had him having a throw session, hopeful for a World Series start. BTW, some job by the Saints -- holding the ball for the last eight or so minutes, ending the game with a winning FG over the Eagles -- who earlier went ahead 24-17.
Sports Update
As with last Saturday, today was a good sports day. First, the NY Giants played tough (and won), setting a new Michael Vick sack record. Next, the NY Jets hung on after going up 20-3 (20-17, missed 51yd field goal near the end). And, finally, some other Mets pitcher than Glavine made it thru the fifth inning. The Mets bullpen blew it, then Steve plus no offense made it 1-2, and the series was on the back of Perez (3-13). He did a decent job, helped by the Mets offense finally coming alive (12-5). And, now it's the best of three.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
Fair Weather Internationalism?
Teen Gets In Trouble: "Wilson posted [online] a cartoon picture of President Bush which included the words 'kill Bush' and showed him being stabbed in the hand. ... Two agents pulled her out of class and interviewed her for 15 minutes to see if she was really a threat to President Bush. 'They just like told me that it was a federal offense and that I could go to Juvie if I was really planning to harm him. That really scared me and I started crying because I thought they were going to arrest me,' Wilson told KCRA." The parents of a 14 year old should have been there during questioning and taking her out of class seems questionable. The rest is acceptable, at first blush.
The Cowboy President and his U.N. hating unconfirmed ambassador* are famous for their distaste for international institutions. Darn if they need them sometimes, huh? I linked up to a denunciation of their neocon mentality (shared by neolibs, though faux Democrats like Joe Lieberman are clearly the latter category, surely of late) yesterday. It was one of two replies to a weasel-like review of two foreign policy books that are supportive of soft power techniques. To cite their core principles:
The first article (cited last time) argued the "neo-lib" gives lip service to supporting international institutions, but when the rubber hits the road, they are used for imperialistic aims. One might consider the desire to use the U.N. to support war against Iraq in 2003 (cf. the more proper moves in 1990 in response to aggression, if aggression many say was furthered by our implicit consent). I recall a discussion during the lead-up to the current mess in which a neolib sort basically said "well, if you want to call it imperialism, so be it."
Like, "no need to use that word, since, you know, some people might get the wrong idea." Yes. Many did. It is not surprising that people in a nation started on the principle that their independence was proper under the law of nations, needed support of other countries to obtain it, and relied on peaceful international relations (going to war again when freedom of the seas were threatened) to thrive would care about such things.
The sorts that honor the spirit of Madison et. al., who thought peaceful international relations was the best path to security, even when he was pressured into a war he did not really want. Ironically, Federalist New England agreed with his general views on this point, strange bedfellows reflected by those conservatives today that oppose the excesses of our current imperialism. [OTOH, this class is a bit wary about tying us to international institutions and law.]
This is where things like treaties involving varied subject matter such as detainee treatment, human rights generally, environmental matters, trade, and so forth matter. See, e.g., Lawless World by Philippe Sands. "International law sets minimum standards of behavior. Outside of bullying and force, it is all we have to provide a framework for resolving those differences. Without it, we are back to the law of the jungle."
The importance of economic matters and those that have great symbolic and emotional effect to various nations that we need to work with should be clear-cut to realists. At times, this will require us to do things we do not want to do, or things that might seem dumb on some level. But, as with all law, this does not allow us to have a sorta of (per Sands) a la carte multilateralism. Such is the real world. Such is how adults have to act, even if they have a big stick. They can do just so much with it, after all. And, as to human rights (a healthy world for our children should be included here), it is after all what we stand for, right?
One would hope so. If not, let us bring in those who will promote such a path ... consistently. If the system is broken, fine, say so. But, be part of the solution, which is not simply to break it totally. As suggested by the quote, given our power and numbers, the U.S. clearly will have a significant part in things. This is fine. We are not supposed to assume each and every nation has equal say -- never has been the case, though the system does assume some basic say, and obligations even for the "world's sole remaining superpower."
Going it alone did not work in 1776, and it will not in 2006. Not wanting it to be so, notwithstanding.
---
* I recently read about Sen. Gore's move to make the FDA commissioner an office confirmed by the Senate. This gave the office somewhat more importance, both in the food chain (so to speak), and for purposes of congressional oversight. This underlines the troubling nature of having such an important position as U.N. ambassador in place via a recess appointment.
John R. Bolton, the American ambassador to the U.N., urged China today to heed a U.N. resolution intended to punish North Korea for its claimed nuclear test.
U.S. Presses China to Influence North Korea
The Cowboy President and his U.N. hating unconfirmed ambassador* are famous for their distaste for international institutions. Darn if they need them sometimes, huh? I linked up to a denunciation of their neocon mentality (shared by neolibs, though faux Democrats like Joe Lieberman are clearly the latter category, surely of late) yesterday. It was one of two replies to a weasel-like review of two foreign policy books that are supportive of soft power techniques. To cite their core principles:
the more modest foreign policy that I propose, one based on traditional liberal internationalism, policed by great-power concerts in which the United States would take a leading part ...
main principles of ethical realism: prudence, humility, responsibility, study, and patriotism. On this basis, we develop a concrete plan for placing U.S. power in the world on a more limited but firmer basis, through a mixture of regional concerts and compromises with other major regional powers.
The first article (cited last time) argued the "neo-lib" gives lip service to supporting international institutions, but when the rubber hits the road, they are used for imperialistic aims. One might consider the desire to use the U.N. to support war against Iraq in 2003 (cf. the more proper moves in 1990 in response to aggression, if aggression many say was furthered by our implicit consent). I recall a discussion during the lead-up to the current mess in which a neolib sort basically said "well, if you want to call it imperialism, so be it."
Like, "no need to use that word, since, you know, some people might get the wrong idea." Yes. Many did. It is not surprising that people in a nation started on the principle that their independence was proper under the law of nations, needed support of other countries to obtain it, and relied on peaceful international relations (going to war again when freedom of the seas were threatened) to thrive would care about such things.
The sorts that honor the spirit of Madison et. al., who thought peaceful international relations was the best path to security, even when he was pressured into a war he did not really want. Ironically, Federalist New England agreed with his general views on this point, strange bedfellows reflected by those conservatives today that oppose the excesses of our current imperialism. [OTOH, this class is a bit wary about tying us to international institutions and law.]
This is where things like treaties involving varied subject matter such as detainee treatment, human rights generally, environmental matters, trade, and so forth matter. See, e.g., Lawless World by Philippe Sands. "International law sets minimum standards of behavior. Outside of bullying and force, it is all we have to provide a framework for resolving those differences. Without it, we are back to the law of the jungle."
The importance of economic matters and those that have great symbolic and emotional effect to various nations that we need to work with should be clear-cut to realists. At times, this will require us to do things we do not want to do, or things that might seem dumb on some level. But, as with all law, this does not allow us to have a sorta of (per Sands) a la carte multilateralism. Such is the real world. Such is how adults have to act, even if they have a big stick. They can do just so much with it, after all. And, as to human rights (a healthy world for our children should be included here), it is after all what we stand for, right?
One would hope so. If not, let us bring in those who will promote such a path ... consistently. If the system is broken, fine, say so. But, be part of the solution, which is not simply to break it totally. As suggested by the quote, given our power and numbers, the U.S. clearly will have a significant part in things. This is fine. We are not supposed to assume each and every nation has equal say -- never has been the case, though the system does assume some basic say, and obligations even for the "world's sole remaining superpower."
Going it alone did not work in 1776, and it will not in 2006. Not wanting it to be so, notwithstanding.
---
* I recently read about Sen. Gore's move to make the FDA commissioner an office confirmed by the Senate. This gave the office somewhat more importance, both in the food chain (so to speak), and for purposes of congressional oversight. This underlines the troubling nature of having such an important position as U.N. ambassador in place via a recess appointment.
Saturday, October 14, 2006
Mommy State Strikes Again!
And Also: Very good post on North Korea. Some good stuff here and here as well.
In the late 1970s, Charles E. Silberman wrote in Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice concerning "the continuing struggle for social and political ascendancy among ethnic, religious, and racial groups" in the context of vice crimes. Aside from a silly footnote trying to suggest "victimless crimes" arguably have a victim,* it was an interesting aside. For instance, many "crimes" or would be crimes clearly arise from disputed moral beliefs that amount to arbitrary threats to liberty. They also tend to targert certain racial, sexual, or whatever groups. Thus, a clear equal protection problem arises as well, no less troublesome for the fact that the disputes are so divisive and personal.
This came to mind respecting to examples of the mommy state in action. First, arbitrary targeting of medicinal marijuana:
Money laundering of $1,850? Talk about a small wash cycle! Clearly, a case of overcharging to make sure that troublesome Ed stops being such a menace to the home of the soon to be eliminated As. Generally, many don't think too much about pot, considering it not really worth their time. Meanwhile, loads of people continue to suffer prosecution and jail time, even if they are just using it to salve medical problems that repeatedly have been shown to be aided by such use. Your tax dollars at work.
Talking about money, when I wrote my opus, gambling came up in my Ninth Amendment section. My argument was that a generalized view of liberty, namely the basic rights we have that are not expressly found in the Constitution, would probably in many people's minds include gambling. It touches upon many basic freedoms, even if it is not something one would think the courts would directly (indirectly, probably in many ways, including Fourth and Fifth Amendment securities that make it easier to gamble illegally) secure. Still, few would want to you know ban the practice, even if technically such things as Odd Couple like poker games are illegal in various cases.
Well, not everyone. Thus, we have one of those now sadly fairly typical late in the day insertions to "no touch" legislation, here a port security bill, that aims to "prohibit[s] gamblers [i.e., adults] from using credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to settle their online wagers." This sort of thing annoys conservative libertarians as much as Barney Frank liberals. "The World Trade Organization even has a stake in the game. The organization has ruled that the United States violates trade treaties by outlawing offshore online gambling while tolerating some forms of U.S.-based online gambling, citing the horse-racing ambiguity."
It is unclear how workable such a law would be, but as the Glenn Greenwald link notes, half the battle is the amount of time and effort (think of it as a liberty tax) such regulation would cause lawful businesses. Likewise, it underlines the mentality of the mommy and daddy government we have now, down to the "it's right because we say so" and "how dare you talk back to us" mentality. And, as with the typical parent, there is some hypocrisy. Thus, Ralph Reed and his Christian Coalition support of Jack Abramoff's Indian gambling ring. But, hey, it was subcontracted! Wah!
If you are ahead 0-2 with two outs, don't try the fastball when he had no success against the breaking stuff. Come on!
---
* The examples left something to be desired. Bribery of public officials? This supplies special favors to certain people, depriving the average voter equal time. Sale of stolen property or unregulated firearms? Uh, this furthers theft and the dangers regulation is meant to handle. IOW, there clearly is a "victim" here, if only a bit less direct. But, directly arising from certain wrongs. Prostitution and the like might have victims, but they do not so directly arise from clear non-consensual behaviors.
In the late 1970s, Charles E. Silberman wrote in Criminal Violence, Criminal Justice concerning "the continuing struggle for social and political ascendancy among ethnic, religious, and racial groups" in the context of vice crimes. Aside from a silly footnote trying to suggest "victimless crimes" arguably have a victim,* it was an interesting aside. For instance, many "crimes" or would be crimes clearly arise from disputed moral beliefs that amount to arbitrary threats to liberty. They also tend to targert certain racial, sexual, or whatever groups. Thus, a clear equal protection problem arises as well, no less troublesome for the fact that the disputes are so divisive and personal.
This came to mind respecting to examples of the mommy state in action. First, arbitrary targeting of medicinal marijuana:
The new charges against Mr. Rosenthal are similar to those in a 2002 federal indictment. At the time, Mr. Rosenthal worked for the City of Oakland and was sanctioned under city and state laws to grow marijuana plants and sell them to dispensaries. He was convicted by a jury, but a federal appeals court overturned the decision, citing juror misconduct. He was granted a new trial, and prosecutors were moving forward, but the new federal indictment supersedes the earlier one. ... It accuses Mr. Rosenthal, 61, of 14 felony charges that include cultivating marijuana plants; laundering $1,850, which the government says he got from selling the plants to medical dispensaries; and tax evasion. His tax returns, prosecutors said, omitted income from the sale of the plants.
Money laundering of $1,850? Talk about a small wash cycle! Clearly, a case of overcharging to make sure that troublesome Ed stops being such a menace to the home of the soon to be eliminated As. Generally, many don't think too much about pot, considering it not really worth their time. Meanwhile, loads of people continue to suffer prosecution and jail time, even if they are just using it to salve medical problems that repeatedly have been shown to be aided by such use. Your tax dollars at work.
Talking about money, when I wrote my opus, gambling came up in my Ninth Amendment section. My argument was that a generalized view of liberty, namely the basic rights we have that are not expressly found in the Constitution, would probably in many people's minds include gambling. It touches upon many basic freedoms, even if it is not something one would think the courts would directly (indirectly, probably in many ways, including Fourth and Fifth Amendment securities that make it easier to gamble illegally) secure. Still, few would want to you know ban the practice, even if technically such things as Odd Couple like poker games are illegal in various cases.
Well, not everyone. Thus, we have one of those now sadly fairly typical late in the day insertions to "no touch" legislation, here a port security bill, that aims to "prohibit[s] gamblers [i.e., adults] from using credit cards, checks and electronic fund transfers to settle their online wagers." This sort of thing annoys conservative libertarians as much as Barney Frank liberals. "The World Trade Organization even has a stake in the game. The organization has ruled that the United States violates trade treaties by outlawing offshore online gambling while tolerating some forms of U.S.-based online gambling, citing the horse-racing ambiguity."
It is unclear how workable such a law would be, but as the Glenn Greenwald link notes, half the battle is the amount of time and effort (think of it as a liberty tax) such regulation would cause lawful businesses. Likewise, it underlines the mentality of the mommy and daddy government we have now, down to the "it's right because we say so" and "how dare you talk back to us" mentality. And, as with the typical parent, there is some hypocrisy. Thus, Ralph Reed and his Christian Coalition support of Jack Abramoff's Indian gambling ring. But, hey, it was subcontracted! Wah!
If you are ahead 0-2 with two outs, don't try the fastball when he had no success against the breaking stuff. Come on!
---
* The examples left something to be desired. Bribery of public officials? This supplies special favors to certain people, depriving the average voter equal time. Sale of stolen property or unregulated firearms? Uh, this furthers theft and the dangers regulation is meant to handle. IOW, there clearly is a "victim" here, if only a bit less direct. But, directly arising from certain wrongs. Prostitution and the like might have victims, but they do not so directly arise from clear non-consensual behaviors.
Friday, October 13, 2006
Religious Reading
And Also: Kenny Rogers is a pretty darn good pitcher, even if he had trouble in some big spots in the past. He is doing pretty good this postseason though, huh? I also love the Republicans who are claiming the Foley mess was suspiciously timed for election season. Hey, we do it all the time -- even to promote war -- why shouldn't they? They are just like us, right? You know, except for the good things ... As to neocon/neolib foreign policy see here.
A certain theme of late in my reading is religious in nature. At least, one can say that. Thus, there was Kingdom Come: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Middle Church: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right, and (at attempt) a book entitled The End of Faith by Sam Harris. I found it a bad mixture simplistic and a bit too full of itself -- relevant to a recent entry on torture, one part supported the practice (along as opposing pacifism) in theory by referencing some "ticking time bomb" thought experiment (including some perfect bomb that only killed bad people) that ironically sounded a bit like the idealized "God" the book opposed.*
As to the Muslim faith, you can point to Sarah Chayes' (who keeps on popping up promoting it) The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban and (a few months back) Dancing in the No Fly Zone, though both are more about people generally of than directly concerning the religion itself. All the same, since the two (like Judaism) are intimately connected, there is clearly a connection. I noted to a loyal reader that I wanted to read a bit more about the faith. A year or so ago, I perused an interesting little volume discussing Muslim family law. Since the new Iraqi Constitution appears to leave open the use of Shia law, to the fears of many, this is especially important these days.
The religion has a bad reputation as to women's rights, but -- and this really is trend in my mind -- it is a questionable one. The problem really is cultural, including the deal with those chadors. A close look at the religion, including from the beginning, suggests it has some clear feminist aspects. One need only look to the pastoral letters attributed to Paul (Timothy/Titus) that are used to justify the ban of women priests, speaking against women speaking in public and to be "submissive" to their husbands. [Such epistles also support slavery.] This sort of thing is downplayed by some as much as the render to Caesar taxation verses are by certain right leaning sorts. And, as to the violent themed verses highlighteed by Harris, the Old Testament has quite a lot of them too. Does this make Judaism a violent religion too?
Religion is an important aspect of our humanity, thus it is not surprising that I have had a long time interest in the subject. Now, one I was asked if I was Jewish -- unclear why, since I don't really think I look the part (when I told someone about this query, they too were surprised), and it is well known that Jews are (unsurprisingly) particularly interested in the law. So, you see a connection there to another interest of mine. Likewise, you should learn about the background to the truly understand a people. This is why the book on the Christian Right -- well written -- was very important. A book on megachurches, for instance, would be very useful given the importance to their communities.
And, the same is true for Muslims. See, e.g., The History of God by Karen Armstrong, which was written in the early 1990s, but still is quite relevant. Some are critical of Armstrong for various reasons, but she does provide an enthusiastic/sympathetic approach to her subjects. I have the book, so decided to re-read the chapter on the formation of Islam [a useful enterprise that I should do more often generally speaking, including perhaps some of the books in the back of my closet]. It is par for the course. A cynic might question the creation myths of the religion -- "myth" used for any religion other than your own.
But, she takes the point of view of the people of the time. Nomadic people gaining some success and finding new ways troubling to their psyche. Clearly influenced by Jewish/Christian beliefs of the peoples he came into contact with as a trader, Muhammad has a religious moment and founded a new faith for his people. An important part of said religion, developed over time (we have a better idea as compared to many other ancient religions of how the faith developed over his lifetime, revelations found in the qu'ran [recitations] by length -- long to short, the first saying entitled "The Cow") was unity. This, though Harris views things in a particularly negative light, clearly is connected to their view of "believers" -- in a land of much dissension and tribal warfare, unity through belief is quite important.
I stopped by the local library and there were a few books on Islam, including a translation of the Koran. Nothing quite that caught my eye, so I went a different way. Will keep an eye out though.
---
* LGM had an interesting post on pacifism in reference to the recent Amish killings (I commented) which came to mind today when I saw a piece in the paper about the community demolishing the school -- or rather, hiring modernized a demolition service to do so.
The entry referenced in the piece discusses the pacifist path, one which made mincemeat of the Harris' strawman of one killer with a knife murdering a city of pacifists -- they could very well rush the guy (one assumes it would be a guy); they just could not kill him. Harris also snidely wondered where all the Muslim leaders against terrorism are. Middle Church mentions but one.
There is few things more annoying then those you should be sympathetic with but who turn out to be idiots. Not to judge or anything. This is why Julia Sweeney's one woman show about her path to a secular path seems promising -- she has a better sense of humor and modesty. And, at the end of the day, probably has similar firmness of thought.
A certain theme of late in my reading is religious in nature. At least, one can say that. Thus, there was Kingdom Come: The Rise of Christian Nationalism, Middle Church: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right, and (at attempt) a book entitled The End of Faith by Sam Harris. I found it a bad mixture simplistic and a bit too full of itself -- relevant to a recent entry on torture, one part supported the practice (along as opposing pacifism) in theory by referencing some "ticking time bomb" thought experiment (including some perfect bomb that only killed bad people) that ironically sounded a bit like the idealized "God" the book opposed.*
As to the Muslim faith, you can point to Sarah Chayes' (who keeps on popping up promoting it) The Punishment of Virtue: Inside Afghanistan After the Taliban and (a few months back) Dancing in the No Fly Zone, though both are more about people generally of than directly concerning the religion itself. All the same, since the two (like Judaism) are intimately connected, there is clearly a connection. I noted to a loyal reader that I wanted to read a bit more about the faith. A year or so ago, I perused an interesting little volume discussing Muslim family law. Since the new Iraqi Constitution appears to leave open the use of Shia law, to the fears of many, this is especially important these days.
The religion has a bad reputation as to women's rights, but -- and this really is trend in my mind -- it is a questionable one. The problem really is cultural, including the deal with those chadors. A close look at the religion, including from the beginning, suggests it has some clear feminist aspects. One need only look to the pastoral letters attributed to Paul (Timothy/Titus) that are used to justify the ban of women priests, speaking against women speaking in public and to be "submissive" to their husbands. [Such epistles also support slavery.] This sort of thing is downplayed by some as much as the render to Caesar taxation verses are by certain right leaning sorts. And, as to the violent themed verses highlighteed by Harris, the Old Testament has quite a lot of them too. Does this make Judaism a violent religion too?
Religion is an important aspect of our humanity, thus it is not surprising that I have had a long time interest in the subject. Now, one I was asked if I was Jewish -- unclear why, since I don't really think I look the part (when I told someone about this query, they too were surprised), and it is well known that Jews are (unsurprisingly) particularly interested in the law. So, you see a connection there to another interest of mine. Likewise, you should learn about the background to the truly understand a people. This is why the book on the Christian Right -- well written -- was very important. A book on megachurches, for instance, would be very useful given the importance to their communities.
And, the same is true for Muslims. See, e.g., The History of God by Karen Armstrong, which was written in the early 1990s, but still is quite relevant. Some are critical of Armstrong for various reasons, but she does provide an enthusiastic/sympathetic approach to her subjects. I have the book, so decided to re-read the chapter on the formation of Islam [a useful enterprise that I should do more often generally speaking, including perhaps some of the books in the back of my closet]. It is par for the course. A cynic might question the creation myths of the religion -- "myth" used for any religion other than your own.
But, she takes the point of view of the people of the time. Nomadic people gaining some success and finding new ways troubling to their psyche. Clearly influenced by Jewish/Christian beliefs of the peoples he came into contact with as a trader, Muhammad has a religious moment and founded a new faith for his people. An important part of said religion, developed over time (we have a better idea as compared to many other ancient religions of how the faith developed over his lifetime, revelations found in the qu'ran [recitations] by length -- long to short, the first saying entitled "The Cow") was unity. This, though Harris views things in a particularly negative light, clearly is connected to their view of "believers" -- in a land of much dissension and tribal warfare, unity through belief is quite important.
I stopped by the local library and there were a few books on Islam, including a translation of the Koran. Nothing quite that caught my eye, so I went a different way. Will keep an eye out though.
---
* LGM had an interesting post on pacifism in reference to the recent Amish killings (I commented) which came to mind today when I saw a piece in the paper about the community demolishing the school -- or rather, hiring modernized a demolition service to do so.
The entry referenced in the piece discusses the pacifist path, one which made mincemeat of the Harris' strawman of one killer with a knife murdering a city of pacifists -- they could very well rush the guy (one assumes it would be a guy); they just could not kill him. Harris also snidely wondered where all the Muslim leaders against terrorism are. Middle Church mentions but one.
There is few things more annoying then those you should be sympathetic with but who turn out to be idiots. Not to judge or anything. This is why Julia Sweeney's one woman show about her path to a secular path seems promising -- she has a better sense of humor and modesty. And, at the end of the day, probably has similar firmness of thought.
Thursday, October 12, 2006
Baseball Update
Well, Floyd is hurt again, but hey Glavine is in "his office" and doing his job nicely. I'm not really a big fan of 2-0 wins -- too stressful especially with Wagner and all, but so be it. Willie looks pretty comfortable in these post-game appearances. Player hurt? Glavine on three days rest because of rain? What me worry? Hey, my team is still in the playoffs, buddy. Let's see if some other starter can go at least five.
Legal Tidbits
And Also: The NY Daily News had a nice little article honoring the flight instructor that died with Cory Lidle. Also, the afternoon sports guys have no reason to be sorry that they were tough on Lidle, including when he called in (if you can't take the heat ...) to respond. The callers who called a different show to cry their crocodile tears were particuarly annnoying; as if they would have cared if the accident did not occur. Let's not be phony here -- it doesn't show any respect to do so. The speaking ill of the dead rule should not be somehow back dated ... for obvious reasons.
Religion: The NYT series on special exceptions given to religious institutions that many find go too far cited a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a special dispensation applied to the sale of religious literature. The sort of thing that should guard against not supplying basic oversight rules to day care centers or get tax breaks just because in some vague way your business is religious (e.g., a theme park). Or, not providing basic benefits to your employees, including if they suddenly find out they have breast cancer. The case has a useful footnote that hits to the core of the issue:
The line between establishment and free exercise commands is not always easy to draw, but this is a good basic rule. Thus, those who cannot work on Sunday because of religious reasons should not be denied unemployment benefits for not working on that day. This is an "exception" but it is a limited one that is tied to the free exercise of one's religious faith. A more controversial rule would make an exception for religious use of peyote. And, close to the line might be a law that gave special concern for local land use rules applied to religious institutions, including churches and the like. Some, like conservative leaning law professor Marci Hamilton believes the federal law involved is a step too far, but I am somewhat less clear, but the articles do suggest there is some cause for concern.
Voting: Meanwhile, a few voting rights articles. One concerns a federal lawsuit that targets voting discrimination ... against whites. And, it appears to be appropriate -- some local black power broker was involved. This is fairly unsurprising given the nature of ethnic/racial politics over the years, though it might appear a bit ridiculous on first blush. Also, an election blog has some good stuff of late, including underline the various concerns involved in ballot machinery reforms such as "security, transparency, and equality."
Likewise, it cites a report that suggests in-person voting fraud -- concerns that lead to id laws notwithstanding -- is rather rare. If anything, absentee ballots -- suspiciously not equally dealt with by such laws especially since it is less problematic as to black voters -- is where problems might arise. For rather logical reasons, since you need not be there to vote in person. Meanwhile, the NYT notes felon disenfrancishment laws are become more lenient. Given the 14th and 15th Amendment problems such policies bring forth, this is a good thing.
British Libel: Meanwhile, important legal news from across the pond:
Linda Greenhouse: Interesting discussion involving NYT legal reporter Linda Greenhouse allegedly violating the papers policy against publicly making personal commentary on the things she reports upon. This is so especially since the current public editor disagrees with the past one on the wrongness of her act. Her remarks are striking on their own.
Today's Greenhouse dispatch concerns a case where family members wore buttons to a murder trial with a picture of the deceased. The state court said it was in bad form, but not unconstitutional, so a federal law supported by that pro-terrorist Bill Clinton came into play. You can try to go the federal habeas route but it must be rejected if it is "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States."
Simply put, it is a stretch to say (I'm game) -- as compared to appellate law -- this is the case here. This is far from surprising, since any number of issues are not specifically decided by Supremes that decide eighty cases total per year these days. This is why we have lower courts -- to deal with such issues, somewhat less than "clear" SC law ultimately guiding them. Actually, quite often, a matter has not be dealt with by the Supremes -- there are just too many possibilities. Thus, and a few federal judges raised the point, the law arguably violates Art. III powers given to the lower federal courts to decide basic questions of law.
Federalist sorts are not impressed. They apparently want individual state courts to have the power to decide questions of federal law (ultimately constitutional matters are at stake here) pursuant to their own discretion. Thus, the Ninth Circuit spans let's say eight states (whatever) -- until the Supremes "clearly" (yeah right) decides upon some federal criminal matter, they each can decide the matter differently as to federal law. How exactly is this not a violation of the spirit (if not the text) of the Supremacy Clause in place to supply a united application of federal constitutional law?
Some justices were a bit miffed too -- watch for some arbitrary line drawing and confusion, helped by the fact that finding "clear" law in the micro-decisions prevalent these days something of a joke.
Religion: The NYT series on special exceptions given to religious institutions that many find go too far cited a Supreme Court ruling that struck down a special dispensation applied to the sale of religious literature. The sort of thing that should guard against not supplying basic oversight rules to day care centers or get tax breaks just because in some vague way your business is religious (e.g., a theme park). Or, not providing basic benefits to your employees, including if they suddenly find out they have breast cancer. The case has a useful footnote that hits to the core of the issue:
All of these cases, however, involve legislative exemptions that did not, or would not, impose substantial burdens on nonbeneficiaries while allowing others to act according to their religious beliefs, or that were designed to alleviate government intrusions that might significantly deter adherents of a particular faith from conduct protected by the Free Exercise Clause.
The line between establishment and free exercise commands is not always easy to draw, but this is a good basic rule. Thus, those who cannot work on Sunday because of religious reasons should not be denied unemployment benefits for not working on that day. This is an "exception" but it is a limited one that is tied to the free exercise of one's religious faith. A more controversial rule would make an exception for religious use of peyote. And, close to the line might be a law that gave special concern for local land use rules applied to religious institutions, including churches and the like. Some, like conservative leaning law professor Marci Hamilton believes the federal law involved is a step too far, but I am somewhat less clear, but the articles do suggest there is some cause for concern.
Voting: Meanwhile, a few voting rights articles. One concerns a federal lawsuit that targets voting discrimination ... against whites. And, it appears to be appropriate -- some local black power broker was involved. This is fairly unsurprising given the nature of ethnic/racial politics over the years, though it might appear a bit ridiculous on first blush. Also, an election blog has some good stuff of late, including underline the various concerns involved in ballot machinery reforms such as "security, transparency, and equality."
Likewise, it cites a report that suggests in-person voting fraud -- concerns that lead to id laws notwithstanding -- is rather rare. If anything, absentee ballots -- suspiciously not equally dealt with by such laws especially since it is less problematic as to black voters -- is where problems might arise. For rather logical reasons, since you need not be there to vote in person. Meanwhile, the NYT notes felon disenfrancishment laws are become more lenient. Given the 14th and 15th Amendment problems such policies bring forth, this is a good thing.
British Libel: Meanwhile, important legal news from across the pond:
Britain’s highest court ruled Wednesday for the first time that journalists have the right to publish allegations about public figures, as long as their reporting is responsible and in the public interest. ... The article said that at the request of the United States, Saudi Arabia was monitoring bank accounts of prominent Saudi businesses and individuals to trace whether they were being used, possibly unwittingly, to siphon money to terrorist groups. ... Under British libel law, newspapers being sued are required to prove the truth of the allegations they print — the opposite of the situation in the United States, where the burden of proof falls heavily on plaintiffs. But that was a practical impossibility in this case, a member of the panel that ruled on Wednesday, Lord Hoffmann, wrote in his decision.
Linda Greenhouse: Interesting discussion involving NYT legal reporter Linda Greenhouse allegedly violating the papers policy against publicly making personal commentary on the things she reports upon. This is so especially since the current public editor disagrees with the past one on the wrongness of her act. Her remarks are striking on their own.
Today's Greenhouse dispatch concerns a case where family members wore buttons to a murder trial with a picture of the deceased. The state court said it was in bad form, but not unconstitutional, so a federal law supported by that pro-terrorist Bill Clinton came into play. You can try to go the federal habeas route but it must be rejected if it is "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States."
Simply put, it is a stretch to say (I'm game) -- as compared to appellate law -- this is the case here. This is far from surprising, since any number of issues are not specifically decided by Supremes that decide eighty cases total per year these days. This is why we have lower courts -- to deal with such issues, somewhat less than "clear" SC law ultimately guiding them. Actually, quite often, a matter has not be dealt with by the Supremes -- there are just too many possibilities. Thus, and a few federal judges raised the point, the law arguably violates Art. III powers given to the lower federal courts to decide basic questions of law.
Federalist sorts are not impressed. They apparently want individual state courts to have the power to decide questions of federal law (ultimately constitutional matters are at stake here) pursuant to their own discretion. Thus, the Ninth Circuit spans let's say eight states (whatever) -- until the Supremes "clearly" (yeah right) decides upon some federal criminal matter, they each can decide the matter differently as to federal law. How exactly is this not a violation of the spirit (if not the text) of the Supremacy Clause in place to supply a united application of federal constitutional law?
Some justices were a bit miffed too -- watch for some arbitrary line drawing and confusion, helped by the fact that finding "clear" law in the micro-decisions prevalent these days something of a joke.
TV Breaks
Some new television shows: non-reality/crime related edition. The Class (Mon. at 8:30/CBS) is a comedy (think Friends, so some drama) concerning the interconnected lives of a second grade class ... twenty or so years later. I saw a couple episodes, promising, especially some fun characters. For instance, Liz Kaplan last seen in Related the WB show that went the way of the station (gone). But, then the last episode ended with a second character having an affair. A nice one at that ... that was an "aww" moment.
30 Rock (Wed. at 8/NBC), the new Tina Fey show providing a light look at the running of a live comedy show had a good start -- Fey is one of my favorite actresses, smart and funny. Alec Baldwin is very good too -- he is great in his Conan appearances. Finally, Twenty Good Years followed about two older friends (60) who decide "carpe diem" should be the name of the game. Okay start / overdone .. John Lithgow/Jeffrey Tambor star.
Meanwhile, Detroit won another one in Oakland, surviving a bases loaded 9th inning. Question: is the 2-3-2 home/away/home series really a bother for the non-home team? They have to split the back-ends and win two of three at home ... seems workable. The middle three if anything favors the lesser seed. Starting and ending at home does help -- the first and last game obviously important -- but still ...
Wednesday, October 11, 2006
Two Lives and A Statistic
This morning, I read Bill Madden's (NY Daily News) column spelling out his thoughts on why Joe Torre was not fired ... the big news that he couldn't bring himself to share during his SNY appearance yesterday. Underwhelming. Money. [7mil plus maybe 5 more to get Lou.] Knew that. Joe wanting to stay/loyalty. Knew that. Madden didn't think either reason was compelling, suggesting a third. Don Mattingly (former captain, hitting coach now) the next in line (basically knew that was a good possibility), not ready to come in, and Lou Piniella likely to cause chemistry problems. George likes Lou, so he didn't want to put him through that. I guess.
But, isn't the whole point of the move to rile people up? To change things, hopefully along with other things like no more A-Rod? Settling for a few more wins than teams with half your payroll, teams that actually are going further than you in the playoffs not acceptable. Anyway, not really worth the wait, and given the special Mets wrap (previewing the second round), no one would not buy the paper or something if he talked about it. Overall, it makes a veteran reporter look a bit stupid, and such coyness was annoying. He did look a bit uncomfortable doing it, but still.
Serge Leveque: I came here to save my wife and my two children and... six billion lives... it's too much. I just hope I'm, I'm smart enough and brave enough to save three.
-- The Core
I was orginally not going to include these comments -- after all enough with the Yankee focus and my opposition to the move really is neither here nor there at the end of the day -- but a bit of insanity occurred. A small plane crashed into an Upper East Side Manhattan apartment building across from the East River. Mixed reports, but overall, we soon learnt it was clearly an accident, and at worse only a few people died. [The mayor said only those on the plane, the pilot and flight instructor -- rather amazing really.] The word fits since we are talking about a plane, even a small one, crashing in an urban area. And, then we learn (unofficially, since the family has to be found*) that soon to be ex-Yankee pitcher Cody Lidle's (not very popular of late) passport was found on the street and it was his plane.
Given the timing and such, including it occurring not too far from Shea Stadium (Lidle's former pitching coach is now doing that job for the Mets), that is some weird coincidence. Just insanity. Meanwhile, the Mets game was rained out. Also, we learn from a Lancet report:
We estimate that as of July, 2006, there have been 654 965 (392 979–942 636) excess Iraqi deaths as a consequence of the war, which corresponds to 2·5% of the population in the study area. Of post-invasion deaths, 601 027 (426 369–793 663) were due to violence, the most common cause being gunfire.
More with links to a few who provide useful perspectives that suggest the study sounds reasonable provided here. A third of that would be over 200K people; comparably speaking, over two million Americans (Iraq has a population of around 24 million). Not that we should blame ourselves any. Let us be appalled at the loss of two people though.
They are "ours" after all, one a medium range American baseball player with connections to three playoff teams (NY/Oakland).
---
* The NYT reports "a high-ranking city official confirmed late this afternoon" confirms Lidle died.
Ticking Time Bomb Fallacy
And Also: Sen. Phony Maverick (AZ) is out there blaming Clinton for North Korea. Clinton actually did something to deal with the nuclear problem, using something Bushies find a bit confusing -- diplomacy mixed with intelligence. Bush came out with his Bolton bully boy tactics, bringing the situation to a head again. NK might have created a situation given their "playing chicken" habits, but Bush clearly worsened the situation. Snowjob was out rousing the political troops, explaining why they should put so much effort in the electoral sphere. That's easy ... oh wait, he's Republican.
Greenwald has another powerful post discussing Padilla's motion to dismiss, which provides the first detailed look at the nature of his detention and interrogation. The administration bluntly defended their "black hole" approach to this American citizen as necessary to interrogate -- showing an honesty that was so atypical one might think it a trick, they at times readily admitted this was the core reason for the detention, not any real intention to convict him of anything. This makes perfect sense, since the whole point of Padilla v. Rumsfeld was for the Supremes to find a way to punt ... no, it was that an American citizen was refused even a hearing to justify detention. When the requisite number of justices later made it clear that it was time to put up or release him, they finally sent him to criminal detention.
Because there is no "there" there, anything there was obtained by illegal means, or some combination of the two, the government still is not really offering much in way of actual criminal allegations. [On the ability to use civil trials in such cases as well as an overall excellent denunciation of the Military Detention Act of 2006, see Michael Dorf's article here.] Not surprisingly, this has caused some problems from the judge, who wants to at least show some shadow of respect for the Fifth Amendment. Meanwhile, to show exactly how extreme the case against the government is, the lawyers are specifying just how badly their client was treated. As Greenwald shows, "torture" is an appropriate word here, all these techniques used: sleep deprivation, temperature change, noxious fumes, physical threats, stress positions, long term continual isolation, and drugs.
Appropriately, Stephen Griffin over at Balkinization also has an entry against the "ticking time bomb" defense of torture. The idea is that if torture would stop a bomb that was about to destroy a city with millions of people, would it not be justified? Thus, even liberals such as Sandy Levinson are loathe to say it is never justified, though they are likely to use a "necessity defense" route (it's illegal, but after the fact, the torturers might get off, perhaps by pardon) that still is not the route of the Bush Administration (secrecy/immediate immunity for acts before 2005/no right for alien to bring claim). Such sorts also might admit "torture" or "cruel, inhuman and degrading" can be difficult to apply in certain cases.
He, for instance, cites Chavez v. Martinez, involving questioning of an injured suspect that lead to a divided ruling barely (5-4) holding the person had a case.* Levinson's comments were useful, including support of a definition holding that "[t]orture is understood to be that barbaric cruelty which lies at the top of the pyramid of human rights misconduct." He also noted that it was clear that it would not be legitimate solely to obtain "actionable intelligence" that might prevent harm to service personnel and so forth. Griffin went further. In his view: "Defined in a common sense way, torture involves deliberate cruelty and, as such, should be absolutely prohibited." He also cited (a comment provided the link) to a law review article by Kim Scheppele that attacked the ticking time bomb justification.
The article first provides (with suitably depressing footnotes) the clear reality that we tortured, and it was not (CYA prosecutions aside) a case of "a few bad apples." Such facts need to be put out there, to remind people what we are dealing with here:
Overall, the ticking time bomb scenario is a false trope because it is a fantasy device. The proverbial pony that in real life simply will not go as the typical hypo would have it go down. A primary problem is that in reality it simply is not some sure thing in which the interrogator and would be terrorist are in a vacuum. The 24 scenario. No, first and foremost, it involves bureaucratic decision-making that experience shows will not be limited to "extreme" (and the author doubts such cases really are likely to occur -- the scare scenarios rather unlikely) cases. In fact, this is seen in protocols for use of deadly force -- they are basic principles (rather vague) that are not limited to "the worst of the worst." The Supreme Court might have said that a fleeing felon per se is not enough, but we are not just talking serial killers here.
This aside from the problem of rightful identity/truth telling, determining if "momentous, imminent, and certain catastrophe" (often defined down, thus though even top operatives might not actually know much of immediate import, they are deemed proper targets) is involved, and the questionable morality of torture itself. [The article is not geared to the point, but it cites another that holds that torture per se is illegitimate, quite different from violence per se, in effect "worse than death" that might come from battle and bombing.] Overall, in the real world, there is "inevitable imprecision" that simply does not make the scenario sensible. This sort of thing suggests lessons taught in the 17th Century should not be deemed "quaint" today:
Now, "capital crimes" were much broader back then, and one doubts torture should even be allowed in those limited cases. Also, one gets the idea that torture by definition is "barbarous and inhumane." Still, one gets the idea. It also might be noted that that list also contained perhaps the first animal welfare provision in the colonies as well. But, that's for another day.
---
* I think he somewhat misleadingly suggested Kennedy's partial dissent (see also Stevens' opinion, supplying a partial transcript) was relevant here in that it raised the possibility that it was sometimes legitimate to interrogate injured individuals. But, the hypotheticals did not suggest harm could be done directly to advance such ends. SL crosses the line with this comment:
Given the realities of the situation, it would be hard to imagine cases when deprivation of sleep for a day and a half would not be torture, especially given what must be done to assure that state of affairs. And, no matter what the authors "insist," to compare the interrogators position with those interrogated is asinine. Obviously, though the obvious does seem to confuse many people in power, even those with the same lack of sleep are not in the same position as those being controlled. It is honestly disgusting to compare the two.
To find oneself in the situation of Mr. Padilla with no contact and no assurance of any aspect whatsoever of your future is something that isn't even known by the most closely confined inmates in a super-max prison where their guilt has already been adjudicated. Even those inmates have access to the judicial system. To defend even the basic character of Mr. Padilla's confinement absolutely requires that the defender assume that Mr. Padilla is guilty even if they are unwilling to acknowledge that belief. To allow the executive branch, on its own initiative, to operate on this basis is something that I, who routinely deal with those accused of crimes, can scarcely imagine exists outside of the pages of pages of 1984.
-- Police Officer, responding to Glenn Greenwald's discussion
Greenwald has another powerful post discussing Padilla's motion to dismiss, which provides the first detailed look at the nature of his detention and interrogation. The administration bluntly defended their "black hole" approach to this American citizen as necessary to interrogate -- showing an honesty that was so atypical one might think it a trick, they at times readily admitted this was the core reason for the detention, not any real intention to convict him of anything. This makes perfect sense, since the whole point of Padilla v. Rumsfeld was for the Supremes to find a way to punt ... no, it was that an American citizen was refused even a hearing to justify detention. When the requisite number of justices later made it clear that it was time to put up or release him, they finally sent him to criminal detention.
Because there is no "there" there, anything there was obtained by illegal means, or some combination of the two, the government still is not really offering much in way of actual criminal allegations. [On the ability to use civil trials in such cases as well as an overall excellent denunciation of the Military Detention Act of 2006, see Michael Dorf's article here.] Not surprisingly, this has caused some problems from the judge, who wants to at least show some shadow of respect for the Fifth Amendment. Meanwhile, to show exactly how extreme the case against the government is, the lawyers are specifying just how badly their client was treated. As Greenwald shows, "torture" is an appropriate word here, all these techniques used: sleep deprivation, temperature change, noxious fumes, physical threats, stress positions, long term continual isolation, and drugs.
Appropriately, Stephen Griffin over at Balkinization also has an entry against the "ticking time bomb" defense of torture. The idea is that if torture would stop a bomb that was about to destroy a city with millions of people, would it not be justified? Thus, even liberals such as Sandy Levinson are loathe to say it is never justified, though they are likely to use a "necessity defense" route (it's illegal, but after the fact, the torturers might get off, perhaps by pardon) that still is not the route of the Bush Administration (secrecy/immediate immunity for acts before 2005/no right for alien to bring claim). Such sorts also might admit "torture" or "cruel, inhuman and degrading" can be difficult to apply in certain cases.
He, for instance, cites Chavez v. Martinez, involving questioning of an injured suspect that lead to a divided ruling barely (5-4) holding the person had a case.* Levinson's comments were useful, including support of a definition holding that "[t]orture is understood to be that barbaric cruelty which lies at the top of the pyramid of human rights misconduct." He also noted that it was clear that it would not be legitimate solely to obtain "actionable intelligence" that might prevent harm to service personnel and so forth. Griffin went further. In his view: "Defined in a common sense way, torture involves deliberate cruelty and, as such, should be absolutely prohibited." He also cited (a comment provided the link) to a law review article by Kim Scheppele that attacked the ticking time bomb justification.
The article first provides (with suitably depressing footnotes) the clear reality that we tortured, and it was not (CYA prosecutions aside) a case of "a few bad apples." Such facts need to be put out there, to remind people what we are dealing with here:
Subsequent disclosures, however, have revealed that Abu Ghraib was not an isolated location with unique problems. Detainees in American custody in Guantánamo, in Afghanistan, and in many locations in Iraq have been beaten, menaced by dogs, threatened with infliction of pain, subjected to prolonged periods of solitary confinement, deprived of sleep, subjected to sexual humiliation, exposed to extremes of heat and cold, shackled in painful positions for many hours, and bombarded with bright lights and loud music for extended periods. A number of detainees have been subjected to many, perhaps even all, of these techniques over weeks and months of interrogation.
Overall, the ticking time bomb scenario is a false trope because it is a fantasy device. The proverbial pony that in real life simply will not go as the typical hypo would have it go down. A primary problem is that in reality it simply is not some sure thing in which the interrogator and would be terrorist are in a vacuum. The 24 scenario. No, first and foremost, it involves bureaucratic decision-making that experience shows will not be limited to "extreme" (and the author doubts such cases really are likely to occur -- the scare scenarios rather unlikely) cases. In fact, this is seen in protocols for use of deadly force -- they are basic principles (rather vague) that are not limited to "the worst of the worst." The Supreme Court might have said that a fleeing felon per se is not enough, but we are not just talking serial killers here.
What’s notable about the incidents of torture and abuse is first, their common features, and second, their geographical reach. No one has any reason to believe any longer that these incidents were restricted to one prison near Baghdad. They were everywhere: from Guantánamo Bay to Afghanistan, Baghdad, Basra, Ramadi and Tikrit and, for all we know, in any number of hidden jails affecting “ghost detainees” kept from the purview of the Red Cross. They were committed by the Marines, the Army, the Military Police, Navy Seals, reservists, Special Forces and on and on. The use of hooding was ubiquitous; the same goes for forced nudity, sexual humiliation and brutal beatings; there are examples of rape and electric shocks. Many of the abuses seem specifically tailored to humiliate Arabs and Muslims, where horror at being exposed in public is a deep cultural artifact.
-- Andrew Sullivan, Atrocities in Plain Sight, NYT Book Review (2005)
This aside from the problem of rightful identity/truth telling, determining if "momentous, imminent, and certain catastrophe" (often defined down, thus though even top operatives might not actually know much of immediate import, they are deemed proper targets) is involved, and the questionable morality of torture itself. [The article is not geared to the point, but it cites another that holds that torture per se is illegitimate, quite different from violence per se, in effect "worse than death" that might come from battle and bombing.] Overall, in the real world, there is "inevitable imprecision" that simply does not make the scenario sensible. This sort of thing suggests lessons taught in the 17th Century should not be deemed "quaint" today:
No man shall be forced by torture to confess any crime against himself nor any other, unless it be in some capital case where he is first fully convicted by clear and sufficient evidence to be guilty, after which if the cause be of that nature, that it is very apparent there be other conspirators, or confederates with him, then he may be tortured, yet not with such tortures as be barbarous and inhumane.
-- Article 45 of the 1641 Massachusetts Body of Liberties
Now, "capital crimes" were much broader back then, and one doubts torture should even be allowed in those limited cases. Also, one gets the idea that torture by definition is "barbarous and inhumane." Still, one gets the idea. It also might be noted that that list also contained perhaps the first animal welfare provision in the colonies as well. But, that's for another day.
---
* I think he somewhat misleadingly suggested Kennedy's partial dissent (see also Stevens' opinion, supplying a partial transcript) was relevant here in that it raised the possibility that it was sometimes legitimate to interrogate injured individuals. But, the hypotheticals did not suggest harm could be done directly to advance such ends. SL crosses the line with this comment:
But I confess that I do not view, say, 24-36 hours of such deprivation as "torture," even if it is undoubtedly coercive (and, most certainly, "cruel and unusual," if used as a form of punishment rather than as a goad to interrogation). Indeed, the authors of The Interrogators insist, with whatever degree of plausibility, that very often the interrogators themselves, as a practical matter, got little more sleep than those they were interrogating.
Given the realities of the situation, it would be hard to imagine cases when deprivation of sleep for a day and a half would not be torture, especially given what must be done to assure that state of affairs. And, no matter what the authors "insist," to compare the interrogators position with those interrogated is asinine. Obviously, though the obvious does seem to confuse many people in power, even those with the same lack of sleep are not in the same position as those being controlled. It is honestly disgusting to compare the two.
Baseball Update
The As this time slipped up and lost with their ace on the mound. Detroit looked like the favorite, even if ESPN has a graphic saying Game 1 winners lose in the end. Lou, not the 2007 Yankee manager, confused a fellow announcer with the word "genuflect." Clearly, not a Roman Catholic. Meanwhile, imagine the Mets going to the second round ... it was just a few years ago when this could be written.
Tuesday, October 10, 2006
Lower Expectations
Joe is staying. Now, Bill Madden (veteran reporter with a good reputation) of the NY Daily News who first said he was going coyly said on Daily News Live! today (SNY) that there is some unknown reason (buy Wednesday's paper!) compelling it. Whatever. Madden is right: "[T]o bring him back for the final year on his contract would be to essentially excuse the way this Yankee team bowed out so dispassionately." Or, to have lower expectations. An "elite" team doesn't collapse repeatedly like this, especially with such a payroll.
Middle Church
And Also: Related to the below discussion, the NYT has had a very good series on accomodations given to religious faiths, which is acceptable up to a point. Should we force by law Catholics to have women priests? No. But, should we allow the Church special discretion to mistreat lay workers or give religious day care centers waivers from basic oversight, even if government funds are involved? No way.
I have in front of me a copy of Sleeping With Extra-terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety (1999) by Wendy Kaminer, a libertarian feminist writer whose work I generally enjoyed (haven't read her lately, though her name popped up when some ACLU insiders wanted to pass a rule limiting criticism of the organization's leadership). At the time, the book seemed a bit skewered -- as the title suggests, it spends a lot of time dealing with "alternative" beliefs such as astrology and the like.
There is also a somewhat strange chapter, with signs of Luddism, very critical of the Internet as a threat to reasoned thought. Sort of how the internal combustion engine caused air pollution. Her concern for links (basically the footnotes of the Net) really seemed a bit weird to me. The chapter has various "this is stupid" marginalia ala John Adams. I guess, as with her book against the excesses of personal empowerment programs and such, the book was partially sort of a response to irrationality from those that some generally sympathetic to her views (liberals). And, we are talking about millions of people here, people with irrational thought that in no way is cabined to belief that The X-Files is based on the truth ala Law & Order.
Such irrationality is a combined whole that can infect public policy (and private behavior) in any number of ways. Thus, many of these people are probably among those who think the Bush Administration somehow directly was involved in the 9/11 attacks. I'm confused by such people, since uh, people called from the planes. If missiles took down the Towers, what about the passengers? Were they like in on it too? Kaminer does note at one point that "social trends that conservatives lamented were not sins of secular* humanism; they followed a failure to embrace particular, sectarian interpretation of Scripture." This hits home -- it is a basic sentiment I share, one that annoys me whenever we hear about "values" voters and such.
The implication is that if you don't let's say support discrimination against gays you are not really a religious person, but supportive of "secular" values. "Scare quotes" are fitting since that is just what such a spin job is supposed to do. At issue are certain values, of course, as suggested by one of the replies to my Julia post cited below. And, the fact this is often spun as "religion" while the rest is "secular" is one of the worse cases of de facto establishment today. There are many books that will eventually fill up the "anti-Bush" library out that underline the point -- that supply a religious perspective from left leaning sorts.
For instance, Our Endangered Values by Jimmy Carter, who wrote a blurb to Middle Church: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right by Bob Edgar. Dr. Edgar, a minister and former member of Congress, is the general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. The book is sort of a "Majority Report" (the old name of Sam Seder's Air America show, a spin of the "Moral Majority") account that promotes a progressive view of public policy. Thus, it has various quotes such as Hebrews 13:3, which calls for concern of prisoners and those (Revised Standard Version) "ill-treated" (Edgar's version translates as "tortured").**
But, hey, you know how vague and open-ended scripture can be. One thing that struck me was his point that some evangelicals are so concerned with personal faith that they miss the forest for the trees. Such right leaning sorts are so concerned with personal rights (property, guns, capitalism) and the wrongs of others that the clear commands to care for the community at large are missed. [I like his use of the "dominion" we are said to have over the world per Genesis ... such "control" brings much responsibility, like the control we have over our children. Anyway, it's God's creation and gift, so what right do we have to waste and pollute it?]
Relatedly, I would think given the personal relationship -- often not shared by the majority -- such people have with God would underline the importance of a "right of privacy." The ability to make personal choices compelled by one's faith is at the heart of such liberty. Middle Church promotes many liberal leaning public policies, but it tries to show an appeal to the majority at large. As we know, when "middle" is used ("middle class"), we often are not just talking about some sort of median. Thus, many who I don't really consider "middle class" like to see themselves in that category. It also helps Republicans, which is why tax cuts that favor the rich (but might help others in some tiny way, and even there usually just shifts the burden elsewhere) have more support than they deserve.
And, things like environmental protection really should not be some sort of "liberal" cause ... as some conservatives readily admit. Still, the book has a clearly nice guy liberal flavor. Edgar "respects" other beliefs, in fact, "very deeply." What right does he have to doubt the faith of others? He just can repeatedly show the error of their ["far right"] ways, which after all, is the whole point of the book. ["It's a belief built on myths."] So, it seems a bit coy at times. Still, there is a point to it all -- you have to focus on what unites, and when you write letters to President Bush against the war or so forth, just calling him out as a moron really is counterproductive.
Sure enough. Leave that to late night comedians.
---
* For those who do lean that direction, a recent hit to the site was attracted by a review of Freethinkers, which is one of the better entries imho. Relatedly, another entry from that period discussed a dissenting voice from the Muslim community.
And, there is always my "Julia Says Goodbye To God" post over at Slate, which patterns a similar one here. I really enjoyed her God Said Ha! (Sweeney's at times amazing "light" account of cancer invading her family) and will be seeing her "Letting Go of God" show later this month. Shall let you know how it goes, but it has received some good reviews. [If I make it back -- it's past 10th Avenue, a nice trek even from the subway.]
** It does annoy that he notes "Paul" wrote that epistle (it's more like a sermon), when it is pretty well accepted that he did not -- it is not even labeled as Pauline. The "summary" of biblical books in my RSV speaks of its "unknown author." Also, Edgar notes that homosexuality is only mentioned in the Old Testament, when Paul also cites such commands.
I have in front of me a copy of Sleeping With Extra-terrestrials: The Rise of Irrationalism and Perils of Piety (1999) by Wendy Kaminer, a libertarian feminist writer whose work I generally enjoyed (haven't read her lately, though her name popped up when some ACLU insiders wanted to pass a rule limiting criticism of the organization's leadership). At the time, the book seemed a bit skewered -- as the title suggests, it spends a lot of time dealing with "alternative" beliefs such as astrology and the like.
There is also a somewhat strange chapter, with signs of Luddism, very critical of the Internet as a threat to reasoned thought. Sort of how the internal combustion engine caused air pollution. Her concern for links (basically the footnotes of the Net) really seemed a bit weird to me. The chapter has various "this is stupid" marginalia ala John Adams. I guess, as with her book against the excesses of personal empowerment programs and such, the book was partially sort of a response to irrationality from those that some generally sympathetic to her views (liberals). And, we are talking about millions of people here, people with irrational thought that in no way is cabined to belief that The X-Files is based on the truth ala Law & Order.
Such irrationality is a combined whole that can infect public policy (and private behavior) in any number of ways. Thus, many of these people are probably among those who think the Bush Administration somehow directly was involved in the 9/11 attacks. I'm confused by such people, since uh, people called from the planes. If missiles took down the Towers, what about the passengers? Were they like in on it too? Kaminer does note at one point that "social trends that conservatives lamented were not sins of secular* humanism; they followed a failure to embrace particular, sectarian interpretation of Scripture." This hits home -- it is a basic sentiment I share, one that annoys me whenever we hear about "values" voters and such.
The implication is that if you don't let's say support discrimination against gays you are not really a religious person, but supportive of "secular" values. "Scare quotes" are fitting since that is just what such a spin job is supposed to do. At issue are certain values, of course, as suggested by one of the replies to my Julia post cited below. And, the fact this is often spun as "religion" while the rest is "secular" is one of the worse cases of de facto establishment today. There are many books that will eventually fill up the "anti-Bush" library out that underline the point -- that supply a religious perspective from left leaning sorts.
For instance, Our Endangered Values by Jimmy Carter, who wrote a blurb to Middle Church: Reclaiming the Moral Values of the Faithful Majority from the Religious Right by Bob Edgar. Dr. Edgar, a minister and former member of Congress, is the general secretary of the National Council of the Churches of Christ in the USA. The book is sort of a "Majority Report" (the old name of Sam Seder's Air America show, a spin of the "Moral Majority") account that promotes a progressive view of public policy. Thus, it has various quotes such as Hebrews 13:3, which calls for concern of prisoners and those (Revised Standard Version) "ill-treated" (Edgar's version translates as "tortured").**
But, hey, you know how vague and open-ended scripture can be. One thing that struck me was his point that some evangelicals are so concerned with personal faith that they miss the forest for the trees. Such right leaning sorts are so concerned with personal rights (property, guns, capitalism) and the wrongs of others that the clear commands to care for the community at large are missed. [I like his use of the "dominion" we are said to have over the world per Genesis ... such "control" brings much responsibility, like the control we have over our children. Anyway, it's God's creation and gift, so what right do we have to waste and pollute it?]
Relatedly, I would think given the personal relationship -- often not shared by the majority -- such people have with God would underline the importance of a "right of privacy." The ability to make personal choices compelled by one's faith is at the heart of such liberty. Middle Church promotes many liberal leaning public policies, but it tries to show an appeal to the majority at large. As we know, when "middle" is used ("middle class"), we often are not just talking about some sort of median. Thus, many who I don't really consider "middle class" like to see themselves in that category. It also helps Republicans, which is why tax cuts that favor the rich (but might help others in some tiny way, and even there usually just shifts the burden elsewhere) have more support than they deserve.
But if by a "Liberal" they mean someone who looks ahead and not behind, someone who welcomes new ideas without rigid reactions, someone who cares about the welfare of the people -- their health, their housing, their schools, their jobs, their civil rights, and their civil liberties -- someone who believes we can break through the stalemate and suspicions that grip us in our policies abroad, if that is what they mean by a "Liberal," then I'm proud to say I'm a "Liberal."
-- JFK, qtd. in book; more good stuff about human dignity and so forth from the remarks here
And, things like environmental protection really should not be some sort of "liberal" cause ... as some conservatives readily admit. Still, the book has a clearly nice guy liberal flavor. Edgar "respects" other beliefs, in fact, "very deeply." What right does he have to doubt the faith of others? He just can repeatedly show the error of their ["far right"] ways, which after all, is the whole point of the book. ["It's a belief built on myths."] So, it seems a bit coy at times. Still, there is a point to it all -- you have to focus on what unites, and when you write letters to President Bush against the war or so forth, just calling him out as a moron really is counterproductive.
Sure enough. Leave that to late night comedians.
---
* For those who do lean that direction, a recent hit to the site was attracted by a review of Freethinkers, which is one of the better entries imho. Relatedly, another entry from that period discussed a dissenting voice from the Muslim community.
And, there is always my "Julia Says Goodbye To God" post over at Slate, which patterns a similar one here. I really enjoyed her God Said Ha! (Sweeney's at times amazing "light" account of cancer invading her family) and will be seeing her "Letting Go of God" show later this month. Shall let you know how it goes, but it has received some good reviews. [If I make it back -- it's past 10th Avenue, a nice trek even from the subway.]
** It does annoy that he notes "Paul" wrote that epistle (it's more like a sermon), when it is pretty well accepted that he did not -- it is not even labeled as Pauline. The "summary" of biblical books in my RSV speaks of its "unknown author." Also, Edgar notes that homosexuality is only mentioned in the Old Testament, when Paul also cites such commands.
Monday, October 09, 2006
Obligatory Political Entry
And Also: Glenn Greenwald has a pair of posts on North Korea's (apparent?) nuclear test, including one reflecting my early 2003 "Dean is generally right" sentiment. LGM warns us not to get too excited.
Set up by the last entry ...
First, the "mercenary" reference -- Justice Stevens, showing his leanings, is quite supportive of campaign finance limits, repeatedly referencing "paid mercenaries." This is especially interesting here where he notes that control of one's property is an important constitutional interest. Second, Sandy Levinson over at Balkinization is raising structural concerns that he believes are furthering the current political happenings. See, e.g., here.
I would take this with a grain of salt. Broken Branch notes how Congress has fallen into disrepute in recent years, but especially since the Republicans took over. IOW, as with Islam and terrorism, the structure might invite this sort of thing if the environment is right, but it is no way compelled. And, a majority of the voting public (or surely close enough to be a problem, same in 2000 as to the latter) voted for GB in the last election. Structural fixes can be imagined, and probably ideal to some extent, but ultimately "we the people" are essential. Such was the point in 1787 as well.
If "we the people" continue to let our leaders get away with things just too close to Nazi war crimes (we often speak of extremes when saying what we should not do ... legal opinions do it all the time ... so maybe "Nazi" [July] is not as verboten as some think) for comfort, it seems a bit too glib to blame bicameralism or the Electoral College. Or, to suggest somehow Madison and company "welcomed" the mire we are in, the inability of the people to change the government when necessary. We have a free press, but that is not enough for it to be an ideal press. Same here.
[Update: Added "Nazi" link.]
The system might help, but it is not the ultimate problem. The rot comes from those who people the system, and that should be our ultimate aim. This is so even if some tweaks might help push things along. I'm no fan of the EC and it tends to overly favor conservative sorts that leave a lot to be desired. But, we had it for two hundred years, and survived fairly well. It did not compel a majority to vote for an asshole. And, since many of the problems/troublesome shifts came along without constitutional changes, reforms can as well. So, I'm not quite on the same page with SL here.
Overall, there are some chicken/egg issues here, but I don't really want to focus on the structure per se. We have to be aware of it, surely, and can alter it somewhat. Probably have to as well. We can work within it, and honestly, realistically, we will have to do so. And, can win.
Set up by the last entry ...
First, the "mercenary" reference -- Justice Stevens, showing his leanings, is quite supportive of campaign finance limits, repeatedly referencing "paid mercenaries." This is especially interesting here where he notes that control of one's property is an important constitutional interest. Second, Sandy Levinson over at Balkinization is raising structural concerns that he believes are furthering the current political happenings. See, e.g., here.
I would take this with a grain of salt. Broken Branch notes how Congress has fallen into disrepute in recent years, but especially since the Republicans took over. IOW, as with Islam and terrorism, the structure might invite this sort of thing if the environment is right, but it is no way compelled. And, a majority of the voting public (or surely close enough to be a problem, same in 2000 as to the latter) voted for GB in the last election. Structural fixes can be imagined, and probably ideal to some extent, but ultimately "we the people" are essential. Such was the point in 1787 as well.
If "we the people" continue to let our leaders get away with things just too close to Nazi war crimes (we often speak of extremes when saying what we should not do ... legal opinions do it all the time ... so maybe "Nazi" [July] is not as verboten as some think) for comfort, it seems a bit too glib to blame bicameralism or the Electoral College. Or, to suggest somehow Madison and company "welcomed" the mire we are in, the inability of the people to change the government when necessary. We have a free press, but that is not enough for it to be an ideal press. Same here.
[Update: Added "Nazi" link.]
The system might help, but it is not the ultimate problem. The rot comes from those who people the system, and that should be our ultimate aim. This is so even if some tweaks might help push things along. I'm no fan of the EC and it tends to overly favor conservative sorts that leave a lot to be desired. But, we had it for two hundred years, and survived fairly well. It did not compel a majority to vote for an asshole. And, since many of the problems/troublesome shifts came along without constitutional changes, reforms can as well. So, I'm not quite on the same page with SL here.
Overall, there are some chicken/egg issues here, but I don't really want to focus on the structure per se. We have to be aware of it, surely, and can alter it somewhat. Probably have to as well. We can work within it, and honestly, realistically, we will have to do so. And, can win.
Joe Must Go
And Also: The Jets were due for a letdown, Jacksonsville had to win. All the same, you cannot get blown out 41-0, especially when showing some life itself will be a moral victory -- the team is not expected to win too much, but that is simply pathetic. I saw much of the Giants game, but missed the beginning of the Jets game. It was 14-0 before I knew it. Then, I really had no desire to watch. BTW, as the Cards won, San Diego did win -- on the football side. Good game for them, an important step for their young QB.
Today is the day when matters of Italian pride and heritage arise though some find it quite controversial in various respects. I speak, of course, on whether or not Joe Torre should keep his job as manager of the NY Yankees.* Since this is not politics [see separate entry], there is actual bipartisan agreement that serious change needs to occur. Let me first off say that I totally agree with those who point blame on the "mercenary" approach [ditto] of hiring a bunch of big money players to try to continue past success. Since this was an important part of the 1996-2001 regime, e.g., David Cone (1995), this might sound a bit off.
The problem is that you need more than mercenaries (the A-Team?) to win the war. Thus, the Mets aren't going to the championship round only because they obtained some big ticket players. No, they also needed role players (some well paid), young hungry future stars, esprit de corps, and all that good stuff. One might point to various Dodgers slip-ups and injuries, but when both Pedro and El Duque fall within days of each other, one might not get too much of a supportive ear. The Tigers had a lot going for them, but so did Seattle in 2001 (most wins in baseball). The Yanks beat them almost on autopilot. This team couldn't even start the engine. It has to be changed.
This goes to the top. The buck stops there. Since the owner cannot (will not) fire himself, the place to look is the manager. JT had mixed success before coming to the Yankees -- in fact, he did not have much success as a manager (very good player; good broadcaster, I assume). His style was perfect for the 1996 Yankees and it carried through his a decade of very good Yankee teams. But, the team is set up to win it all, not just their division. We are not talking about the Braves (pre-2006 edition). Thus, though most teams would be quite satisfied with their record even since 2001 (2003), they don't have this sort of payroll. They also often have more likeable players than some of this bunch.
Torre won with this bunch too, including the last two years when it was not quite as easy as it was the rest of his tenure. The team came from a big hole to win in the last weekend last year and survived big injuries (offensively speaking) to come back sooner (with help from a Red Sox collapse; they had more injuries) this time. Still, again, playoffs. Being beat by the Red Sox (favorite whipping boys) after being ahead three games to none was bad enough. Now, Kenny Rogers and a team that they were playing because the Tigers were swept by the Royals (Twins swept by As ... all according to plan?) embarrasses them. In fact, after one and a half good games, the team looked just plain listless.
The problem is that it is not new any more -- this playoff collapse scenario is becoming a trend ... the Yanks are the Braves without the smaller payroll/more laid back style of fans (lower expectations) excuse. And, we saw what happened to the Braves this year. Thus, major change. New manager (the manager Torre replaced just was fired by the Rangers, who wants Joe -- circle of life?). New pitching blood (Mussina, bye; Big Unit, injury reserve, bye; Lidle ... go pitch decently somewhere else like any number of recent Yank back-enders). Disposal of various overpriced hitters (Gary ... only an idiot would take up that option; steroid-boy, who wants him? A-rod ... worse call since the Rogers pick-up?). And, some influx of new talent (a pitching prospect is in the wings ... bidding war with Mets for Zito).
No saying this will lead to a World Series next year ... heck, the Yanks might be fighting with Toronto (second place) for a division title or something next time. If the Tigers stay good, there will be three tough teams in the Central alone, and Anaheim (new name?) will likely still be a toughie as well. But, the team might have some new life, and a page will be turned. Ebb and flow, such is the nature of the sports world. It is why the Jets brought in young blood, even if they know it will mean this season will bring a couple more wins than last. Still, they are facing in the right direction ... that is the best one can say about them putting a scare in the Colts (heck, the Titans did ... big deal). The Yanks were doing pretty good, but the fans should expect more.
They might not want too much pain ... even a chance the division is not a lock next year ... to bring forth the change. Heck, maybe that is too much to risk! Still, many are not satisfied with a team that does not even show up against a young team that could very well have been satisfied with giving the big boys a scare. The Yanks dealt with such upstarts in the past. Now, they are whipped by them. Time for a change and Joe Torre (for Lou Piniella) has to be the first to go. Give him a gold watch to go with all those rings. Thanks for the memories ... and, hey, a few million dollars for the family is not a bad deal when you can earn it while taking your little daughter to the beach. Art Howe got the same deal in 2005 for doing a lot less.
And, who knows, Joe might be going to the Cubs. This makes sense. In the 1990 movie Taking Care of Business, James Belushi plays someone escaping prison to be able to see his beloved Cubbies. We get a glimpse of the baseball announcer ... Joe Torre in a former life. The WFAN afternoon duo are iffy, but seriously, he has to go. Buck stops there. If you praise someone for a team's success, you cannot have it both ways. JT might want to retire on his laurels, he has a family and young child, or he might want to try once more to bring a team to greatness. But, it is time to go. Bernie Williams might retire as well ... next up, playing his music somewhere in the Village or something.
Let's go Mets. I guess there is an edge to Oakland, the third seed with home field advantage, but Tigers/As seems like something of a crapshoot. Cards/Mets promises to be more of the same, though surely a bit tougher than the first round. I'm thinking Mets in 6 with a few bullpen meltdowns, at least one coming from our end. Trachsel or Perez has to come up with a good game. Glavine or Maine will have a questionable one. And, offense and clutch pitching (the series was clinched by a key out with Nomar at bat) will be essential. Overall, a bit less pressure -- failing in the first round would have been a waste. At worst, this will be a pretty good year.
With useful changes, a honest Yankee fan would say that is true for both teams.
---
* Yes, though the actual day Columbus discovered the West Indies was October 12, 1492, Columbus Day is being observed today to allow a three day weekend. Another way would have been to observe it on Friday, since all those superstitious people are staying home in their beds anyway. OTOH, many Italians do need an extra day to deal with the Yankee collapse, and the day is in effect their St. Patrick's Day in some respects. Note that he worked for Spain, which is somewhat ironic. BTW, Chris was not the best of guys, but I'll let others reaffirm the point.
As noted on Democracy Now!, it is totally unclear why we are honoring someone who did not even discover our own country, which obviously was discovered years earlier. It is probably likely that even Europeans (Vikings) hit the North America coast years before though I guess one can say they did not set up permanent settlements and so forth. Still, we don't honor the founding of Jamestown, or the voyages of Cabot -- the beginnings of English claims on the land in the 1490s.
After all, the guy discovered (for the Europeans) the North American mainland.
Today is the day when matters of Italian pride and heritage arise though some find it quite controversial in various respects. I speak, of course, on whether or not Joe Torre should keep his job as manager of the NY Yankees.* Since this is not politics [see separate entry], there is actual bipartisan agreement that serious change needs to occur. Let me first off say that I totally agree with those who point blame on the "mercenary" approach [ditto] of hiring a bunch of big money players to try to continue past success. Since this was an important part of the 1996-2001 regime, e.g., David Cone (1995), this might sound a bit off.
The problem is that you need more than mercenaries (the A-Team?) to win the war. Thus, the Mets aren't going to the championship round only because they obtained some big ticket players. No, they also needed role players (some well paid), young hungry future stars, esprit de corps, and all that good stuff. One might point to various Dodgers slip-ups and injuries, but when both Pedro and El Duque fall within days of each other, one might not get too much of a supportive ear. The Tigers had a lot going for them, but so did Seattle in 2001 (most wins in baseball). The Yanks beat them almost on autopilot. This team couldn't even start the engine. It has to be changed.
This goes to the top. The buck stops there. Since the owner cannot (will not) fire himself, the place to look is the manager. JT had mixed success before coming to the Yankees -- in fact, he did not have much success as a manager (very good player; good broadcaster, I assume). His style was perfect for the 1996 Yankees and it carried through his a decade of very good Yankee teams. But, the team is set up to win it all, not just their division. We are not talking about the Braves (pre-2006 edition). Thus, though most teams would be quite satisfied with their record even since 2001 (2003), they don't have this sort of payroll. They also often have more likeable players than some of this bunch.
Torre won with this bunch too, including the last two years when it was not quite as easy as it was the rest of his tenure. The team came from a big hole to win in the last weekend last year and survived big injuries (offensively speaking) to come back sooner (with help from a Red Sox collapse; they had more injuries) this time. Still, again, playoffs. Being beat by the Red Sox (favorite whipping boys) after being ahead three games to none was bad enough. Now, Kenny Rogers and a team that they were playing because the Tigers were swept by the Royals (Twins swept by As ... all according to plan?) embarrasses them. In fact, after one and a half good games, the team looked just plain listless.
The problem is that it is not new any more -- this playoff collapse scenario is becoming a trend ... the Yanks are the Braves without the smaller payroll/more laid back style of fans (lower expectations) excuse. And, we saw what happened to the Braves this year. Thus, major change. New manager (the manager Torre replaced just was fired by the Rangers, who wants Joe -- circle of life?). New pitching blood (Mussina, bye; Big Unit, injury reserve, bye; Lidle ... go pitch decently somewhere else like any number of recent Yank back-enders). Disposal of various overpriced hitters (Gary ... only an idiot would take up that option; steroid-boy, who wants him? A-rod ... worse call since the Rogers pick-up?). And, some influx of new talent (a pitching prospect is in the wings ... bidding war with Mets for Zito).
No saying this will lead to a World Series next year ... heck, the Yanks might be fighting with Toronto (second place) for a division title or something next time. If the Tigers stay good, there will be three tough teams in the Central alone, and Anaheim (new name?) will likely still be a toughie as well. But, the team might have some new life, and a page will be turned. Ebb and flow, such is the nature of the sports world. It is why the Jets brought in young blood, even if they know it will mean this season will bring a couple more wins than last. Still, they are facing in the right direction ... that is the best one can say about them putting a scare in the Colts (heck, the Titans did ... big deal). The Yanks were doing pretty good, but the fans should expect more.
They might not want too much pain ... even a chance the division is not a lock next year ... to bring forth the change. Heck, maybe that is too much to risk! Still, many are not satisfied with a team that does not even show up against a young team that could very well have been satisfied with giving the big boys a scare. The Yanks dealt with such upstarts in the past. Now, they are whipped by them. Time for a change and Joe Torre (for Lou Piniella) has to be the first to go. Give him a gold watch to go with all those rings. Thanks for the memories ... and, hey, a few million dollars for the family is not a bad deal when you can earn it while taking your little daughter to the beach. Art Howe got the same deal in 2005 for doing a lot less.
And, who knows, Joe might be going to the Cubs. This makes sense. In the 1990 movie Taking Care of Business, James Belushi plays someone escaping prison to be able to see his beloved Cubbies. We get a glimpse of the baseball announcer ... Joe Torre in a former life. The WFAN afternoon duo are iffy, but seriously, he has to go. Buck stops there. If you praise someone for a team's success, you cannot have it both ways. JT might want to retire on his laurels, he has a family and young child, or he might want to try once more to bring a team to greatness. But, it is time to go. Bernie Williams might retire as well ... next up, playing his music somewhere in the Village or something.
Let's go Mets. I guess there is an edge to Oakland, the third seed with home field advantage, but Tigers/As seems like something of a crapshoot. Cards/Mets promises to be more of the same, though surely a bit tougher than the first round. I'm thinking Mets in 6 with a few bullpen meltdowns, at least one coming from our end. Trachsel or Perez has to come up with a good game. Glavine or Maine will have a questionable one. And, offense and clutch pitching (the series was clinched by a key out with Nomar at bat) will be essential. Overall, a bit less pressure -- failing in the first round would have been a waste. At worst, this will be a pretty good year.
With useful changes, a honest Yankee fan would say that is true for both teams.
---
* Yes, though the actual day Columbus discovered the West Indies was October 12, 1492, Columbus Day is being observed today to allow a three day weekend. Another way would have been to observe it on Friday, since all those superstitious people are staying home in their beds anyway. OTOH, many Italians do need an extra day to deal with the Yankee collapse, and the day is in effect their St. Patrick's Day in some respects. Note that he worked for Spain, which is somewhat ironic. BTW, Chris was not the best of guys, but I'll let others reaffirm the point.
As noted on Democracy Now!, it is totally unclear why we are honoring someone who did not even discover our own country, which obviously was discovered years earlier. It is probably likely that even Europeans (Vikings) hit the North America coast years before though I guess one can say they did not set up permanent settlements and so forth. Still, we don't honor the founding of Jamestown, or the voyages of Cabot -- the beginnings of English claims on the land in the 1490s.
After all, the guy discovered (for the Europeans) the North American mainland.