Miss Potter and the Vampire Mom

And Also: In response to a Slate series based on perusal of Justice Brennan's case files, I gave my obligatory .02. Note the trouble I had with a throwaway use of the word "activist" -- the word simply is trouble, especially given its implications.

[BTW, House seems to be back to normal ... he is just even more in debt to the sexy head administrator ... reminds one of Gilmore Girls and all those forced family dinners. Meanwhile, in real life, two of his team are engaged. The ones that had (bad) sex on the show.]

The usual practice is to stack some good movies at the end of the year, making them Academy Award eligible, and stick some more questionable films in January. Though Miss Potter might have had some token run in time, it came out last Friday here in New York City. Still, very enjoyable movie, Renée Zellweger playing a less annoying/pathetic English role (not being English, I didn't pay too much attention to the accent) than Bridget Jones, Emily Watson adding some spark in a support role as a spinster sister to the object of her affection (who, unlike these two, surely played against type). The movie also had a good turn of the (20th) century look, made good use of on location country-side locations, and the father/daughter relationship was well played by both sides.

So, overall, there was a lot to enjoy about the film. This is a good indicator of a superior film -- one that has several things going for it. One paper thought it was too sugary. It was sweet -- especially Beatrix Potter's imaginary connections to the children book characters she created (Peter Rabbit et. al.) -- but the story of her success as an author and falling in love for the first time did have tragedy too. In fact, another review questioned the film's final third, which took place after said tragedy. But, it was quite fitting -- Potter's independence (not just her interest in securing lands for traditional working farms) is reaffirmed as we she how she deals with such a tragedy.

I think the film worked fine in that respect. It was not just about her romance, which would be fine, but perhaps a bit trite in some ways. The film also fleshed out her personality by providing some flashbacks to her childhood, so was not really concerned about the small sliver of her life suggested by certain reviews as well. The reviews I referenced did like the film, more or less, being charmed by the proceedings. So, it was a safe bet to try it out for size, and not surprising that I enjoyed it much. For what is a time at the movies if not to be transported to another world, concern ourselves in a story about someone who deserves our respect, and perhaps even have a lesson or two reaffirmed along the way?

And, hey, this is so even if you never enjoyed her work. Meanwhile, as noted, I read an irresistible (well for me) paperback, I'm the Vampire, That's Why by Michelle Bardsley. It is labeled a "romance," and surely it is, even though it concerns a mom turned into a vampire. A lot of hot and heavy stuff with her "true love," surely of the "Mary Jane" department -- a MJ is a fan fiction character that is meant to stand in for the reader. Not a mom with kids (though around her age ... she started young), but the book still was fun. Quick reading, though over three hundred pages of medium range paperback pages. I always had a problem finding good fiction, all types, but sometimes a fun fiction book pops up. Nothing too much ... good beach reading. Even if the temperature is back to normal ... for today, at least.

Few things. The power of the mom/child connection is a major theme ... amazing thing that, isn't it? Like the teacher in Freedom Writers standing in front of a class of distrusting teens, something like that should scare you shitless. But, people actually do and enjoy it. Who knew? Second, a vampire is not really "dead," right? Jessica Matthews surely seemed quite "alive," in more ways than one at that. Reminds me of my recent debate over the word "religion." Also, don't you love it when they say "this isn't a x, it's real life" in a movie/book, and then do some stock thing all the same? Finally, your perspective changes sometimes. Is a hundred years that long for a vampire? How much do you "blame" certain beings driven by instinct?

Even humans, sometimes. Yeah, you do ... but, who said alive um beings are always rational? Just ask any parent ... or their kids. Oh, and in this book, different sorts work together. Well, I like broad construction, including of the word "person." And, if we should respect* animals, why not vampires and werewolves?

---

* The conservative humorist PJ O'Rourke was on C-SPAN over the weekend. He's one of those reasonable sorts that I can disagree with without thinking them assholes. Still, there is that disconnect. He notes that we have a moral obligation to care for those less advantaged than us, but this does not give the people a "right" to such positive assistance. Charles Fried makes a similar claim (roughly speaking, I only read a review, glanced at the book) in his new book.

But, a "right" is something others (including the government) have an obligation to supply. I'm sure, even though both of their most recent books are short, extended discussion can spell out the problem. Still, I call meaningless semantics. "MS!"

Elections Have Consequences

Item: "William Haynes, William G. Myers III and Michael Wallace all asked to have their appointments withdrawn, these officials said. Judge Terrence Boyle was informed of the White House's decision [to give him up too], according to an ally."

Federalists in Dissent

And Also: Comments like this and an AOL update that wondered if Florida could respond to such quick strikes suggest things change after the first half or so of the first quarter of football games. Also, doing a move like the kicker over in Dallas once accomplished, after that runback, the key player got injured during the celebration. The shellacking suggests that isn't the only reason Ohio was destroyed 41-14, but it surely didn't help them any.

By the grace of the used book deals of Amazon, I'm read an interesting small volume by the historian Linda Kerber entitled Federalists in Dissent. As shown by a more recent book on the "Copperheads" during the Civil War, it is useful to study not only the past, but groups therein that died out. This is especially so as their tenets and concerns live on.

[Some Federalists, especially not of the Southern persuasion, for instance, could use slavery as a cudgel against Jeffersonians. Others feared quick change, even fearing anti-Jeffersonian Noah Webster because of his "American" dictionary, or too liberal takes of religion which seemed to be akin to atheism to some. They also debated education policy in ways that seem familiar.]

An amusing aspect of FID is the tendency of some Federalists to use sarcasm and satire (a usual technique of the age, but more passionately used by those felt particularly put upon) against those dubious Jeffersonians. One noted that it might be deemed nice and polite to be less nasty, but that in effect wimps don't win. If you thought our political regime was nasty ...

Thus, we hear of those tyrannous farmers who do not honor the equality of weeds, or wrong-minded grammatarians who don't let pronouns do what they want, insisting on subject/verb agreement. Or, the man who tried to show that you didn't need food to survive, but died just before being able to prove the point.

The relevancy here in particular is that such debates often had a jurisprudential nature. The power and the roles of the courts was an important matter of debate as well as the correct interpretation of the Constitution as a whole. Jeffersonians leaned to giving more power to state courts and worrying about the corruption of our law via foreign (namely, English common) law and abuses of federal judicial power. And so on. It all seems rather familiar.

[Someone commented on a reference to the essay respecting an amendment to overturn the gay marriage case in MA. My interest piqued, I did some checking, and found the matter of some interest. Well, interest for someone who cannot help reading footnotes.]

The final chapter highlighted the social concerns that drove on the Federalists. Again, there was a reason for their opposition to the Jeffersonians, not just elitist at that. Jefferson favored the yeoman farmer. Though he received useful money from a nail factory, one of his little complexities, TJ had an idealized version of the yeoman farmer as an independent individual citizen. Concerned with consistency and stability, the wish of the person who relied on plentiful but steady returns, the farmer was his own man. No reliance on others, like those in those dirty cities.

Of course, this was based on a fiction -- yeoman farmers were quite reliant on others, namely creditors, and many lived a hand to mouth existence that led to much unrest. All the same, TJ ironically shared similar fears as many Federalists, that of the uncontrolled mob, which Jefferson seemed to want to inflict on society -- that pro-French Revolution nutjob. To the degree they knew of his writings on the subject, they would have just been reaffirmed in their feeling that the other side was just a bunch of hypocrites, dangerous ones at that. The risky path of the budding capitalist, which all that entails, was to be the fate of the country. Jefferson would probably have not liked how that turned out.

Social control from their betters wasn't going to be the route taken either ... both sides had something of an adversion for facing facts. But, the dangerous forces -- especially in the age of the French Revolution and upcoming unrest in other parts of Europe -- was there all the same. A peek, including a note that the fiction that there was some ideal time when nobilitic pretensions (which some still desired) was not in place here, ended things on an interesting note.

I'm taking a bit of a break from serious subjects ... reading a book on a mom turned into a vampire. Might be worth a comment or two. Has some bite.

"supporting roles in their own story"

And Also: It is unclear why Sen. Biden is out there trying to giving ammo to the other side by suggesting Congress basically only has its "please don't be too much of an idiot" horatory power respecting troops in Iraq. Politically, Congress as a whole (but not single members!) probably is left with such things, but constitutionally, it simply is not the case. At worst, it would be a matter of debate, a political question all the same. Who wins that these days?

There is a new Lifetime movie, based on a real story (fairly typical ... so is the fact is sounds like feel good sap), concerning someone who somehow went undercover as a fat person, realizing (shocker) that overweight people are negatively looked at by society, including in clearly prejudicial ways. The movie concerns a teen who uses this as an experiment, hoping to make a documentary of sorts to raise money for college (injured, a chance of an athletic scholarship slipped away).

Her mother (played by Caroline Rhea) as well as a new friend she meets while "undercover" really has weight issues. As a NY Daily News review notes, in effect, the friend is the true subject (or the most interesting one) of the movie, "reducing the real subjects to supporting roles in their own story." The net effect "is coldly ironic at best, and may in the end undermine some of the good the producers clearly went to achieve." We see this in Freedom Writers plus Blood Diamond -- the well off whites are the stars, the others (if in various degrees fairly well represented), supporting characters. Ditto various movies on apartheid in South Africa.

This seems wrong, plus the focus seems often to me on the less interesting people. David Hinckley notes that it might be true that the average viewer might not watch if they do not have a representative of sorts that to whom they can relate. "Maybe." But, there are movies about lovable fat people who are struggling for love or whatnot, and people do enjoy them. The same applies to other subject matter, including a movie like Hotel Rwanda, and having the "other" as the stars truly challenges our viewpoints. It is quite true that we like to have someone to relate to -- the idea is bluntly seen in the "cum" shot of porn movies, after all. [Crude, but applicable.]

Still, it is a good idea to have movies that focus on the woman's point of view, and not just in porn. Talking about less savory media, recently, Married ... with Children repeats have cycled back to early episodes, including from the first season. It is a bit strange, really, to see the children so young, Al looking a little less pathetic, and in one scene -- shocking, I know -- wanting to have sex with his wife (and upset when people interrupt the opportunity!). Talking about vampires (see last entry), Marcy looks particularly young, not too far removed from her Fright Night days. BTW, it seems a bit ironic that "Doogie Howser" has come out as gay -- yet another person who played/plays a "sex hungry" heterosexual (shades of Rock Hudson?) who turns out not to be in real life.

Overcompensation, you know ...

Sunday Things

No wild cards won this weekend, which means NY did not win, though the Giants had a more respectable time of it than the Jets. The Jets did a pretty good job ... until the Fourth Quarter. The Giants did just enough to lose at the buzzer (quite literally), but a 8-8 team will almost take that in the playoffs. Well, Tiki still has the Pro Bowl.

I was checking over the NYT part of the time the Jets game was on -- nothing special, but some skim material. For instance, some Oscar picks -- many which I do not plan to see, Clean (a drug addiction movie in which Nick Nolte plays the respectable reliable adult character) was good though. And, yes, Little Miss Sunshine, which I watched on DVD.

Meanwhile, there is a new show on HGTV (Sundays at 10 EST) called "Living With Ed" (Begley Jr., the environmentalist actor, a true believer). Seems cute, if a bit forced (well, such is life without good writers*) -- his more "ordinary" wife is named Rachelle Carson. Well, that's a gimmee. Tamara was on late Friday Night, a good time for a horror movie, especially a somewhat lame over one. Even later, which seems to be normal, D.E.B.S. was on last night ... this is a light spy spoof about teen girl spies in training, one who hooks up with an evil mastermind, who is deep down a lesbian aching for true love. Cute, a bit thin. I saw most of it in the past, probably switching channels along the way.

Epiphany (Jan. 6) is really the end of the Xmas season, so as the day ended, I took down my little tree and the decorations. The holiday is not completely over, however, when you still have unused gift cards. Also, when I put the little tree away, I had to move a set of knives that I was given like last year** (someone else won them, or something, and didn't need them). So, if vampires or something invaded my place, a set is readily available on the counter in their nice wooden stand.

Always prepared.

---

* Editors are good too. Definitely.

** This always sounds more in the distant past later in the year, doesn't it?

Freedom Writers

And Also: KC could not even get three after an interception was taken back to the Colts 9, their defense doing yeoman work holding the Colts to two field goals. This was early, but predictive. Dallas did lose, rather memorably. And, I missed it. Oh well. Meanwhile, the patron saint of liars? (h/t Atrios).

Commercials for Hilary Swank's somewhat lightly promoted new film (put out in the lull of January) did not seem promising: oh, another young/inexperienced teacher goes against closed minds and teaches inner city youths the value of education! Based on a true story too. Yeah, that sounds promisingly clichéd. And, the role did not seem one Swank favors. [A small matter, for instance, a scene where her feminity is highlighted was notable for its absence in her best films.] Still, reviews seemed respectable. I had money left on my gift card. So, I gave it a chance.

Mixed bag, but good as a whole. A pretty good review is put forth by the National Review (Not my usual reading, but I do agree with much of the review.) A few excerpts gives one a flavor:

Based on the true of story of novice teacher, Erin Gruwell, and her struggles to educate a group of racially self-segregating freshmen in a recently integrated, gang -infested school, Freedom Writers' inspiring and instructive story about the prospects for education in such adverse conditions is marred by its tendency toward hero-worshipping sentimental schlock. ....

The students, played by a cast of little-known actors who give the most credible performances in the film, also learn the power of stories, of having a vocabulary to understand the lives of others and in light of which to begin to articulate their own lives. ...

[T]he students learn that blind loyalty to one's own can be the source of the gravest injustice. Instead, integrity and honor involve what [Miep] Gies [of Anne Frank fame] calls the ordinary person's fidelity to the truth, a truth that may require defying one's group.

[The movie also suggests why such group loyalty is developed, partially because at times there seems to be no logical alternative. This conclusion grows out of clear realities. An idealistic teacher only goes so far in this department. We get enough tastes of truth like this to make the movie worthwhile.]

There is a reason why these inspirational movies are made and enjoyed. There is somehing uplifting and hopeful about enthusiastic teachers bringing the power and possibility of education to children who many think are not able to be educated. This denial of what should be their birthright, surely necessary for the true development of citizens, is a tragedy. And, the value of this film in part is that we do get a flavor of the students. It is not all about the young white (second generation, whose father is clearly somewhat well off) liberal.

And, their actual words/diaries assist us here. The movie is based partially on diaries that they wrote for class, a form of which was formed into a book. An update by Erin Gruwell, Teach with Your Heart: Lessons I Learned from the Freedom Writers, is forthcoming. Yes, they did meet Miep Gies. The Amazon review of Gruwell's update (the movie takes place in the 1990s, after the Rodney King riots) tells us the students actually made a trip to Europe as well.

A Washington Post review from April, 2000 also points to other aspects found in the movie, including a rather stereotypical view of her colleagues (in real life EG was twenty-three when she started; it is not surprising long suffering colleagues would find her desire to change the rules both naive and dubious at best):

Gruwell's own entries precede each section. They are surprisingly frank, especially regarding her interaction with her colleagues, whom she rarely portrays in a flattering light. Gruwell recalls reaching a turning point when her angry denunciation of the Holocaust prompts a student to timidly ask, "What's the Holocaust?"

Determined to make "tolerance the core of [her] curriculum," Gruwell devises a reading schedule that includes Anne Frank: The Diary of a Young Girl and Zlata's Diary: A Child's Life in Sarajevo. "Since many of my students are fifteen, and Zlata is fifteen and Anne Frank was fifteen when she died, I think the parallels between age, alienation, and teenage angst will really hit home for them," she writes.

Gruwell's instincts prove right as her students engage in a diary-writing campaign that ultimately leads to this absorbing and inspirational book. ... The best passages, though, display all the qualities one would hope to discover in such a project: candor, conflict, vulnerability, thoughtfulness and wit.

[I don't know the full accuracy of the teacher working two jobs to stretch her salary (27K) and help provide additional resources to the students. But, it sounds at least partially realistic.* Or, the marital problems caused by differences in expectations. The latter subplot was well played and added a touch of realism. The movie has a pretty long running time, and some concern for character interactions is generally adds to the film, including her relations with her '60s activist father, an underused Scott Glenn.]

Some comments from Amazon readers of the book are a bit dubious, a sentiment probably furthered by somewhat necessary eliding of some of the hard work of teaching students with low test scores -- a lot of work on fundamentals before those nicer journal entries takes shape.** As the Post review noted: "Many of the entries show a distracting sameness in language and syntax, perhaps because of overzealous copy-editing." One community college teacher, who did give the book three stars, addressed the point as well:

I tend to avoid substandard English or "dialect" in the readings I give my students. Any appeal of "realness" is always outweighed by the degree to which it can be hard to read and to which it reinforces incorrect writing. Nevertheless, there is something odd about such well-written prose presented as coming from students who were allegedly academic disasters. So, who edited all this?

My hat's off to any teacher whose students succeed so well; yet there is something naggingly revisionist about the way this book reads -- as if both teacher and students are (consciously or unconsciously) hammering their collective experience into the mold of the typical Hollywood hero-teacher movie that this book has inevitably become.

Not having read the book, I cannot judge this caveat, but it has a taste of truth. The movie in fact references how EG had the students type out their journals for publication (on donated computers), which implies some sort of editing -- it is not like the journals were just submitted to a typist. Such a somewhat edited view of reality probably is a good metaphor for the film itself. One that has enough general clichés to confirm my doubts, but enough good material to make it well worth watching.

Cheers to all the teachers out there that make such things as possible as they truly are as well as the students who they help educate.

---

* It is quite realistic for a teacher to have to work another job to supplement his/her salary; I know of one such teacher, who has a side job plus takes extra teaching work to pay the bills. Still, how many teachers have the funds to buy extra books and take a class out to a nice restaurant (shades of Dangerous Minds)?

** Diary editing for publication has precedent relevant to the film: Anne Frank herself started to edit hers when she heard a member of the Dutch government in exile say on the radio that he hoped to collect eyewitness accounts (like diaries) of those suffering under the Germans. Her father also edited it somewhat, a later more complete edition underlining the point. Thus, the "definite edition" of her diary is not a simple copy of what she originally wrote on such and such a day. [Based on introductory remarks from said edition.]

I Get It Out Of My System

And Also: A good start. And, warning signs.

I have been tempted to address in detail one of the various times which underline how online debates can be particularly tedious, leading to some stress on my part, since bad logic and sloppy (especially if it has an attitude) reasoning bothers me. It being my nature -- my mind works in a certain way, certain things annoy me, and yes, you get into this sort of thing, perhaps a bit too much. But, since it seemed a bit too self-interested, I decided to avoid the matter.

Oh well. I referenced a debate on the question of "religion." Arising from a sarcastic reply (a new list) to Dahlia Lithwick (Slate) and her list of the top ten civil liberty violations, there were various responses that underlined how (let's be nice) sloppy the list really was. One item on the new list was the canard that the state somehow promotes secularism as a religion. A reply, which was made before, noted that "atheism" could not be a religion, it being the lack thereof. I find this problematic. The word to me means the lack of a belief in God. This does not mean a lack of a religion. As someone who agreed with me, appreciated, and has more education on the matter than I noted:

Belief in god is only a tiny part of religion. Human beings are hard wired to -require- belief. That does not have to be belief in a god, but belief in a "something" bigger than ourselves, be it god, political movement, or "faith" in reason is a fundamental human requirement right below oxygen. Beyond that religion gives us language to make sense of the world, social structures to aid us in our lives, ritual actions to reinforce the linguistics and theodicy. In order for atheism to replace religion, it has to become it. Which is why replacing religion with atheism is such a fundamentally moronic undertaking.

As noted, an article on a particularly fervent brand of atheists was cited. The person is a self-proclaimed atheist. An atheists in the article, Sam Harris (who has a couple books out, one which I skimmed), spoke of a "religion of reason." The article was written by someone who basically admitted to be an atheist, but didn't really think it productive to rub it in people's faces as much as those discussed wished. Said person also didn't find it troublesome to consider the fact atheists can have a "religion." This upsets some people, since they think of "religion" as belief in some supernatural entity or something. Thus, the long replies to my brief challenge of R. on the thread.

One can glance at them, though they are tedious, to get a flavor. As you can see, I had the same desire to underline my view was the correct one, even if it took time to reply to longggggg posts. Others find it less productive, but there is some value in such mental exercises. This is so even given the tedious nature of the arguments. For instance, I was told to "ask an atheist" what the term meant. But, apparently, I have to ask the right sort. Likewise, apparently, it was supposed to be important (since it was repeated countless times) that atheism is in response to theism. Now, as I wrote, it can very well be in response to the concept of theism. No matter. It is unclear why something in response to something else cannot be a "religion."

[What is particularly ironic is that the person underlines a concern for using terms accepted by the group at issue, but changes gears to commonly understood terminology when atheists aren't involved. Buddhists, so noted, have "no gods." But, since "theism" and "theology" is thought -- however wrongly, just as commonly understood, "religion" is/was often thought as Western religions (if not Christianity) alone -- as belief per se, we should consider them "theists." The fact that the word refers to god, notwithstanding. This seems a bit arrogant, doesn't it? Buddhists are supposed to be put in our cubbyholes, even if it confuses their basic beliefs, namely, no gods!]

Other tropes were used. I was called patronizing -- I guess I come off that way at times, but comments like "try again" in response to my argument is sort of patronizing. Showing why it's useful not to bring such matters up, I at one point noted that it appeared to me that at some points the person was letting passion interfere with reason. This is often a problem, but if you bring it up, as happened here, it is taken personally and you are challenged. Lesson learnt.*

It is claimed I did not answer a question. I answered it. And, there is the annoying avoiding of what is said. I noted that perhaps bare atheism is not much of a religion. After all, is just believing in God (it might be a religious belief) much of one? But, yes, with more, it can be. Thus, repeated emphatic (reference to imaginary dinosaurs, Santa Claus, how I'm like creationist scientists, help those who promote atheists as apostates, etc.) statements on how just absence of belief is not religion was somewhat besides the point.

This is why people are tempted to reply thusly:

I know you thought you were a special snowflake because you read something once about a flying spaghetti monster. But it's just another cult, with particularly lousy production values.

Horse, water, done now.

More talking past each other though one has to take a bit of sarcasm online, it comes with the territory. Anyway, the general tenor of the posts underline my sentiments, their very religious fervor, that is. I guess that and the fact that (protestations that I am just not important enough to get an emotional rise out of aside) the person clearly was a bit stressed at my apparently cluelessness as well. Misery likes company. But, heck, I know -- at the end -- s/he had as much fun as I had. Thus, since I sometimes know when to give up, I ended with "you can have the last word." And, did not read the one that inevitably came (another annoyed title, that clearly did not suggest any emotional sentiment on his/her part), since I would be tempted to reply. :)

I think it useful to discuss the point, since it comes with the territory. It also gets it out of my system. Now, let me check out this mid-60s degree weather, and hope the Colts and Dallas lose. Choke choke!

[And more: Weather is nice. BTW, what is really the net value of using circular reasoning to convince people that atheism isn't a religion, since atheists don't support religion? A rather questionable approach unless as suggested there is some evangelistical flavor to it. The claim often is that the state (or federal courts) established atheism as a state religion. If they did, it would be a problem. They don't. For instance, not teaching creation science does not deny the existence of God. It avoids entanglement into the question and underlines faith based approaches do not belong in science class.

The attempt to narrowly define "religion" might have constitutional consequences as recognized by various writers. For instance, my overall concept of religion reflects Ronald Dworkin, who notes "we may describe people's beliefs about the inherent value of human life, beliefs deployed in their opinions about abortion, as essentially religious beliefs." Such "beliefs" ("convictions") "are just as pervasive, just as foundational to moral personality, as the convictions of a Catholic or Moslem." Freedom's Law. Such an understanding of "sacred" and such is held by many, and I find it arrogant to deny their approach because some unclear number of some group might find problems with it.]

---

* I recently annoyed a conservative, who I thought was putting forth sloppy reasoning, and refused to answer my criticisms. Said person also quickly dismissed me. I tweaked him/her a bit, since it honestly pissed me off a tad, and this set off a reply ... that again did not really respond to my points. Eventually, I was told that I clearly was just a liberal propagandist sort and not really worth reading, but (saving grace! whew!) I would not be blocked. Wah wah.

Projection. I am not neutral, but yes, by now, it is a bit hard to dismiss me so cavalierly. Such mentalities are often not worth reading, especially if it will only lead to bad replies, since they are written by close-minded sorts that will dismiss you since you are the problem, not they.

Wonk Wonk

And Also: There seems to be an annoying meme, mentioned by Sen. Durbin yesterday too, that those darn Iraqis should get off their asses and do things on their own. Look at all we did for you! Yeah, it's their fault. OTOH, as a caller noted on Air America, maybe we can just say we won. Saddam is gone. No WMDs. They have a Constitution. So, let's leave. Reality aside, saying how we lost and all just drives the President on, since those sorts don't want to admit defeat. Now, this might backfire. It might encourage other stupidity. No easy solutions though.

I am not really a wonk sort of guy -- I have read some wonky stuff now and again, but public policy details are not really my forte. For instance, energy policy -- any number of nuances there. I try to know a bit about the issues at hand and do think I have the ability to make a fair judgment of reasoning processes of those who make various arguments. But, the matter does not really interest me too much, and I respect my limitations. All the same, I have general tendencies, which are determined by rough judgments based on my readings and basic understandings that grow out of them.

Thus, for instance, a rise in the minimum wage makes sense to me, I concur in attacks of the lamer criticisms (and over the top denunciations), but sure, when certain blogs start to toss out charts and so forth, my eyes glaze over. This is because I have read some stuff on the topic, including both sides basic takes though admittedly more on the pro side, and have spent about twenty years analyzing public policy material to such a degree that I trust my basic judgments on such issues. Honestly, economic issues are not my primary concern (you know, except when I'm paying the bills), though I know that "life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" involves economics too. Leave out "property" if you like, it's still there. Still, I think benefits (think of the non-payroll perks of federal judges) might be more important in some ways. Health and day care costs money too.

And, my general sentiment, one that is sometimes clouded by annoyances at other things (civil liberties, the war, etc.), is that it would be glorious if we can have a more progressive government in place, one that might be wrong or incomplete in some ways, but basically go in the right direction. Universal health care. True concern for unions and workers. Truly recognizing the potential of national communication regulation, you know, in a positive way. Heck, even a firmer acceptance that basically religious matters, or if you like, matters of conscience, should be left to private choice. (The recently referenced debate included a citation of this interesting article on the evangelistic atheist.)

I might add that this is one reason so many like Sen. Obama -- he has a slew of progressive ideas, promoting a vision that shows potential, if also having some troubling "be safe" tendencies. Equal time merits noting that John Edwards also has some ideas in that department though seems a bit less wonky, more of an overall image and progressive spirit sort of guy. Anyway, the focus -- shades of Edwards -- should be elsewhere. The new Congress. State legislatures and some gubernatorial pick-ups (e.g., NY and MA). And, people like you. PBS has another "please give us money" drive going on -- replayed the first segment of the Civil War series.

I sorta thought it was a good thing that we had something of a "do nothing" Republican Congress, since we really did not want them to do much. It is not like we really would like the activist path they could have taken. Also, less government is basically their m.o., right? So, it seemed a bit off to complain too much about that. Progressive legislators are different. They can offer us something productively. The audacity of hope?

BTW, "wonk wonk" sorta sounds like those noises the adults make in those Peanuts cartoons.

Congressional Session 110: A New Beginning

And Also: A true hero -- seriously, would we all be able to have the immediate wherewithal to act as quickly and ablely in such a situation if a loved one was involved? Luckily, I have yet to find out.

Section 1.
The terms of the President and the Vice President shall end at noon on the 20th day of January, and the terms of Senators and Representatives at noon on the 3d day of January, of the years in which such terms would have ended if this article had not been ratified; and the terms of their successors shall then begin.

Section 2.
The Congress shall assemble at least once in every year, and such meeting shall begin at noon on the 3d day of January, unless they shall by law appoint a different day.

-- Amendment XX

So the new beginning starts today. The Twentieth Amendment notes that the new term should begin January 3rd unless another date is set by law. Apparently, it so does, since my calendar suggests it is the Fourth. Thus, a cheery looking Vice President Cheney took his constitutional position as President (presiding officer) of the Senate. Sen. Byrd became the President pro tempore, most assuredly with some glee (pumping his shaking hand, firmly saying "I do, so help me God"). Like a former holder of this position, Sen. Thurmond, he also is now officially the old geezer of the body. And, we heard Cheney call Sen. Reid, "majority leader." His job done, a temporary presiding officer took the seat. Meanwhile, Pelosi was officially elected Speaker of the House, though a Republican alternative was offered.

I know the first 100 official hours, even without allowing House Republicans to hold up things, will be quite busy for members of Congress. Still, perhaps, this paper on congressional oversight authority would make good reading -- I know I want to check it out; the author is an old timer on this sort of thing, a leading authority on congressional matters. How appropriate that President Bush (nod to the NY Daily News) has given them something else to investigate (deemed by congressional scholar, Woodrow Wilson, as a core function) -- another signing statement, this time providing exceptions allowing his right to open mail. Ex parte Jackson (1877), notwithstanding.* Oh well. Such desire to underline claims of executive power rankles. But, it will only be for true emergencies. Just trust them.

Meanwhile, a sense of hope is present locally as well. Gov. Spitzer (D) has just taken power, after years of bland conservative leaning George Pataki, promising to take his crusading ways into the executive office. Thus, he started off with a set of executive orders, intending to deal with various ethical concerns. The legislature, much maligned, did not change ... so let's see if there is any friction there. Likewise, a few articles have focused on the first year in power of the female (and, lesser known, lesbian) speaker of the NYC council, and how she is working well with the Republican mayor. This has led to some grumbling (need more opposition!) but also praise for how much she has accomplished. Honestly, I do not pay too much attention to local government, but both bode well for the public good.

Religious Matters: Much has been said about the opposition in some quarters, including one of his fellow legislators, respecting the newly elected Muslim member (Keith Ellison) of Congress wanting to swear in on a Koran. It turns out that he has gotten a hold of Thomas Jefferson's copy for the private swearing ceremony (in the public one, the members just stand at their desks, surely a holy book can be nearby, and raise their hands). These people, Art. VI aside, rather there be a "religious test" and the rule be that only bibles be used. This is hypocritical, of course, if one does not believe in the Bible. BTW, there are two Buddhists in Congress ... what will they use?

[A quick search suggests one will use a Bible (tradition) and another, if anything, also a Bible. Buddhists, one notes, really has no "Bible" like holy book akin to a Koran or a Torah, one might say. BTW, during the official swearing in, Pelosi said "swear or affirm," and then made it somewhat besides the point by ending with "so help me God." So it goes.]

On that general subject, I favor a broad definition of "religion," one which is not necessarily tied to the generally understood meaning of "God." This makes sense since many have something that surely looks and feels like "religion," but a god has very little place in it, if one at all. See here, along with an ironically quite evangelistic (if not too surprising) promotion of an alternative viewpoint, and atheism in particular. The person is annoyed that I briefly referenced the literal definition of "atheist," noting the problems with such definitional approaches. If so, perhaps it should be pointed out that a narrow view of "religion," especially as referenced in the First Amendment, is a problem as well. The fact that my understanding is not quite the mainstream understanding of the term should not displease an atheist, a minority group in their own right not limited by "accepted creeds."

By the way, after announcing the constitutional and statutory significance of today's date (again, those who don't check, will miss the fact that the 20A speaks of January 3), there were two opening prayers (the second, a minister favored by Pelosi) in the House. This practice was upheld by Marsh v. Chambers (state legislative prayer), though Madison eventually noted his concern with the practice. Next, they all faced a gigantic American flag that hangs over the speaker's chair, and cited the Pledge. Appropriately, given the iconic nature of the thing, it now includes the phrase "under God." The addition was intended to underline that we were not "atheistic communists," but such ill-advised decisions do not really confirm the idea that religion and theism is necessarily the same thing.

BTW, and family matters are quite important in most religions, apparently the first day of Congress is a big "take your children to work day," since the House floor looked like a day care center of some sort. May they legislate in ways that protect the children and the rest of us as well.

---

* "The difficulty attending the subject arises, not from the want of power in Congress to prescribe regulations as to what shall constitute mail matter, but from the necessity of enforcing them consistently with rights reserved to the people, of far greater importance than the transportation of the mail.... The constitutional guaranty of the right of the people to be secure in their papers against unreasonable searches and seizures extends to their papers, thus closed against inspection, wherever they may be."

Jacobson v. Massachusetts

The opinion in these cases proceeds, it seems to me, upon grounds entirely too narrow and artificial. I cannot resist the conclusion that the substance and spirit of the recent amendments of the Constitution have been sacrificed by a subtle and ingenious verbal criticism. "It is not the words of the law, but the internal sense of it that makes the law; the letter of the law is the body; the sense and reason of the law is the soul." ...

If the constitutional amendments be enforced according to the intent with which, as I conceive, they were adopted, there cannot be, in this republic, any class of human beings in practical subjection to another class with power in the latter to dole out to the former just such privileges as they may choose to grant.

-- Civil Rights Cases (Harlan, J., dissenting)

Plessy is often deemed Justice Harlan's most historic and proudest dissenting opinion, but one might argue his earlier solo dissent in the Civil Rights Cases was if anything more of a tour de force. As noted, it also is the one that did not become law -- in fact, the majority was repeatedly cited by the Rehnquist Court to strike down various congressional attempts to fulfill its @5 authority to give full meaning to the terms of the Fourteenth Amendment. A somewhat limited view of "clothed in the public interest" apparently remains good law.

Anyway, I ended my review with a citation of Jacobson v. Massachusetts (1905), which is interesting in particular for the way Justice Harlan spells out certain concepts. The law at issue is relatively narrow: a locality can determine that (re)vaccination is required for public health/safety (a board of health finding was made here that smallpox outbreaks met the test), all not consenting (excepting children) liable to be fined five dollars.* A Christian Scientist** had moral opposition to such a requirement, generally appealing to the spirit of the Constitution (in particular, the Preamble) in so doing. This was rejected:

Although that preamble indicates the general purposes for which the people ordained and established the Constitution, it has never been regarded as the source of any substantive power conferred on the government of the United States, or on any of its departments. Such powers embrace only those expressly granted in the body of the Constitution, and such as may be implied from those so granted. Although, therefore, one of the declared objects of the Constitution was to secure the blessings of liberty to all under the sovereign jurisdiction and authority of the United States, no power can be exerted to that end by the United States, unless, apart from the preamble, it be found in some express delegation of power, or in some power to be properly implied therefrom.

This is of debatable concern, however, since the Due Process Clause alone is pretty open-ended. Though the stereotype that Harlan's Court was liberal in its striking down of legislation is just that, even here two justices found the law problematic (without opinion). And, the clause still provided some healthy security. Thus, the ruling addressed the general issue of state police power:

It is equally true that the state may invest local bodies called into existence for purposes of local administration with authority in some appropriate way to safeguard the public health and the public safety. The mode or manner in which those results are to be accomplished is within the discretion of the state, subject, of course, so far as Federal power is concerned, only to the condition that no rule prescribed by a state, nor any regulation adopted by a local governmental agency acting under the sanction of state legislation, shall contravene the Constitution of the United States, nor infringe any right granted or secured by that instrument.

This provides a broad power while reminding that even state orientated activity has federal constitutional limits -- simple appeals to the Tenth Amendment will not work. But, simple appeals to "blessings of liberty" have only limited success, though the matter (reaffirmed by citing this case in rulings like the Casey abortion opinion) is clearly relevant:

There is, of course, a sphere within which the individual may assert the supremacy of his own will, and rightfully dispute the authority of any human government,- especially of any free government existing under a written constitution, to interfere with the exercise of that will. But it is equally true that in every well-ordered society charged with the duty of conserving the safety of its members the rights of the individual in respect of his liberty may at times, under the pressure of great dangers, be subjected to such restraint, to be enforced by reasonable regulations, as the safety of the general public may demand.

Again, putting aside that "beyond all question, a plain, palpable invasion of rights secured by the fundamental law, it is the duty of the courts to so adjudge, and thereby give effect to the Constitution," the legislature should have broad power to balance the evidence respecting public safety and so forth. In such cases, foreign experience is of some relevance ("experience of this and other countries"). This would also be the case if a "minority" aspect of the community disagrees, since on such matters, a majority generally rules in our republican system:

The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive; for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In a free country, where the government is by the people, through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action, for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not. Any other basis would conflict with the spirit of the Constitution, and would sanction measures opposed to a Republican form of government.

Some discretion is justified, however, if vaccination would cause particular harm on the individual, especially if the law could reasonably interpreted to avoid it:

We are not to be understood as holding that the statute was intended to be applied to such a case, or, if it was so intended, that the judiciary would not be competent to interfere and protect the health and life of the individual concerned. 'All laws,' this court has said, 'should receive a sensible construction. General terms should be so limited in their application as not to lead to injustice, oppression, or an absurd consequence. It will always, therefore, be presumed that the legislature intended exceptions to its language which would avoid results of this character.

A comparable situation arose some years later when some rulings allowed (or some dissenting judges would so allow) a "health exception" to bans on the sale and mailing of contraceptives. Finally, there was no equal protection violation in excepting children:

But this cannot be deemed a denial of the equal protection of the laws to adults; for the statute is applicable equally to all in like condition, and there are obviously reasons why regulations may be appropriate for adults which could not be safely applied to persons of tender years.

Quite a useful collection of general themes.

---

* The basic logic of the law could be problematic if taken to its arguably logical conclusion, see here, or in eugenic efforts like Buck v. Bell. One might add that such Holmesian efforts suggest why Harlan might be compared favorably with the sometimes more cold-minded Union veteran. Some other constitutional rights do sometimes clearly arise in such cases (dissenting opinions), of course.

** The matter is not expressly noted in the ruling, but was mentioned in the book's brief reference of the ruling. The lower court also referenced the Reynolds opinion, involving a free exercise claim, but Harlan only spoke of the Jacobson's "personal opinion."

John Marshall Harlan

And Also: Governments are in place to secure the basic well being of society, "their safety and happiness." DOI. This should include equitable health care, most assuredly via universal health insurance. The present system is a mess and criticisms tend to slipshod and ill composed. And, our current system is seriously hurting us as compared to other countries with cheaper and/or saner systems, thus is a threat to our economic well being as much as our general welfare. Also, Dems, do not make a habit of this.

I am currently reading John Marshall Harlan: The Last Whig Justice by Loren P. Beth, a relatively straightforward, and somewhat dry, biography by a political scientist. Judicial Enigma: The First Justice Harlan by Tinsley E. Yarbrough covers similar ground, as I recall, and was equally average overall. I also own the copy of his wife's memoirs that Justice Ginsburg particularly sponsored, though Beth's book had access to said papers before they were published for general circulation. They were an interesting entry into the mind-set of late nineteenth century women's thought with a few explanatory essays to help us understand them better added as well.

Harlan is an interesting guy, seen as a type of profile in courage for some of his great dissents, especially in the Plessy ruling. It is much remarked that he was a former slaveowner, but provided the most liberal viewpoint on race issues. This is not as amazing as it might seem, once we examine his background. As the title says, he was a "whig" justice. His father was a major whig politician and legal mind in Kentucky, naming another son after Henry Clay. The family had a firm religious faith plus a focus on the law (one of John Marshall Harlan's sons went into the ministry), thus no need for many slaves. No abolitionists, the family were still fairly "liberal" on the race question, if having typical paternalistic/racist sentiments per our view of the matter.

Harlan's politics led to belief in a strong national government (relative to the day), concern for basic fundamental rights, and opposition to secession (he joined the Union side during Civil War, but left when his father died, not taking direct part in any major campaign). The Republican Party, however, seemed too radical on the race question, and he opposed the Emancipation Proclamation and the Thirteenth Amendment. Thus, when the Whig Party fell apart, he was in a bit of a pickle. Though he supported Lincoln's Democratic opponent (a general, after all) in 1864, the Democrats -- especially after the war -- was too much tinged with rebellion for his tastes.

[Kentucky and Delaware, the former having only a small slave class, were the only slave states that were forced by the Thirteenth Amendment to free slaves -- the others by state action passed abolitionist amendments. But, some still retained a belief that state action was the way to go, especially since the second section of the federal amendment provided a possibly broadly open-ended authority for the feds to control local race questions.]

But, besides a lawyer, Harlan was deep down quite the politician. So, he needed a party. Attempts to work the middle failed. This was shown as early in 1860 with the Constitutional Union Party. So, the Republicans beckoned. Many former Whigs went that route, and aside from the race question (which also seemed decided once the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments were ratified -- opposition to them did not mean he could ignore them), the Republicans seemed benign on many issues. Likewise, the Democrats appeared too over the top even on the race question -- supporting anarchy and violence to promote their cause.

[Harlan's paternalistic views also kicked in. Blacks might be inferior, but there was some level of restraint required here. Thus, his wife in her memoirs pointed to a scene in which his father damned slave auctions. Likewise, he risked his life to save a slave who caught on fire. OTOH, his Plessy dissent voiced racist thoughts, such as how the white race will probably remain supreme culturally.

Likewise, though he opposed interfering with voluntary integrated private colleges, his Berea College dissent particularly differentiated public school segregation. Harlan also joined, without comment, a ruling upholding differing penalties for interracial fornication. There were limits, especially in social regulations ... public accommodations were different. Thus, use by some of his words to oppose affirmative action is somewhat ironic, since he himself clearly felt race was sometimes relevant when governmental action was at stake.]

And, once a Republican, Harlan followed the usual route of the enthusiastic converted. Anyway, following in his father's footsteps, he was a partisan (running for governor on the Republican ticket, for instance), and had a strong moral belief system. Firm in his beliefs, Harlan brooked no dissent or haziness of argument. Thus, his Civil Rights Cases dissent, especially since it would upheld democratically passed law, was logical. Ditto his Plessy dissent -- others beforehand had strong Republican backgrounds (e.g., Chief Justice Chase), reflected in their opinions. That is, Republicanism of the Reconstruction Era kind, not the slew of corporate lawyer types chosen during Harlan's time on the Court.

Harlan's decades before his time incorporation of the Bill of Rights also followed the pattern. It arguably was the original understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment, actually. He also mixed some Gilded Age beliefs (support of a "freedom of contract," up to a point) with moderate tendencies (dissenting in Lochner, he avoided Holmes' broad approach to use of "reasonable legislation" philosophy). His background surely didn't prevent his support of the constitutionality of the income tax and acceptance of nationalist regulation of the economy such as dealing with monopolies on the manufacturing level. An "American System" that provided a healthy regulation of a national economy was Whig doctrine.

[Likewise, distrust of big business, trusts, etc., reflected usual beliefs from his neck of the woods. The various corporation minded judges of the era as well as those from big city locales might think otherwise, but a Kentucky lawyer/politican would logically have the views expressed in Harlan's opinions, more business friendly than courts might be these days, but still quite wary of their excesses -- especially, if it was just a matter of upholding reasonable (somewhat tinged by his beliefs) governmental legislation.]

Harlan had a long and productive life, centered on hard work and civic/religious duty, mixed with a certain lightheartedness that made him fun to be around. No perfect person (he had his inconsistencies, sometimes for political reasons), surely, he is rightly seen as worthwhile of study. As a final thought, a few days back, I referenced part of an opinion written by him that basically underlined the right of legislatures to be wrong, if they follow reasonable procedures and do not violate fundamental liberties. It concerns the issue of mandatory inoculations, providing interesting reading on various themes, including equal protection of the law.

The ruling is still good law as are many of his dissents, though not those from the Civil Rights Cases (which were advanced via a somewhat makeweight interstate commerce approach) ... but those should be.

Weekend Stuff

And Also: YouTube is fun. I found this pretty nice twelve days of Xmas version sung by some ordinary Southern woman. Also, amusing videos by Julie Brown, and some stuff by Suzanne Vega ... her eyes when she sings "Luka" (about child abuse) alone gets your attention. Oh, there also is a PornTube ... don't worry, there is an "age check" ... you insert your birthday, you see? Lol. One of these days, I'm going to get a good line, so my home computer could easily download such video.

Film: Pan's Labyrinth is a prime example of why one must not be limited to English language films. This fable of sorts involves a girl of about twelve finding herself in the midst of a fairy tale (it is somewhat unclear if it is not all in her imagination) while horrible things occur around her in a rural outpost of Franco anti-rebel forces in WWII Spain. This is not a film for young children -- some particularly unpleasant things occur, but it is viewed through the eyes of one -- one review rightly compares the young girl to a type of Anne Frank, though perhaps early on in her confinement.

It is a Spanish language film, but its fairly wide release in NYC (a few theaters) suggests its wider charm -- as a dramatic exercise alone is it special. The special effects laden fairy tale world only adds to the mix. Sure to be, with reason, on many top 10 lists. On that subject, though I have yet to see Clint Eastwood's latest, some favs: Sophie Scholl: The Final Days, Beautiful City, Hard Candy, Word Play, Half Nelson, Keeping Mum, Sweet Land, Volver, and Hermanas. Note how several are foreign film with a documentary tossed in. Animation-wise, I have not yet seen Flushed Away. Clicking the first film link takes you to a site where you can find out about the others.

Sports: Week 17 turned out to be rather interesting. One should not be too shocked or impressed that the Giants eked in to the playoffs (their season: 6-2, 2-6) by being a bad team by about a touchdown. Still, there is no reason why they cannot beat the Eagles, who are due for a letdown after weeks of great play from their back-up QB on down. The Jets made people a bit nervous early by keeping it close, but made it a laugher late -- playoffs bound. Their old coach, Herm Edwards, is as well -- a few things went his way, including Denver (who only needed a tie) losing late in OT -- and KC got the second wild card. Thus, the late Fox game mattered. The final SNF game did not mean much standings-wise and such, but it had the "is it Brett's final game" juice as well. Heck, even Detroit won, affecting first round picks.

Courts: On CJ Roberts crying the financial blues, see here. On the "is the Constitution a contract" issue, I'm basically with Mark Field ... after all, many considered it a "compact," a sort of contract. Or, perhaps, a sort of treaty. Ditto. Articles of incorporation? Sure enough. Maybe, part of the "social contract" ... well, it's right there is the words. And, the "parties" (the people and government today) accept the original understanding that "this is an constitution we are expounding," one that develops over time, much like the people in 1776 appealed to the Magna Charta as they understood it, not as limited to the concepts understood in the 13th Century.

Finally: May '07 be a useful "year of the boar." Charlotte's Web is fittingly timed, no?

2006 Comes To An End

... with new books on side panel. Elizabeth Edwards ... blogger.

One Death Among Many

I covered a day of the Saddam Hussein trial because I was curious to see the dictator in person. When I returned to the office, none of my Iraqi co-workers asked about their former president. They despise him, to be sure, but they shrugged and declared him yesterday's news, as irrelevant to their lives as the current crop of leaders cloistered in the Green Zone with no control over the anarchic landscape outside.

Survival is their chief concern, and it's reflected even in greetings. Local custom calls for a string of flowery salutations, but these days the response to "Shlonak?" - How are you? - is shortened to one word: "Alive."

-- Reporter returns to Baghdad to find it far different - and worse off*

The bloggist Riverbend has a similar sentiment:

Why make things worse by insisting on Saddam's execution now? Who gains if they hang Saddam? Iran, naturally, but who else? There is a real fear that this execution will be the final blow that will shatter Iraq. Some Sunni and Shia tribes have threatened to arm their members against the Americans if Saddam is executed. Iraqis in general are watching closely to see what happens next, and quietly preparing for the worst.

This is because now, Saddam no longer represents himself or his regime. Through the constant insistence of American war propaganda, Saddam is now representative of all Sunni Arabs (never mind most of his government were Shia). The Americans, through their speeches and news articles and Iraqi Puppets, have made it very clear that they consider him to personify Sunni Arab resistance to the occupation. Basically, with this execution, what the Americans are saying is "Look- Sunni Arabs- this is your man, we all know this. We're hanging him- he symbolizes you." And make no mistake about it, this trial and verdict and execution are 100% American. Some of the actors were Iraqi enough, but the production, direction and montage was pure Hollywood (though low-budget, if you ask me).

She ends with a blunt statement:

3000 Americans dead over nearly four years? Really? That's the number of dead Iraqis in less than a month. The Americans had families? Too bad. So do we. So do the corpses in the streets and the ones waiting for identification in the morgue.

Is the American soldier that died today in Anbar more important than a cousin I have who was shot last month on the night of his engagement to a woman he's wanted to marry for the last six years? I don't think so.

Just because Americans die in smaller numbers, it doesn't make them more significant, does it?

No, it's because our blood is more important. Come on now. All that one person equal under God stuff is so Xmas. [This word is not really secular. The "X" stands for the Greek letter standing for "Christ."] Move on.

---

* H/t to BTC News for the first link, a story by Hannah Allam.

Sports

And Also: Saddam dead. Don't think "justice" has been done. But, who thought it really would? [U.S. Pilate move here.] Meanwhile, the NYT had a good editorial on dealing with sex criminals.

Baseball: It is a busy time for sports, especially since December is prime baseball trade season. For instance, the Yanks might just unload Randy Johnson. Along with getting Andy Pettite back, one might even say that they actually did some good -- even keeping some of the old weight. The Mets' major goal was to obtain Barry Zito, the remaining original ace of the original trio over at Oakland. This appeared to many, including myself, as a done deal -- just a matter of finding out how much to pay the guy.

Not quite -- he went over to the Giants via a ridiculous contract, surely years-wise. This allows him to stay in the area, have a seven year contract (too long for the Mets, six being a stretch), and having lots of money to spend in the process. Meanwhile, the Mets have to look elsewhere -- there are a few pretty good starters out there, more #3 quality really, though a few might be sort of a journeyman Zito, who deep down is not that good anyway. This is why all that money/years was ridiculous, except that this is the year where some have been overpaid. With Pedro hurt, the Mets really need another dependable starter, especially if Steve leaves.

Football: First off, this is college bowl season. Not a big fan, though since it has been going on since before Xmas, it does provide some constant (especially with repeats) filler if I need something to watch. Yesterday had some close games, though the Clemson one was a bit artificial since they were down eight with less than a minute left (thanks to two missed field goals and an extra point to boot). Rutgers (a triple OT loss away from a better contest) joined many more mismatches, luckily being on the right end of one. Some are on the new NFL Network -- one of the few benefits of having Dish Network.

Suffice to say, there is not enough football for a 24hr channel, especially since they don't really have football themed movies or special "average guy" stuff like some guys talking fantasy stuff or something. After all, even check some of the stuff on ESPN and other sports channels, including MSG? Not that women's volleyball is exactly unappreciated, but still ... spelling? Meanwhile, Week 17 has a good amount of games with playoff implications, especially for the Jets ... and why not? Their schedule simply was not too difficult, even in the more competitive AFC. Hey, I predicted that nine games was possible. What's one more? Meanwhile, yes, the Giants are not dead yet. I might not even get a chance to see the final game ... which would not necessarily kill them even with a loss.

But, enough whining about the presence of a couple bad teams in the playoffs. This is what happens when you have a lot of slots, plus there really isn't an undeserving AFC team in the mix. Plus, the fact a couple are on the cusp is not unfair either, since the two that will not get there were hit/miss teams as well. IOW, they were great at times, bad at others -- they do not "deserve" anything. I would say this even if the Jets were among those that lost out. This leaves the NFC. A division leader is weak (Seattle), but that happens. The first wild card is either Dallas or the Eagles -- both deserve a shot. This leaves the second wild card, which will be a mediocre team. Do we want the slot to go to the AFC or something? No, it turned out pretty good. It's good to have things to play for (including seeding) to the very end.

Other: Don't look now, the Knicks are close to the top of their lousy division. With low expectations, very low, that mess of a team might just have a chance to consider themselves a success. You know, that meaning not a total failure. I honestly don't care about hockey, but the regional teams apparently are doing pretty well. Still, games are on -- very busy season.

Ghost Plane

[I wrote a brief version of this first on the Slate fray. A book entitled Torture Taxi: On the Trail of the CIA's Rendition Flights will be discussed on C-SPAN in a few days.]

A Mexican citizen was kidnapped in Mexico and charged with a crime committed in Mexico; his offense allegedly violated both Mexican and American law. [He was found not guilty.] Mexico has formally demanded on at least two separate occasions that he be returned to Mexico and has represented that he will be prosecuted and punished for his alleged offense. It is clear that Mexico's demand must be honored if this official abduction violated the 1978 Extradition Treaty between the United States and Mexico. ... It is shocking that a party to an extradition treaty might believe that it has secretly reserved the right to make seizures of citizens in the other party's territory

-- Justice Stevens (with Blackmun and O'Connor), U.S. v. Alvarez-Machain (dissenting opinion)

This was a type of "rendition," bringing back people into custody, traditionally to convict them of some crime. It was not always done following local laws, which made it (legally speaking) kidnapping. [Stevens noted that when governmental officials did this, even when objects were involved, it was traditionally deemed sort of like an exclusionary rule -- not to be used in court.] When the CIA got involved with rendering alleged Islamic terrorists in the 1990s, this general philosophy continued. The people were not usually brought back here, mind you, but they still were wanted in the country where they were "rendered."

A problem tended to be that said countries were likely to torture them, which by the late 1990s made it problematic under our domestic law to send people -- even convicted terrorists -- to such places. Our policy was basically to look the other way. After all, they promised us that they would not torture or mistreat them, right? It was deemed a sort of last resort, since there was no big push domestically to handle the problem in some other way, including use of force. The program was greatly expanded after 9/11, not just numerically, but in that now it was also used for interrogation. This greatly expanded the problem of error and controversy.

Stephen Grey's new book, Ghost Plane: The True Story of the CIA Torture Program, is part expose, part analytic essay, and part detective story. By speaking to dozens of sources -- including former and current CIA operatives, prosecutors, pilots, diplomats, lawyers, journalists, plane-spotters and prisoners -- and by poring over countless flight records, Justice Department memos, and other documents, Grey has managed to piece together a vivid history of the CIA's secret program of interrogation, detention and torture.

-- beginning of Joanne Mariner's review

As Mariner notes: "Rather than follow the law, they rewrote it." We "rendered" prisons to places we knew would torture them. Broke local laws in various cases, even if certain authorities looked the other way. And, other than ignoring our own values (at least the ones warranting respect), it all quite likely often was counterproductive. The information was of questionable value, especially given that we did not directly control its collection, and overall, inhumanity promotes blowback.

As with all good books, there were various interesting tidbits. One respected the use of music as a torture device, something that some fraysters seemed to think was a trivial claim when we had our torture discussions. One victim notes:

The noises [at "Music Prison"] were so horrible and loud that I used to stick anything -- toilet paper if I had some, or parts of the one blanket I got -- in my ears just to minimize the sound. Others tried to do this, but I know at least one who got perforated eardrums from all the noise.

It served its purpose, if said purpose was for the inmate to agree to anything to stop being inflicted with such psychological torture. Yes, though there were physical effects (including to hearing, obviously), the core function here was psychological. Though the recent debate on transsexuals suggests a limited physical mind-set among some, humans are thinking creatures too. The way to break them often is through the mind.*

My one complaint was editorial -- it seemed a bit abruptly put together at some points, perhaps a result of a print reporter putting various stories together into book form. Still, I recommend the book ... it's in the library (my copy came from that lovely resource), so you don't have to buy it or anything

---

* Not just for the immediate victims. Our own "disappeared" calls to mind those families who still wonder what happened to those lost in Vietnam. Those taken without notice in the "war on terror" also have families. In reply to someone who does not trust first person testimony of this sort, it is an interesting Catch22 -- take people outside the legal system for the purposes of deniability, yes, you might be able to deny reality. Those on the ground, including the CIA, know better though.

Good for her

Monica Lewinsky ... has received a Master's of Science degree in Social Psychology from the London School of Economics, her publicist has announced. Her academic thesis was titled In Search of the Impartial Juror: An exploration of the third-person effect and pre-trial publicity.

-- AOL News

Edwards Announces

And Also: The critical remarks on Ford generally seem to focus on "the pardon." Did the nation as a whole truly disagree with his choice? Is a forced resignation really "getting off" or anything? Was his crimes not openly exposed in Congress and elsewhere? As Sandy Levinson noted, even Davis and Lee was not charged with a crime. And, even those who disagreed with the handling of the pardon, often seem to respect it was made sincerely. I don't think it alone erases my sentiment. I didn't say I'd vote for the guy, etc. Calls for a Nixon trial is consistent with those who want Bush impeached, though.

I believe it was Atrios who noted that now that the Democrats won control of Congress once more, the media will now focus on the '08 presidential elections. After all, they did wait two years, right? Meanwhile, Democrats have control of Congress, so actually have some ability to pass legislation. Of course, Bush has the veto pen, Lieberman Democrats hold the balance of power in the Senate, and so forth. But, again, immediately, the 2008 Elections are not exactly the most important thing on the political radar. The real importance is ensuring that something is done to give the winner of that election (you know, a Democrat, knock on wood) a chance of not starting from the bottom once more. To supply some potential base to launch off.

Of course, we cannot totally ignore the presidential races. The latest announcement was John Edwards, someone Ezra Klein suggested does a better job convincing to volunteer for his movement than voting for him. OTOH, many (including myself) respect the man (and his wife). This is so even though many (again, including myself) wonder if he really is presidential material. Does he truly have the experience and well-rounded knowledge/ability to fulfill all aspects of the job? No cheating by pointing to someone who does not (Bush). Still, the email announcing his (no surprise) decision to run does appeal. It points to some messages that I want my candidate to promote:

This campaign is about each of us taking responsibility for our country's future -- and ensuring America’s greatness in the 21st century.

It is a campaign not just about what we can do in the White House -- but what we can do on the way.

We all must take responsibility and take action now to:

Provide moral leadership in the world

Strengthen our middle class and end poverty

Guarantee universal health care for every American

Lead the fight against global warming

Get America and other countries off our addiction to oil

If we want to live in a moral and just America tomorrow, we cannot wait until the next President is elected to begin to take action.

Tomorrow begins today. Join us.

Yes, and the Internet announcement was sent out yesterday, though the plan was to announce today. Thus, his motto is immediately put into action.

Power to be wrong

A common belief, like common knowledge, does not require evidence to establish its existence, but may be acted upon without proof by the legislature and the courts.. . . The fact that the belief is not universal is not controlling, for there is scarcely any belief that is accepted by everyone. The possibility that the belief may be wrong, and that science may yet show it to be wrong, is not conclusive; for the legislature has the right to pass laws which, according to the common belief of the people, are adapted to prevent the spread of contagious diseases. In a free country, where the government is by the people, through their chosen representatives, practical legislation admits of no other standard of action, for what the people believe is for the common welfare must be accepted as tending to promote the common welfare, whether it does in fact or not. Any other basis would conflict with the spirit of the Constitution, and would sanction measures opposed to a Republican form of government.

-- JACOBSON v. COM. OF MASSACHUSETTS

Ford

And Also: Slate discussed an issue touching upon a NY case I referenced here involving a kidney that the family thought went to the wrong person. I remark on the article here, concerned some might not understand the narrow nature of the particular ruling. The court decided things narrowly partially because it realized that old common law rules in the touchy field might no longer be applicable given changing times (e.g., organ use makes property interests in remains a trickier issue). Common law allows for such development as well as narrow decisions to avoid unnecessary land mines. Some don't quite realize this, or rather, don't quite like its limitations.

President Ford died sometime yesterday and C-SPAN already was playing clips of examinations of his presidency by the evening. As with Reagan, one knew his time was short, and retrospectives were in the works ... perhaps, even mostly written. This is not crass, since the man was in his nineties and particularly weak for the last few months -- one account today noted that he looked frail at one of his annual staff reunion meetings even a few years back. Though the loved ones might not always think so, at a certain age, my philosophy is that a person can be thankful for whatever time is left (unless, perhaps, the time is particularly hard, health or otherwise), and s/he has not died "too soon" or in some sort of sad matter. This is surely the case once you live to ninety.

I was too young to recall it, my few memories of the time not political, but my basic understanding is that Ford was a good fit for the role he was asked to fill. Consider even his appointment, pursuant to a recently ratified amendment, to fill in as Vice President, after the funny name guy (Spiro Agnew) resigned. Ford was the Republican Minority Leader in the House of Representatives -- if you are going to appoint someone to be Veep, in a fashion, this is arguably the most democratic way to do it -- a representative sample of the President's party selecting him as their leader. Some suggest Ford was too much of a partisan hack/Nixon loyalist, down to the pardon itself. And, some -- though even with the pardon he barely lost in 1976 so talk about it ruining his chances (compared to let's say dropping Rockefeller, who might have brought NY) is a bit overblown -- felt he was unfit for the job.

But, most also agree he was a fair and honest man. I personally am glad (accord) he delegated and gave us John Paul Stevens as his one justice pick. Stevens seems to represent Ford in some ways -- Middle America, WWII vet, moderate Republican (fiscal conservative -- Stevens voiced his doubts about the minimum wage -- social moderate, represented in Ford by his outspoken wife Betty), hard working, and so forth. It is to be recalled that Reagan went after him from the right in '76, leading to the dropping of the sitting v.p. from the ticket in honor of Bob Dole.

Ford gave the country what it needed -- to call him a "caretaker President" might be deemed somewhat dismissive, but this would ignore the importance of the role. The NY Daily News discussion included an essay from a Ford expert who noted Cheney (with Rummy, a Ford man) noted this very fact. The nation was in trouble and needed a bridge to normalcy. I think we need one now -- a President who we can trust and respect, even if not agree with in various respects.*

Ford, again, barely lost in 1976. So, he very well could have been more. But, it was quite enough, and it seems appropriate that he did lose -- not as a party matter either, simply to move on. Unlike Carter, except for a few matters, Ford mostly did move on -- did not use his post-presidency days to try to do great things. He basically retired, fine enough after decades of public service. After he retired from his time on earth, if that doesn't sound too corny, I think it is fair to say the same applies. Great President? No. Helpful one? Quite so. Often, that is much more important.

[Democracy Now! reminds that there are some problems too (there always will be), suggested by the number of Ford people in the Bush Administration alone, but my immediate sentiments holds.]

---

* I checked the NYT website to check the latest news, catching this:

Bush Praises Ford As 'Man of Complete Integrity': President Bush delivered a solemn tribute, hailing Gerald R. Ford as a "true gentleman who reflected the best in America’s character."

But, he lost in 1976, thus Bush thought it best to go another route.