Plan B: Interconnected Problems and Solutions

And Also: Nice to see Michael J. Fox on Dave last night -- he seems to be doing well, trying to stay upbeat in the face of many challenges. Being Erica had two serious episodes recently, both having downer elements, but staying dramatically true. I respect it for doing so. Erica's dad is starting to be fleshed out too, a goofball with a serious core. And, the show is not just about Erica. Good touch.

The recent federal district court decision in Tummino v. Torti is a window into the corruption in the Bush Administration, as well as a window into our current culture. Judge Edward Korman held that the FDA had engaged in arbitrary and capricious decisionmaking when it refused to permit a form of emergency contraception, called "Plan B," to be made available over the counter (OTC) to women under 18. The sole question before the FDA involved whether Plan B, available by prescription, would also be made available over the counter. The evidence before Judge Korman has made quite clear that the White House itself interfered with the ordinary science-based processes of the FDA in order to restrict the availability of Plan B for irrational reasons.

-- Prof. Marci Hamilton

Important constitutional liberties are secured in many ways, often enough by ordinary political and administrative processes, and by the acts of various individuals involved. Ditto for the breakdown of their protections. This is shown by the extended delay in the allowance of over the counter sale of "Plan B" aka the morning after pill, its final rule burdening the rights of teenagers (prescriptions needed for those under 18) and to a lesser extent all women (unlike other at times potentially dangerous drugs, they can only be sold in pharmacies/stores staffed by a licensed pharmacist). Sound science, reasonable enforcement concerns and regular procedures were not the guide in this process, and a federal judge (Reagan appointee) found as much.

Ultimately, what is at stake is is equal justice, privacy rights and good health policy, particularly for teenage girls and those for whom a time sensitive (within 72 hours*) means to forestall pregnancy would be a fundamental liberty. Griswold v. Connecticut honored the right to use contraceptives by targeting a policy that burdened a realistic means to obtain them. As the dissents in Poe v. Ullman underlined, there are many ways other than direct prosecutions to burden the right at issue. A policy that made it realistically impossible for clinics to operate was one such burden. There are many others and rights rarely are attacked in blunt fashion. This does not make the attack much less nefarious; in fact, it can be much more insidious.

First, the circumstances have changed since these words were written. Commissioner von Eschenbach has resigned and his replacement, as well as a new Deputy Commissioner, has been nominated by the President. This change in the leadership suggests that, in plaintiffs’ words, it can be “trusted to conduct a fair assessment of the scientific evidence.” Second, a decision whether Plan B, a systemic hormonal contraceptive drug, may be used safely without a prescription by children as young as 11 or 12, is best left to the expertise of the FDA, to which Congress has entrusted this responsibility; it should not be made by a federal district court judge.

-- Tummino v. Torti

The importance of personnel -- attacks on whom are so dubious that those on the other side such as Ted Olsen find them distasteful -- underlines that who is put in an executive position should not be limited to personality. Consider that the power of Lincoln to fill bureaucratic positions was a major concern of the Southern states, not necessarily his (ultimately limited) direct power over slavery. But, what if he appoints postal officials who would allow criticism of slavery? After all, such criticism did not just come from those who supported the rights of blacks as such. As noted here and elsewhere (The Nation covered this ground too), personnel led to some dubious choices in the area of reproductive choice, down to abstinence only funding as federal policy and misleading (at best) materials on governmental websites.

But, addressing the abuses from outside of the executive branch -- as important as such checks are -- are of limited value. Sen. Clinton did yeoman work in this area on Plan B in particular, but as the opinion noted, once a hold was removed, promises made were broken. And, ultimately, day by day decisions need to be left to the agencies. We can underline the importance of having federal courts securing habeas review of those detained under whatever term is currently being used for the conflict at hand without ignoring the limits of those without the power of the purse or sword. This does not mean congressional oversight, the efforts of individuals members, good reporting and interest groups and the courts do not have an important role.

It does mean each have their own role to play, including those of us who elect those making and administrating policy. This is particularly the case when a judge determining that something "is so implausible that it could not be ascribed to a difference in view or the product of agency expertise" is often not going to happen. A lot of bad decisions will not be overturned, or it will take too long to do so without many getting hurt. OTOH, as here, when they do so, it will not always be on constitutional grounds. Except to the degree that review of missteps is an example of the system supposedly working correctly, the overall structure ultimately a type of fundamental liberty (as a Federalist writer noted, the Constitution itself can be deemed a "Bill of Rights").

As here, constitutional liberties will be promoted by honoring the laws as they are written, and addressing those who breach them. All the same, when a statutory breach touches upon matters of fundamental importance, more serious review is likely. This is furthered by those of varying ideologies, as the Ted example above suggests, who promote sound policy (science related, etc.). Sounds like a job for grown-ups.

---

* The time sensitive nature of the pill underlines the importance of wide distribution, even the licensed pharmacy an issue given moral (as Prof. Hamilton notes, largely on clear religious grounds) opposition leading to some pharmacists (and even physicians) opposing its distribution. Since condom use is not similarly burdened, there is a clear gender discrimination going on, tied to antiquated norms on proper behavior.

At times, there is a confusion (intentional or not) with RU-486, which is a clear "abortion pill." Plan B is basically a strong birth control pill, and even if it at times (which is unclear) works after fertilization (it generally clearly works to prevent it), so do various other pills or IUDs. Thus, it clearly falls under Griswold's gambit. As with abstinence only campaigns and so forth, this underlines the breadth of the conservative campaign.

Same Sex Marriage Win in Iowa

The Iowa Supreme Court, in a strong unanimous ruling, supplied heightened scrutiny (intermediate review) to sexual orientation and overturned the state ban on same sex marriages. The ruling honored the state's long history of being ahead of the curve on judicial security of constitutional rights while defending against claims that such protection was illegitimate activism. Thus, it is well worth reading both as to its analysis of equal protection and the importance of the courts in our republican system generally.

[BTW, the opinion here was written by a Republican appointee, which is not really news any more. Justice Harlan, a conservative Ike appointee, was a strong support of privacy rights too.]

This answers whines about "activism" that "crams down" things that democratically elected (as compared to appointed?) legislators desired. Our republican system of government includes judicial review. This is often deemed a good thing. For instance, various cites etc. omitted, it notes:

In the first reported case of the Supreme Court of the Territory of Iowa, we refused to treat a human being as property to enforce a contract for slavery and held our laws must extend equal protection to persons of all races and conditions. This decision was seventeen years before the United States Supreme Court infamously decided Dred Scott v. Sandford, which upheld the rights of a slave owner to treat a person as property. Similarly, in [1873], we struck blows to the concept of segregation long before the United States Supreme Court's decision in Brown v. Board of Education [1954]. Iowa was also the first state in the nation to admit a woman to the practice of law, doing so in 1869. Her admission occurred three years before the United States Supreme Court affirmed the State of Illinois' decision to deny women admission to the practice of law, see Bradwell v. Illinois (1873). In each of those instances, our state approached a fork in the road toward fulfillment of our constitution's ideals and reaffirmed the "absolute equality of all" persons before the law as "the very foundation principle of our government."

No other court went quite as far en banc so far on the matter of marriage equality -- California (though it applied heightened scrutiny*), Connecticut and Massachusetts were split, Vermont was unanimous on narrower grounds (civil unions) while New Jersey was split on how far it should go (though united that at least civil unions were necessary). It also had an important coda addressing the alleged religious freedom problem with its holding, treading where the state avoided in its uphill battle to argue the ban was rational.

And, it is an important foothold in the heartland; if only, the New York Court of Appeals had comparable sound judgment.

---

* We will soon see what Prop 8, overturning a lot harder in places like Iowa, will mean. But, it should be noted that the increased judicial protection of sexual orientation will largely remain, and civil unions ala Vermont and New Jersey very well might be compelled by its terms.

Use the Koh Battle Wisely

And Also: Facts noted after 2000 and 2004 underlined that various attacks on Gore and Kerry were wrong. Perhaps, we should have had re-dos then too? Charming how prosecutorial wrongdoing means the guy is now factually innocent. Does that work with drug dealers too?

Dahlia Lithwick is upset that various sorts are inflicting unfair attacks on legal appointments in the Obama Administration, particularly because she respects and has some personal connection with many of them. For instance, Dawn Johnsen is up for head of the OLC, and has written for Slate plus was a leading progressive legal voice. Meanwhile, attacks on her include scary if misleading at best citations of an old footnote in an abortion brief referencing (ack) the 13th Amendment. Pragmatically you avoid mentioning it, but even facing such things front on, her side comes out right.

This comes with the territory, but one side tends to be noticeably more rabid and lockstep than the other. [The pox is on both houses, as shown by Prof. Levinson's rabid attacks on Sen. Gillibrand (see comments), but the sides are not equal. But, this can be a tiresome battle, and issues of substance should be our core focus.] Now, it's Prof. Koh's time, though as I note in posts like this one, it has not be just a unilateral battle. The Internet provides a means to research lies and misleads, try to address the assumptions of some opponents (even if they are not convinced, their claims can taint the discussion without a reply) and even listen to the guy on YouTube or whatnot.

And, in the spirit of his career as a law professor, this can be a teaching moment, promoting the truth on things like international law's role in our jurisprudence and the value of the rule of law overall. Even at Bagram Air Force Base.

Two Things

And Also: The Supreme Court, in some closely split decisions, decided important (largely statutory) issues that last few days. This includes matters of environmental, labor, and criminal defense import.

I share Josh Marshall's views on the soundness of dropping the charges given the prosecutorial misconduct in the Stevens case. Some will spin that to suggest he is innocent, which is simply not how these things work. But, given his age, clear dishonor and loss (quite possibly the deciding factor in a very close election), costs of litigating the case again and so forth, the choice makes sense. Hopefully, similar prosecutorial discretion will be used for more worthy defendants.

Ella was pro-choice and remained so throughout her wrenching ordeal, but she did not want an abortion.

Her obstetrician did not approve of Ella's decision, and he told her that he could not understand why she would want to go through the excruciating pain and risks of labor and delivery for nothing. She replied that it was not for nothing, that she wanted to hold her baby and kiss her goodbye. And that is exactly what Ella and her husband went on to do, against medical advice. Ella told me later that her daughter looked very much like her. She died in her mother's and father's embrace, and Ella mourned her loss.

Professor Colb discusses a horrible if thankfully very rare case involving abortion, where a mix-up involving a possibly viable child that allegedly killed after a botched abortion procedure around the twenty-second week. As she notes, some will equate this to even use of the morning after pill, an absurdity that is quite different than the under one percent of abortions that would even raise the possibility of the events in this case.

Citing the wrong of killing a baby already born (not even "partially born"), one at the edge of viability, should not be deemed verboten. There are lines here, particularly the fact that abortion rights are tied to bodily integrity. The woman here no longer was pregnant. Likewise, the choice issue, suggested by the excerpt, can go in various directions. The case at hand appears overall to be one where the woman was harmed in multiple respects, which is not somehow uniquely tied to abortion providers. A woman giving birth might similarly be mistreated in some fashion as well, the needs of the provider put above that of the patient.

Some "gotcha" move is particularly dubious in that it very well might ironically come from supporters of dubious regulations that if anything increases the risks of later term complications for which this is an extreme.

Something For The Press To Include

And Also: Katyn was an Academy nominated film based on real events related to a Soviet massacre of Polish officers after its joint invasion of the country with Nazi Germany. Katyn: The Untold story of Stalin's Polish Massacre by Allen Paul is an excellent book discussing the events, using survivor testimony to provide special narrative drama to the overall experience of Poland during WWII and the effort to find the truth afterwards. Lows and highs of humanity.

I wrote the below in answer to a tidbit in "Today's Papers" over at Slate, today's round-up also citing another columnist furthering the "Obama's no long bipartisan" meme in charming fashion. After all, it's almost April!

It also came to me that it took years to develop the New Deal, and that after FDR was elected years after the stock market crash, and decades of progressive activity that included multiple constitutional amendments. That is, it took a lot of time and popular development, that -- some noise notwithstanding -- isn't really there yet. [see here]

[Sen. Gregg] also said that a Democratic proposal to use reconciliation, a budget procedure that would allow a measure to pass without significant Republican support, to pass health care reform was akin to an "act of violence against the system here in the Senate."

This procedure would require a simple majority (of a body already undemocratic given the two senator rule) to pass various budget proposals. The alternative would be a filibuster. This would allow a handful of Republicans to block economic measures even if nearly every Democrat supported it. That is, five can block 54 (one seat still open).

And, even then, you would not need "significant" support, since a handful of Republicans and conservative Democrats could pass the measures. Recall the stimulus bill required three. Once the farce in MN is finished, you might not even need that many. Still, it is nice that Gregg is standing on principle. Now ...

While Republicans seem to be experiencing a particular form of political amnesia from the Bush years, they ought to be reminded that budget reconciliation has been used by several other presidents, including Clinton and Reagan. In fact, Republicans — with Bond and Gregg among the leaders of the charge — were instrumental in pushing through key provisions of their signature legislative agenda, the Contract with America, using budget reconciliation.

Once upon a time, Gregg's sentiments were: "The president asked for it, and we’re trying to do what the president asked for." Oh well. Good he had a conversion experience.

---

* The op-ed against Obama's actions regarding G.M. had a charming tidbit:

Fully one-half of the company’s unionized work force has been laid off or taken buyout packages, and the U.A.W. has agreed to a two-tier wage system in which new workers make only $15 an hour. Just a few years ago that would have been unimaginable.

This is deemed a good thing.

The Haunting in Connecticut

The Haunting in Connecticut is surely not "based on a true story" in any real sense, but it is a pretty good ghost story. The leads are rather good and dramatically true. Nice sense of place too. The ghost story gets silly. Still, it is worthwhile, and PG-13 (even an obligatory shower scene is tame) to boot.

7th Heaven

And Also: Darn rule of law Europeans.

One problem with 7th Heaven is that it is somewhat simplistic. I use the qualifier advisedly, though some critics will roll their eyes at the suggestion of complexity. All the same, you should not take things simply on face value, or rather, take a simplistic view of the show. This does not mean the show is simplistic -- more below -- but it also does not mean you should avoid the nuance. And, when you examine your typical movie or television show, it are those signs of nuance that makes them stand out. For various reasons, we are not re-inventing the wheel here. After all, you have too many shows, too few time and resources, to do that.

But, the character of Lucy Camden is an example. Lucy is probably the one most like her parents on the show, rather close to her mother while following in the footsteps of her father (training to be a minister). In fact, it is notable that the other children do not have a similar close relationship with their parents, though the younger ones (Ruthie and then the twins) are somewhat closer to the mother, since they have less independence.* There are also clear sibling duos, Ruthie/Simon (later, quasi-sibling Robbie), Lucy/Mary with the oldest (Matt) having a big brother role over more than one of his siblings. Still, though there is an overall closeness as shown by failure to keep many secrets and much familial interaction, it is not really a unit in many ways. This is clearly the case later on, when the oldest leave home.

One positive noted somewhere was that the show makes one nostalgic because it honors the family and the safety of the home. Some bad things happen to these people, including a miscarriage, but there is clearly a safety there. The Lucy/Kevin marriage also has some of that too. But, on another level, the family can be as splintered as some real families tend to be. BTW, once Matt and Mary aren't around too much, the show started to go a bit downhill. This also was after about half of its long run, so this was due to occur anyway. But, letting Lucy and various teens outside the family carry more weight was clearly a step down.

Anyway, Lucy is emotional, an exaggerated case of her mother. And, is conservative in her actions, reflecting her parents. Mary, furthered by problems Jessica Biel had with the show (infamously shown in an ill advised explicit pictorial that in hindsight is rather embarrassing, including a thinly clothed shot with her in a sink), is a rebel. But, Lucy does have a thing: she loves to makeout with guys. The show is very anti-premarital sex, though a few characters tellingly do it (one main one, after a VD scare, seemed to have repented), the family basically against it. All the same, Lucy makes out a lot -- this includes on the first date, outside of a movie theater in her small town (one movie showing). Another character gets a tattoo. Small things, sure, but it offers some sense of reality to the show. And, to the degree the characters can be too good to be true, they also are a bit hard to take (bratty too), so flawed anyway!

Another charm of the show btw is that at some point, it has a great flow. When the dad self-knowing says at one point "you're lying" on the phone to one of the kids, it was amusing in a "we know these guys" sort of way, and an example of regulars totally into the flow of their characters. [Contra, iCarly is depressing this season in part because everything seems forced ... one gets the idea that something is wrong there, though some of the lame plots don't help.] There are also some nice episodes, such as a musical Valentine Day one (also the birthday of the twins), and good guest stars. I liked the woman who played Robbie (Mary's bad boy bf who later repented) and Matt's girlfriend, for instance. And, on the real inside baseball guest list, the rich girl/maid on Newhart played a history teacher here, and a teacher on Drake and Josh ... doing a pretty good job in both cases!

And, even if not realistic, the marriage after the first date episode was a hard to resist episode. This is so even when we learn Matt voted for Bush (his father is a Democrat, though apparently of Lieberman persuasion, given his moralizing). Of course, this allows him to have sex with his wife, though the religious ceremony would not come for a few months. [As with Lucy, and apparently Mary (husband in family business), he married someone well-off. Don't know if Annie's family is wealthy. Lucy's husband is Catholic, Matt's Jewish, so there is also some interreligious stuff going on.] The show's Puritan take on sex (I do not know of a homosexual episode, nearly every other topic apparently tackled, including the Taliban in the late 1990s) has to be forgiven. Compare this more realistic take on another television show.

The overall liberal nature of the show mixed with its Puritan side (including Simon not having video games ... the family doesn't even have a computer or cell phones until circa 2005) suggests its complexity -- the children are level-headed about things overall. But, it had a set formula, and in various ways was not the real world. Even for a television show. So, you take the good and the bad, and enjoy it for what it is. Or was. I did. It is like that show Rules of Engagement. It is not a masterpiece, but for 9:30 P.M. lower expectations, it fits. And, recent episodes actually were rather good.

Back to our story. More can be said about this series, including its ill-advised decision to come back for one more year after a clear series finale ending with an actual fat lady singing, but I'll end there! But, that non-ending -- sheesh -- not only are we asked to forget about an obvious big hint involving a baby, but a pregnancy was dealt with in an unpleasant fashion. Oh well, the show coasted some on good feelings earned earlier on, and it is only Christian to forgive such transgressions.

Oh, and "Matt" is on Christiana Applegate's latest show. Just one sighting. There is some life after 7th Heaven, don't worry fans!

---

* Ruthie also is the most self-confident of the children, a reflection of her mother, which might be an aspect of why certain people simply do not like Annie Camden's character. Some consider her self-indulgent, though dealing with seven kids as a (mostly) stay at home mom alone requires a great amount of self-confidence, putting aside her dealing with the sickness and death of her parents, and all the drama her social outreach husband is involved in.

Over at IMDB, I actually got into a debate over this with someone (too silly to link to), pointing out that it is unfair to cite Annie without noting Eric also leaves something to be desired. One of the least attractive aspects of the show is that he has something of a God complex, always wanting to know what is going on, always cocksure about what people should do. The angels in Touched By An Angel and Highway to Heaven weren't as confident at times, but then, overconfidence (helped by scriptwriters) is a human failing.

Then again, everything does generally turn out in the end, so no wonder he is so confident. Eric Camden, deus ex machina. One character's father, e.g., was an alcoholic. He was amusingly blunt about being a "functional alcoholic," itself notable for this show (him making Lucy so angry that she tossed a soda in his face almost made me stand up and cheer). But, darn, if he actually becomes sober in time for his daughter's birth. Joining with the other grandfather's landscaping business in the process! He too was absorbed into the Borg.

Earth Hour and Other Issues

And Also: Have been watching 7th Heaven (on WGN and Hallmark, the latter repeatedly on Sundays) of late, a show admitted to be addictive even to those who find it tripe. I never really watched it when it was on, but a chance to see many episodes (its universe complex) led me to respect it more. Yes, it can be too sanctimonious, but it is comfort food, and is done with some talent.

The city is one of more than 2,600 communities in roughly 80 countries that'll [sic] participate in the movement. By turning off lights from 8:30-9:30 p.m., the effort aims to conserve energy and curb global warming.

But for skeptics of global warming, or the theory that humans caused it, Earth Hour is sham. And Tupelo's participation irks them.

-- "Critics blast Earth Hour, but support conservation" BY EMILY LE COZ [Northeastern Mississippi Daily Journal]

A few things can be said about this news story, including how even among conservative (an interesting word in this context) sorts certain things can be agreed upon. It also is a lesson in how different communities see things. The short mention in the NY Daily News did not feel a need to reference "skeptics of global warming" or such. This underlines how useful it is to somehow, even if if seems hard [see also, comments], we need to keep an eye (and maybe even talk to!) others outside our milieu. The fact a quick Google News search led me to find this article by chance underlines the power of the Internet.

I cheer those bloggers who actually do this on a regular basis and don't all become Keith Olbermann in the process. One such person, who at times even debates them, is Glenn Greenwald. Deep down, he is a libertarian sort, something that comes up from time to time, such as his recent efforts on drug criminalization. GG thus is logically impressed at Senator Webb tackling our prison problem, including the signicant drug criminalization aspect of the whole thing. There has been some positive local developments in this area.

As GG cites Andrew Sullivan noting, Obama only goes so far in this area, though his administration's policy of not targeting medicinal marijuana use in states that do not have state policies against it underlines some positives. All the same, when legalization (and its positive fiscal consequences) was brought up in an online Q&A session, Obama was unsurprisingly uncomfortable with the whole thing. This underlines the limits of our discourse (Andrew Sullivan):

The chuckle suggests a man of his generation. The dismissiveness toward the question of ending Prohibition as both a good in itself and a form of tax revenue is, however, depressing. His answer was a non-answer. I'm tired of having the Prohibition issue treated as if it's trivial or a joke. It is neither. It is about freedom and it's deadly serious. As for your online audience, Mr president, have you forgotten who got you elected?

As GG notes, the role of true leaders is to change the conversation, even if it does not seem "pragmatic" to do so:

Actual leaders, by definition, confront majoritarian views when they are misguided and seek to change them, and politicians have far more ability to affect and change public opinion than they want the public to believe they have. ...

Parties, by pushing for things, make them part of the sphere of debate. Important and visible people can question consensus, and all of a sudden expand it. These spheres are malleable; if the conversation of democracy is alive and if you make your leaders talk about things, it becomes valid to talk about them.

Changing the conversation, making certain subjects or issues sound reasonable, is quite important, even if it does not immediately directly affect policy. And, often, even if you are on some level on the right side of an issue, framing can be problematic. William Saletan, who I simply stopped reading (another Slate boob), is a favorite whipping boy underlines the point. I'd add, why do people insist on saying "fetus" when talking about the first trimester? That is an "embryo," which is much lower in the stage of development, and sending a much different image. So many language pratfalls in that area.

It can be tiresome to worry about language when discussing issues, trying to be all politically correct, in this context meaning not giving the other side fodder. And, this includes not speaking out on controversial issues for fear of political backlash. But, that is what true leaders do. Drug policy, which threatens liberty and skewers rational discourse in any number of ways, surely needs more of them.

"failure to recognize kinship"

And Also: Salon had a good piece today on the dangers of "personhood" for the unborn, including a video from a pregnancy women advocacy group. The Angela C. case also was discussed in the book Caroline Kennedy co-authored on privacy rights. Overall, as the group notes on its website, you need not be "pro-abortion" to see all of this. Under my email, I left some comments over at the Salon article, including another Pearl cite.

John Hope Franklin, who died yesterday at 94, was one of the most remarkable Americans of the 20th century. He was the master of the great American story of that century, the story of race. John Hope wrote it, he taught it, and he lived it. ...

But John Hope always looked at the state trooper blocking the bridge, the figure standing in the way of freedom, and saw there another child of God. He knew, as Charles L. Black Jr. said, that the tragedy of Southern race relations was drawn from that "prima materia of all tragedy: the failure to recognize kinship."

-- Walter Dellinger*

This "failure" is repeatedly shown to be one of our biggest problems. We fail to follow words from our birth certificate:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

This sense of interconnectness was an important theme in Mariane Pearl's book too, and comes to me all the time. So many things for me seem interconnected, so the fact we all are as well, including in an intimate kinship sort of way, seems rather natural for me. Not all the time, yeah, but enough for me to hope it matters. This is not always the norm.

---

* We are told that "The writer is a lawyer in Washington." Yes, and also the head of the OLC and acting Solicitor General during the Clinton Administration. You know, nothing worth mentioning.

"petite dynamo of blond curls" fights on

Now 42, the mother of three said discovered a lump in December 2007 while doing a self-examination, and has since undergone seven major surgeries. She kept the illness private while campaigning for reelection and stumping nationwide for presidential candidate Hillary Clinton, then Barack Obama. She didn't want the illness to "define" her, [Rep. Debbie] Wasserman Schultz said. Most of her staff didn't know about her condition, according to a spokesman.

-- "a petite dynamo of blond curls" shows her courage

I have seen this progressive voice fighting the good fight with passion and humor on places like C-SPAN and MSNBC. Since I can download such things now, a link to YouTube might be in order here. See also here on "US Redeployment Out of Iraq." Rep. Wasserman Schultz has shown that her private life affects her political decisions before, noting choices involving her own father showed the horrible nature of the federal government interfering in the Terri Schiavo matter.

Her voice for breast cancer education is utter personal, as recent news has shown. Such an issue goes beyond politics, but it has a special force of feeling when it comes from someone who I respect overall, someone who is out there daily passionately promoting issues -- even when it is a losing battle at the moment -- for the good of the nation. As with the choice of Christiana Applegate, someone I grew up watching, to take a pre-emptive decision to have surgery to avoid breast cancer, these hit home when people you care about (even in this small way) has to go through them. They are a representative of so many more.

[Update: Applegate discussed the matter on Dave last night.]

All the best and keep on fighting! We need you!

---

* Over here, the story linked is criticized for focusing on women crying and such. I don't think this is fair. It was a very human story, one that emphasized that her crying at the event ("by a sisterhood of other breast cancer survivors") is atypical for someone who didn't want her illness to "define" her (so says the caption to the picture). Likewise, it does not take to the "ninth" paragraph for us to learn:

Wasserman Schultz (D-Fla.), a rising star in her party, was there to announce legislation for a national campaign to educate the public, particularly young women and their doctors, about the need for a much earlier approach to breast cancer detection. The accepted standard of mammograms at age 40, advocacy groups say, creates a false sense of security for younger women. Other cancer survivors, some in their 30s, came to the Hill to ring the alarm, to applaud Wasserman Schultz for going public and to cry with her.

And, after hooking us in with a great human interest story, the article surely does tell us about the legislation, again, several paragraphs of information. If this is the "most insipid" story out there today, the media is much better than I thought.

Various Things

And Also: One other thing about A Mighty Heart is how big the effort is, how so many people, from all over, try to work together, need to work together, to save one man. Of course, it is much more than about saving one person. They fail, but on some level, they succeed. This too was recognized by the author.

$$$: When Obama broke his promise last year and supported the telecom immunity bill, it underlined my problem with the guy. He's a sort of centrist/pragmatist that is a lot more sane than the person we used to have, but still leaves something to be desired. Useful to remember that, though when people who supported people no better and often worse (Clinton? the Republicans? much of the media?), it's comes off as a bit lame.

So, Obama pushes forth an economic policy that trusts the people who got us into this mess, trying to fend off those who are rightly pissed off at such things like the bonuses in the process (powerful symbols should be ignored as trivial? in what political universe?). Let the economists battle it out, but political reality seems a core issue here. Reality that suggests the people we voted in will not go all the way yet, even if that is the right way to go. We didn't vote in an Atrios or Hilzoy.*

Letterman: Sly dog. After announcing another celebrity wedding, Dave blandly noted that he too got married, after knowing his girlfriend (a perfectly ordinary looking sort, which is not surprising given his personality) for over twenty years (who knew?), and having a child with her five years ago. Paul basically had to assure everyone that he was serious. It was so low key that the news (it occurred last week) just came out in the media yesterday. He was married back in the 1970s and the divorce turned him off from the institution. But, his heart surgery and son clearly changed his life and sentiments too.

Plan B From U.S.: Good Salon commentary on the realities of family planning, including how unofficial burdens can be a big deal. For instance, a doctor's receptionist lied to someone needing Plan B, resulting in further fiscal burdens and complications. "Trivial" (maybe) for forty-somethings who could handle it, but maybe not so much for someone else. The reality of teenagers: you might not like it, but sometimes they will need family planning, even if they won't tell you about it. Blocking Plan B from minors therefore is not good policy.

Bristol Palin can tell you about the realities of the situation; maybe, others can get with the program too. Even if they don't like to admit reality. This is advice that can be applied across the board. Again, the vote for Obama et. al. is in part one realizing we have a better shot at it this way.

---

* I fear the current plan might subsidize and further enable those who got us into this mess. I hope this is not too much "populist anger" on my part. Still don't think the political environment is there to jump over to more governmental intervention. And, again, this is simply not the mind-set of the guy we elected. It's important to stick to reality here, especially when people claim to be members of the "reality community."

A Mighty Heart

And Also: The Oyez Project website, devoted to the Supreme Court and its work, has been updated. Some highlights: financial disclosure reports for the justices, a twenty minute documentary about the Court with involvement of the justices, a look at the chambers of various justices, and so on. Along with the oral argument audio and transcripts, this suggests the value of this resource.

I enjoyed the movie based on Mariane Pearl's account (A Mighty Heart) of the kidnapping of her husband, an account that is dominated by an international effort to find him. The movie was a well acted police procedural effort that felt to me (fwiw) to give a real sense of time and place, including a positive view of certain Pakistani authorities. It had a certain dry flavor at times -- almost like a documentary -- but showed clear skill worthy of respect.

I also saw Ms Pearl herself speak (on C-SPAN) about the book and her husband, her voice showing that she truly does try to follow the tenets of a poem she used to close her book:

I swear I will not dishonor
my soul with hatred,
but offer myself humbly
as a guardian of nature,
as a healer of misery,
as a messenger of wonder,
as an architect of peace.

This is from "School Prayer" by Diane Ackerman and ends thusly:

I will honor all life
—wherever and in whatever form
it may dwell—on Earth my home,
and in the mansions of the stars.

A close friend of Danny Pearl, and Mariane's key support during the search, was very upset at the movie. Asra Nomani, a fellow female journalist born in India, discussed the matter in a distraught fashion in an interview with Brian Lamb. [The interview is not just about that, and is worth reading, even if you disagree with her criticism.] She seems to ignore the reality of dramatic license and is upset that Danny Pearl is given such a small role, though his wife (play by Angelina Jolie, who went on Charlie Rose and elsewhere with her to promote the film) supported the film.

Yes, the film focuses on Mariane, but a film can only do so much, especially one concerning a search where the husband is obviously off-screen. The presence of a major star would also be focused upon, but we should also be fair -- Jolie did an excellent job, and this is no vanity project -- she plays it with the correct degree of humility and due care. And, again, imperfect as it might be (and, if I was her, it also might distress me to view how what I experience was skewered in certain ways), the movie portrayed events overall with due care as well.

Or, at least as well as one might reasonably expect a film would. I am currently reading the book, which ends with many letters written in support addressed to the author (or, rather, co-author), her son, and Danny Pearl's family. The extended format allows us learn more about Danny, the author and others involved in this story. About half done, and it is recommended, particularly for the brave voice of the author, including her Buddhist sentiments. I will toss in any further comments that might be warranted.

In his memory, we too should all try to "honor all life" as humbly as we can.

Long Term Economic Policy

And Also: Various justices have been concerned of late about civics education. Kennedy had a series of seminars. Breyer gave interviews, only partially to promote his book, itself a learning tool. Rather private Souter was on a panel (aired on America and the Courts) promoting civics and funding of the humanities. [He also pointed out courts in different eras have different understandings of societal realities using Plessy v. Brown.] And, O'Connor is promoting a new website geared to schoolchildren.

The Treasury Secretary prologues his plan for bad bank assets thusly:

No crisis like this has a simple or single cause, but as a nation we borrowed too much and let our financial system take on irresponsible levels of risk. Those decisions have caused enormous suffering, and much of the damage has fallen on ordinary Americans and small-business owners who were careful and responsible. This is fundamentally unfair, and Americans are justifiably angry and frustrated.

And later:

This requires those in the private sector to remember that government assistance is a privilege, not a right. When financial institutions come to us for direct financial assistance, our government has a responsibility to ensure these funds are deployed to expand the flow of credit to the economy, not to enrich executives or shareholders. These provisions need to be designed and applied in a way that does not deter the participation by the private sector in generally available programs to stabilize the housing markets, jump-start the credit markets, and rid banks of legacy assets.

Any plan that will have long term success, or a shot at it, needs to address the "irresponsible levels of risk" and other things that are "fundamentally unfair" that leads us to be (not mindless "populist anger") "justifiably angry and frustrated." Quick attempts to take back bonuses via taxation and the like is not the way to do this. I don't know if this plan will work, though some economists are more optimistic than others. I trust these people more than the last set of boobs in office, or the likes of "I don't know much about economics" McCain and his "you betcha" sidekick, though that is a pretty low bar.

FWIW. But, I do know that if our only concern is that: "We cannot solve this crisis without making it possible for investors to take risks," we will be in trouble. We also cannot truly solve this crisis without changing the way those risks are made, so that we won't go through something like this again. Or, at least, as badly. The way not to do this is just focusing on dealing with the mess after it happened, which will more likely occur if we don't do some things to stop it from being such a big mess the next time around.

The insiders chosen to be on Obama's team doesn't help make me more confident about these things, but hopefully, the force of reality will set in enough to give it a shot of happening.

Race to Witch Mountain

Race to Witch Mountain, the name tellingly tweaked, is a re-make of Escape to Witch Mountain ... a movie less a chase / Dwayne Johnson affair than this, plus less violent in a few ways (a fan of the original book underlined the point). Formula it might be (down to the evil government alien chaser, sigh), but it is fairly painless formula. Added plus that Carla Gugino joins in.

Small Gestures: Iran and Foie Gras

So on the occasion of your New Year, I want you, the people and leaders of Iran, to understand the future that we seek. It's a future with renewed exchanges among our people, and greater opportunities for partnership and commerce. It's a future where the old divisions are overcome, where you and all of your neighbors and the wider world can live in greater security and greater peace.

I know that this won't be reached easily. There are those who insist that we be defined by our differences. But let us remember the words that were written by the poet Saadi, so many years ago: "The children of Adam are limbs to each other, having been created of one essence."

With the coming of a new season, we're reminded of this precious humanity that we all share. And we can once again call upon this spirit as we seek the promise of a new beginning.

Thank you, and Eid-eh Shoma Mobarak [Happy New Year].

-- President Obama

It is a bit remarkable how small acts can be so important, showing a certain respect and effort that can mean so much. We know this from our daily lives. Though some people who would know such things suggest Obama's message is an important act, we need not give too much credit to be appropriately respectful. We are obviously just talking about a single gesture. Still, this is the sort of thing he meant when he talked about engagement -- it does not mean being naive or a lapdog. It does mean engaging with nations, particularly ones that aren't going anywhere, and reaching out. And, doing so in a way that shows understanding and respect of their culture.

Reminding them, and us, that we are of a "common humanity," too precious to have a policy dominated by war and war-like attitudes. Talking about small gestures, the now no more ban on foie gras in Chicago -- joining California and many European countries (plus Israel) -- is ridiculed by a Salon piece reviewing a book on "The Foie Gras Wars." The Chicago measure surely was more interesting to most people as a reflection of local politics than as a push to stop restaurants from selling a controversial delicacy. But, the review -- even for someone who doesn't care about the issue -- is best seen as a biased case of bad journalism.

The article doesn't start off on the right foot, the very first sentence telling us the stuff (which I never tasted to my knowledge) is "truly, indisputably, delicious." Are you kidding? How can we take someone who starts off like that totally seriously? Besides, we are talking about fatty duck or goose liver here, right? I have tasted normal liver -- it isn't as horrible as some make it out to be, but it wasn't "truly, indisputably, delicious," and I doubt foie gras ("fat liver") is somehow uniquely special either. I also am not a big proponent of lard. Anyway, after finishing drooling, the author notes:

It's undoubtedly true that some farms use inhumane methods, like caging the birds in tiny, individual cages that cause them pain and distress, but when foie gras is produced the right way (the way Hudson Valley does it, for instance) it's simply not torture.

The author, however, does not actually discuss how "the way Hudson Valley does it." The review also does not say some compromise can be reached, where only product from those HV-like nirvanas can be sold. The result is that many animals are needlessly harmed, the good (a minority? who knows from such coverage) covering the bad. It quickly quotes one critic to suggest she simply cannot admit reality, but a quick search led me to some who question (one with video) how grand Hudson Valley does things. The video, for instance, shows many birds in a single cage, roughly handled, and so forth.

And, the fact the birds do not have a gag reflex or normally might gorge before long flights does not suggest artificially doing it via feeding tubes for our benefit does not hurt the birds. The author (and opponent) of Farm Sanctuary also discusses the process, involving force feeding ducks and geese to unnatural levels, and any credible review would actually spend a paragraph or two truly putting forth that side. Not saying things like:

They're being waged by vegans who believe that all meat eating inevitably involves torture but who are smart enough -- and disingenuous enough -- to focus on a product the average person might never eat, one that can easily be portrayed as a decadent luxury enjoyed only by fat cats who could not care less about animals.

Many movements receive their core power from true believers who realize that the best they can do are small steps that might lead to bigger ones down the road. It is not "disingenous" to take such a tack, nor is it left to crafty vegans. The impossibility of tacking bigger fish, if the true vegans will pardon my metaphor, underlines why it is not hypocritical or anything to tackle this while factory farms churn out eggs, meat, and so forth. And, there also can be degrees of harm, and force feeding for a delicacy involving fatty livers quite arguably might be different than mass production of meat or even use of the whole duck or goose. Next up, those who eat chicken, but find veal particularly distressing are hypocritical liars.

A regular reader of this blog does not share by views on eating animals, and obviously the matter of what is "torture" in this context, and what the appropriate path might be is a matter of much debate. And, the book in question might very well raise good questions, including supplying perspective of the production of this particular item, plus background on its long history. But, this is not helped too much by slanted articles that begin with insisting that obviously its so yummy, which is both debatable and a dubious way to open up discussion on what some think is a horrible practice. (Item: You can't deny child labor is so cute, especially when they sing while making all those clothes. ... Not that this would matter if it's cruel and all.)

Meanwhile, California recently passed a ballot measure dealing with treatment of animals raised for food. It is a small step, but one that is in the right direction.*

---

* Item: "Report: Energy Production Choking Bird Population ... The U.S. State of Birds report, released by the Interior Secretary Ken Salazar on Tuesday, was requested in October 2007 by President George W. Bush. The report did not indicate whether one form of energy production is more detrimental than the other." That last bit would be useful to know.

Forest/Trees: AIG Bonuses and Beyond

And Also: I had some "fun" recently regarding automatic help line options (the choices at times a bit selective), including some rather sarcastic (and unhelpful) sorts. At the end, though not before a lot of the former, I actually got a good result. I am all for persistence, but also support good customer relations. Depending on who the "customer" might be, you know like maybe a patient or whatever, a useful reminder across the board.

One concern of "mls" in this comment stream over the AIG bonus issue is that the "populist anger" (aka democratic feedback, you know, without the snark the previous term often implies) will lead to missing the forest for the trees. This is a valid concern, up to a point. But, if we look at coverage (e.g., TPM and Glenn Greenwald), we have both learnt a lot from such anger, and the discussions and actions have also dealt with various broader themes. This is far from unique: a specific point often helps us address the broader matter at hand. In fact, this often is the best way to approach things. Don't try to bite off too much, have a powerful hook, and so forth.

The bonus matter raises sensible responses given the number of people who -- without f-ing up and being required to be bailed out -- losing jobs and otherwise hurting in this economy. Meanwhile, they see how the rules are variable, especially for the powers that be. This only starts to suggest why we have this "populist anger" (aka "human anger"), and yes, the government should address it when it arises. But, the Obama Administration itself seems not to quite have gotten the memo, its actions (some, as those involving Dodd, looking a bit sleazy) suggest that they thought of the "big picture," that this was really a side show. This is not how life works,* and in the process, the mind-set was problematic across the board.

The fact, as GG notes today, that the critics often come off as bigger assholes does not really change this. This too is how life works, though we need not let them spin things as much as they sometimes are able to do.

IN the hallway of Hostos-Lincoln Academy in the Bronx this week, two ninth-grade girls discussed the pop singer Chris Brown, 19, who faces two felony charges for allegedly beating his girlfriend, the pop singer Rihanna, 21. At first, neither girl had believed Mr. Brown, an endearing crooner, could have done such a thing. ...

Underneath harsh, judgmental bravado, teenage girls themselves seem perplexed by the unfolding story, whipsawed by allegiance to their celebrities, fantasies about romantic relationships, and the terrifying mysteries of intimate violence — the savagery of the beating as well as the speed with which Rihanna apparently agreed to see him again.

-- Teenage Girls Stand by Their Man

This is a rather different subject, but it underlines the possibility of letting an extreme case (as repeated photos in the NY Daily News showed) can provide an important teaching moment. We cannot just say that most girls in this discussion are not being beaten up, or say that "feminist anger" can cloud the issues. First, as in the AIG case, too many serious cases of wrongdoing do occur. Second, a serious case involving a celebrity can be used to address a broader issue, in this case romantic and gender relations. Again, there is some hook to start things off.

And, the article is interesting in itself -- when addressing a story like this, we are often given too much coverage, because it is so easy to do so. If we are going to get such extended coverage anyway, let's try to include within it some broader context. This too can have broad appeal, since it does not just involve some celebrity or person in the news at the moment, but something to which many "regular" sorts can relate.

---

* Or, politics. See, Kerry not thinking the Swift Boat attacks was worthy of his concern, at least until much too late.

I'd note also that mls does exactly what s/he warns against: the very first comment is a snark that distracts, and makes it hard to take what comes next seriously. This includes conclusionary comments on how "unclear" things are or how "reasonable" AIG might be, or shots at Democrats. Rather symbolic of the "cloud the issue" nature of some voices.

OTOH, the comment stream (underlining why the blog should have them, some members thinking otherwise notwithstanding) has some good stuff, including "Shag" on the limits of the sanctity of contracts. To the degree the original post addressed a specific matter, which is what blogs quite often do, the comments help to add perspective. This includes addressing some who might be turned off by the specific blogger.

RIP Natasha Richardson

Letterman had some good stuff this week -- his Rachel Maddow and Julia Roberts interviews were quite enjoyable. Sad to see news of Natasha Richardson -- at first, it seemed like it might be okay, but suddenly she is dead. Not a great fan, but she was a pleasing presence in many films, and to be trite, it suggests how flimsy life can sometimes be. [Salon had a nice obit.]

Anti-Breast Feeding Article

And Also: An AP piece referenced a revision of rules by/for federal judges to address the "appearance of impropriety" issue without noting that a pending U.S. Supreme Court case addresses this very matter. The case involves state judges, sure, but this seems to be relevant, no? Meanwhile, let the confirmation wars begin!

There has been some discussion over a "case against breast-feeding." Problem is that the article is a strawwoman argument, which selectively uses evidence. The fact something is "natural" does not make it best. Or, a "right," to reference some recent discussions.

But, understanding that the bottle is fine for many women, especially given the burdens of the alternative, is not the same thing as ignoring (to quote a feminist blogger) "breastfeeding is better in most cases" Or, exaggerating about being "half naked" when you breastfeed or making fun of people who use pumps etc. The fact some enthusiasts on the other side exaggerate does not mean "more of the same." Balance, please.

JP Day Approaches

I'm an Irish/Italian mutt, so today (St. Pat's) and Thursday (St. Joseph's, patron saint of Italians) is of some note. As is tomorrow -- it is JP Day, in honor of us mutts. Sample food: pasta and beer. Meanwhile, Meghan McCain ... you go girl.

The Invention of Air

And Also: Andrew Ross Sorkin's (NYT) defense of AIG blackmail on the bonuses has to be read to be believed. The double standard b.s. laden piece is countered here. The blackmail requires helping people no longer there too. But, the money involved is just a tiny portion of the bailout! So, is it just "populist anger," or perhaps, a matter of hitting these people where it apparently counts -- in the pocketbook. See also. This does not mean our net should be broader, e.g., no strings were warned about, and this is the result.

Although it centers on the life of Joseph Priestley, the 18th century English chemist and clergyman, Steven Johnson's "The Invention of Air: A Story of Science, Faith, Revolution, and the Birth of America" is far from a conventional biography. It is the story of Priestley's ideas -- who inspired them, whom they influenced and how they came to be.

Thus, this book, which I briefly referenced earlier, is in effect an intellectual history. This reflects the author's past works, but for those who find that sort of thing a bit boring, it is not only quick about it (a bit over 200 pages), but also provides enough narrative of his life for those who like that sort of thing too. In fact, the intellectual history -- the history of ideas stuff -- is only a relatively small part of the book as a whole. It is an important part, since putting historical characters in perspective is necessary to truly understand history.

Joseph Priestly, if one might forgive a less well known "JP," had eclectic interests.* This was not uncommon in his era -- his mix of religion (a pioneer of the Unitarian Church, and a major influence of Jefferson on this point), politics and science is underlined by a common term of the times -- "natural philosophy." The index cross-references the term with "science." This is telling, especially for those who based their philosophy of government on the laws of "nature's God." And, a good understanding of science remains important:

We live in troubling times, filled with signs of a great economic apocalypse, politicized science on topics from birth control to climate change, and religious zealots who kill innocents rather than live peacefully with them. This is exactly the moment to learn from Priestley, who survived riots, threats of prosecution, and other hardships and yet never doubted that "the world was headed naturally toward an increase in liberty and understanding." Ironically, The Invention of Air underscores that there is nothing natural about progress and liberty, each of which must be fought for and defended every single day by visionary individuals.

Steven Johnson notes that Priestly succeeded in revolutionizing science because various factors worked together to provide the right combination for this to occur. This is both a reflection of his times and his specific situation, including having the time (akin to a research professor who teaches a few classes, he had various patrons) to do his experiments, an open process to share ideas and the people with whom to share them. This included the "Lunar Society," whose industrialist members helped him in ways industrial research scientists would today, though without the proprietary secrecy now often involved.

Priestly shared the optimism of others in his times, a true progressive, who thought the world was on an upward path. As with his inability to let go of certain dubious religious beliefs (e.g., connecting the French Revolution to the book of Revelations), such optimism could blind him in certain ways. But, such is the nature of things -- imperfection is nature to man.** He also was a popularizer -- an important step on the road to his success was a proposal to collect the works of scientists like Franklin (the result made science not only seem like a work for demigods like Newton, but helped to make Franklin's kite experiment so famous) into a narrative history.

Overall, Joseph Priestley is a fascinating historical subject, an important symbol of the age. Johnson provides a very good snapshot, while also teaching us a bit about the at times underreported intellectual history aspect of things in the process. For instance, how could it take so long for people to realize the carbon dioxide/oxygen interplay of animals/plants, why Priestley in particular (with an important assist from Franklin -- who also discovered the Gulf Stream) found out, but still could not give up a misguided theory on why things burned all the same. The complexity of the whole thing, plus the charming nature of the man involved, makes for a great read.

Thanks Steven Colbert for inviting him on your show to talk about it.

---

* Malcolm Gladwell, another intellectual historian of sorts -- as shown by Tipping Point -- uses that word in his blurb. The "tipping point" theory comes to mind while reading this book too, including Johnson's argument that information networks are necessary for the shaping of new ideas, not a simplistic "light bulb" moment. I'm quite supportive of this view, one I'm of course not really describing with any real detail here.

** Priestley even was optimistic about the not too pleasant ride over to America once he was hounded out of England for his beliefs. This is not a matter of ignoring the dark side of things -- he lashed out at his enemies too -- but a matter of focusing on the good side of things. Things do not "happen for a reason," but we can make the best of things all the same.