Wild Card -- Icky Weather Edition

Update #1: In icky weather (rain), Bengals offense collapses in 2H, Chargers (refs Christmas gift) advance. In the cold (sleeves optional), looks dark. SF goes for it early, up 3-0 with goal line stand. Update #2: One big QB run difference thus far. Update 3: Another pretty big QB run led to a SF TD & they won via a long final FG drive. Good weekend for WC teams.

Rev. Joe Book Shelf: HEAVEN ON EARTH: A Journey Through Shari’a Law From the Deserts of Ancient Arabia to the Streets of the Modern Muslim World

As noted here, the author's heart is in the right place. The book was something of a disappointment though. The history part went on too long though it was interesting. The second part (Shari'a today) a bit disjointed and far from comprehensive. Last chapter could have been omitted. Parts were interesting. Skimming recommended.

Wild Indeed

I caught a bit of the Orange Bowl (Clemson Tigers win) but the KC/Indy game had a bit of a college bowl feel. Went to form -- KC blows playoff games, Indy comes out of big holes. OTOH, Saints managed to win on the road, after the Eagles came back from a smaller deficit but could not stop them in the final drive. Something of an upset.

Frozen Passes Bechdel Test

The primary characters are sisters, who are very close growing up but become emotionally estranged. The film opens with them talking and spending time alone together as children, and a major conversation between them as adults is key to the movie. It's fundamentally a film about the connection between two women over the course of their lives.

Meanwhile, fathers don't do well on The Fosters, though  Lexi's dad is a noticeable exception while Brandon's is not bad overall, if flawed.

The Intelligence of Plants

The complexity and interrelatedness of life on earth (and beyond if applicable) provides a good reason to honor and respect all types of life in various respects. This is a thing I get out of an article on plant intelligence addressed in an earlier comment. Darwin, for example:

“It is hardly an exaggeration to say that the tip of the radicle . . . having the power of directing the movements of the adjoining parts, acts like the brain of one of the lower animals; the brain being seated within the anterior end of the body, receiving impressions from the sense organs and directing the several movements.” Darwin was asking us to think of the plant as a kind of upside-down animal, with its main sensory organs and “brain” on the bottom, underground, and its sexual organs on top.

Given I have read about fungi or the like has something to tell us about animal evolution, this isn't that surprising really -- there is a such connection between life on earth. The plant is clearly "alive" and is an ongoing living thing, which reacts to its environment. A plant is not an animal which/who is not a human animal. The lines between them all can be exaggerated. For instance, the article noted:

In the last century, the formerly sharp lines separating humans from animals—our monopolies on language, reason, toolmaking, culture, even self-consciousness—have been blurred, one after another, as science has granted these capabilities to other animals.

So, are plants "conscious"? The article draws a sort of slope:

If consciousness is defined as inward awareness of oneself experiencing reality—“the feeling of what happens,” in the words of the neuroscientist Antonio Damasio—then we can (probably) safely conclude that plants don’t possess it. But if we define the term simply as the state of being awake and aware of one’s environment—“online,” as the neuroscientists say—then plants may qualify as conscious beings.

The use of words like "decide" would be a step further, though some would use it in this context. The complexity of the consciousness is the ultimate thing.  We are concerned about the well being of certain animals, like dogs and even those more people here eat (e.g., there are standards for treatment even at slaughterhouses) in part because of the complexity of the consciousness and brain of such beings. We also are concerned with our own feelings -- the pets are not protected merely because they are smarter or more developed than the animals we eat. But, complexity does matter there and no matter how wondrous plants are, they are not quite the level of cows, pigs or even fish. If someone wants to debate fish, it is harder to refute that a cow or pig is akin to your venus fly trap.

The science of plants is important for various reasons, including as a means to understand computers and the like. It is important to know how a basic part of our world operates. And, environmental concerns should include proper stewardship of all life, including plants. As to vegans or vegetarians, they would argue that plants are not as conscious as animals, even if they are conscious on some level. Also, if it is a matter of destroying those with consciousness, even if plants felt a form of pain (if it still looks like a different degree than a cow), the way we eat in this country still destroys lots more plants than a vegetarian or vegan lifestyle. The requirements to feed and maintain animals is way worse for plants. Sherry Colb discusses this in her new book.

Tom Paine in his Age of Reason was particularly awed by the complexity of the universe. Ronald Dworkin in his final book, a discussion of a religion that need not have a God, also had a special place for that. The universe has its good and bad, but science does provide us with a lot to wonder about. The charm of a plant is but an example and this article is not really too surprising on a basic level. Still, important to be reminded.

Wild Card Games

As it snows here, there continues to be concern about the NY/NJ Super Bowl. Meanwhile, the scheduled temps of this weekend's playoff games -- 4/11/17 (take the Colts play inside) ... all Fahrenheit. Also, Jay Cutler and the Bears will have a chance to match-up together with the Packers for years to come. I basically favor the home teams.

"First Woman On Pakistan's Shariat Court Sworn In"

Via Religion Clause blog, the blasphemy ruling not the only thing going on there:

Pakistan's Daily Times reports that the first female judge to serve on Pakistan's Federal Shariat Court was sworn in yesterday. The new Muslim Judge is 56-year old Ashraf Jehan who was previously serving as an additional judge at the Sindh high court. Under Chapter 3A of Pakistan's Constitution, the Federal Shariat Court has jurisdiction to decide whether any federal or provincial law is inconsistent with Sharia, and thus invalid. The court may also review criminal court decisions involving Hudood Ordinances. Shariat Court judges are appointed by the President of Pakistan.

Interesting example of judicial review.

Les Misérables

I saw the 1998 non-musical film version and a well done White Plains, NY version thanks to a Christmas gift last night. The understudy was fine in the lead and him being black added additional subtext to a story about a convict trying to overcome his past. The themes of redemption, duty and so on has some special power. We had time for snacks and just made the local ball drop. Let 2014 be a good one ... or 2K14 as Debby Ryan said on Facebook page.

Mary

His mother kept all these things in her heart.

Mary Magdalene (e.g., The Gospel of Mary) gets a lot of attention, but Jesus' mom is particularly important to Catholics -- three of the six (note non-observed #3) holy days of obligation (to me, they were basically non-Sunday days to go to mass) deal with her directly. Christmas involves her too. Not bad for an unwed teenage mother.

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Pen Registers ... 24/7 Monitoring

More fundamentally, it may be necessary to reconsider the premise that an individual has no reasonable expectation of privacy in information voluntarily disclosed to third parties. E.g., Smith, 442 U. S., at 742; United States v. Miller, 425 U. S. 435, 443 (1976) . This approach is ill suited to the digital age, in which people reveal a great deal of information about themselves to third parties in the course of carrying out mundane tasks. People disclose the phone numbers that they dial or text to their cellular providers; the URLs that they visit and the e-mail addresses with which they correspond to their Internet service providers; and the books, groceries, and medications they purchase to online retailers.

Justice Sotomayor in last year's U.S. v. Jones (GPS) ruling concurred separately to in effect agree with both halves of the justices' split, joining the majority while supporting the overall principle of the concurrence (Alito + the other liberals).  She also questioned the so-called "third party" doctrine, noting the breadth of personal information that can be collected, including of a "familial, political, professional, religious, and sexual" nature. Such concerns were raised by various dissenting justices in the original cases.  They continue to have force.

Jones involved placing a GPS device on a car, which was seen as a clear violation of the Fourth Amendment because it impinges on a property interest. See also, Florida v. Jardines, where dogs right outside one's home (the "curtilage" serving as a sort of "penumbras, formed by emanations" of the "houses" here) was also deemed an easy case. Three justices there noted a general concern for privacy also was implicated. This was the Alito approach earlier, though he was among the dissenters in Jardines, suggesting possible splits. Nonetheless, there are five votes there for a general privacy concern for long term monitoring of society.

The issue is now front and center with NSA tracking of what is called "metadata," which can tell a lot about someone, especially in the aggregate. This is seen in advertising -- a bunch of "cookies" regarding the websites you went to alone is pretty telling. If such data includes the headers of emails, it can be particularly informative. In the 1970s, pen registers, which provide numbers of whom you called was a concern to many people. After all, Smith v. Maryland was a 6-3 ruling (Stewart, Brennan and Marshall dissenting).  An interesting discussion with a link to one involving a telling footnote can be found here (more here).

Alito's concurrence in Jones had a "I know it when I see it" test of sorts on how much monitoring is too much and was supportive of congressional regulation as a major means of dealing with the matter. It quotes Prof. Kerr, who has blogged about such issues at Volokh Conspiracy and wrote a lot about them as well. Kerr is very wary about Alito's approach as a judicial matter, critically speaking of a "mosaic theory" that in effect determines the government's surveillance as a whole is unreasonable.  Seems too inexact to him, apparently.  His overall 4A views are complex though.

At some point, I think such a theory makes sense as a Fourth Amendment matter, and the separate opinions in Jones suggest why as does. And, the theory was left open by past cases. As the majority in Jones noted,

reserved the question whether “different constitutional principles may be applicable” to “dragnet-type law enforcement practices[.]”

The GPS tracked public movements of the car, but the breadth of the movements is on some level a difference in kind from merely having a police officer follow the car around. Four justices would apparently merely rely on that fact that the device invaded the "effect" -- the property interest a person has in the car.  Unsure if Roberts and Kennedy, at least, would be that formalistic if pressed.  Anyway, five justices didn't merely (Sotomayor) rely (Alito + three) on that.  The monitoring infringes on the privacy of the user of the vehicle and the Fourth Amendment (and other possible amendments, especially the First, if we take Sotomayor's counsel) instructs that at some point this is "unreasonable" ... at least without a warrant.  Two judges recently split on applying this to the NSA policy.

[ETA: Note that this is not just a matter of "Smith no longer being good law," which a lower court judge cannot say unless the USSC clearly so held -- the "clearly" has less force in certain cases if it turns out the USSC supports what the judges do.  It is also that whatever the legitimacy of certain limited usage of "third party" material, a "dragnet-type" approach was not decided by past cases. One judge noted various possible differences -- distinguishing v. overruling is something of an art anyway.]

I would withhold my opinion on the specific proper route here, including if the NSA policy is unconstitutional. One thing that I'm sure about though is that it is appreciated that FINALLY it might be the case that there is clear standing to at least allow the federal courts (outside of FISA perhaps) to at least decide the question. I think the Obama Administration at times have gotten a bad rap as to the breadth of their wrongness on national security issues, but its refusal to allow various things even to be decided has rightly been deemed dead wrong. I understand the CYA behavior, so am not "shocked' about it all, but still find it dead wrong.

Also, the privacy concerns are appropriate -- the devil is in the details of how to handle them.  There are various legislative safeguards here, even the rubber stamp nature of the FISA Court has been shown to be a bit exaggerated. There can be more.  The particulars also matter a lot -- the NSA running computer programs 24/7 is "dragnet-type" but not very individualized. Specific attempts to use similar tactics to target specific people, such as in a specific drug or financial investigation can be a different case.  What is clear is that merely because somehow we give the data to third parties (often only because of the necessities of life, like phone numbers, and with the belief it will be held privately by the company and not shared with others) shouldn't be enough to remove privacy concerns when the government without our permission monitors it and pressures communication companies to help them. That is a bit absurd and at best should be cabined.

Also, the level of data is way more than a few telephone numbers. Note that footnote discussed in the link above. Justice Stevens wanted to deal with reliance on expectation of privacy when some crazy totalitarian scenario becomes the expectation -- where we are "conditioned" to accept something out of 1984 or Fahrenheit 451 (the movie had wall video that directly talked to occupants) of "continuously monitoring" of everyone. Usage of a case where specific phones are monitored for numbers called or specific bank records are subpoenaed to justify this doesn't do it.

Frozen

After an amusing and inventive Mickey Mouse short, we had this enjoyable holiday fare that happily is not as dark as the original sounds. I enjoyed Rapunzel and a voice actress sounds similar (no, it's not Mandy Moore) and some of the animation looks somewhat similar too. The film's moral is a bit too obvious, but overall, I enjoyed the experience.

Kyle Orton & Dallas Defense Make It A Game

... but after failing a two point conversion for the tie and holding the Eagles, Kyle Orton threw a pick on the first play of the final drive. Eagles in.

Week 17: Part 2 (Got to DOUBLE CHECK if the ball is live)

KC played back-ups but still almost allowed the 8-8 (once 2-6) Steelers in but missed a 42 yd field goal at the end of regulation. It took nearly 12 minutes, but the now 8-8 Chargers' field goal in OT held up. The other late games are not that notable except for the 8-7-1 Packers winning their division via a strange "yeah it's a live ball" TD and late TD. Welcome back, Rodgers from your time off doing commercials. Bring on Kyle Orton!

ETA: Local radio guy noted Chargers got help from blown calls.

Week 17: Part 1 (NYG Win in Sludge)

Rex Ryan did keep his job, rightly so since with a flawed team and rookie QB, 8-8 (here helping eliminate the Dolphins) is pretty darn good. NYG ended 7-3, but still couldn't manage to beat a good team (Eagles not good at the time). Ravens eliminated, Panthers got the #2. Houston clinched #1 pick. Yeah, Detroit lost again. Steelers still alive.

System Works Dept.

I had my fare wrongly deducted twice instead of obtaining a free transfer recently, submitted a claim online and just received my $5 refund card. Had a problem with a machine once and similarly got a refund. System does often work. OTOH, unlike shown on an episode of Rules of Engagement, am not aware of bike racks on the front of NYC buses.

Rev. Joe: No Footnotes?

And Also: I have a good amount of stuff still to read, and have read some about it, but '14 might be a time to look into Eastern faiths. Some accounts, including Pagels, suggest gnostic beliefs were influenced by them -- e.g., the dualistic nature of reality, good/evil etc.  Also, interesting article on Obama's faith and practices in today's NYT. 

To be clear, the proper title of the volume referenced a few times is A New New Testament: A Bible for the 21st Century Combining Traditional and Newly Discovered Text, not as I wrote at least once "The" New New Testament --it is clearly noted that they wish not to assume to provide "the" authoritative volume here. A collection of religious scholars worked with various Christian writings up to the latest date of the orthodox New Testament material (175, which sounds rather late ... I thought II Peter etc. was thought to be written by 135 or so) to form a new volume. But, unlike the originals, they are more open about it not being the final one. So, look for one 4000 CE or so. 

I looked at the volume and one thing that stands out is that the font and blocking is quite readable.  Often, the text in bibles are small, though by now there are so many versions, you can find ones with all sorts of fonts, including different colors to highlight Jesus' sayings or whatever. One thing I did notice is that the volume does not really have any footnotes. Your standard Bible provides various notes on the translation (an imperfect science) or references to other texts that cover similar ground. Some, including a Catholic Bible I have, provide commentary on the text with their own personal touch. One put out by a conservative publishing company really laid that thick.*

This version only really has introductory summaries of each book with it seems a few random notes. One note reminds us that the well liked "those who sinned throw the first stone" account usually put in John (though some early copies had it in Luke)  appears to be a late edition. The story, shall we say, was so popular though, it was inserted into the text. This backstory is interesting as is various possible meanings of the text -- I enjoyed in the past reading commentaries that provided multiple volumes of analysis of biblical books.  There is value too in doing this oneself, the "original understanding" not binding on us.

The non-commentary notes do help here too as would references to names and other things that the modern day reader might not understand.  So, notes do help.  I did not read all the introductory material, so don't know if the editors explained why they chose not to include notes here. For instance, when reading gnostic texts, notes can be particularly helpful. OTOH, even academics don't understand all those opaque documents.

---

* The conservative volume was almost amusing in how far it went in a fundamentalist type direction -- e.g., Genesis? Written by Moses ... somewhere in the desert.  Of course, II Peter was written by Peter, and each Pauline epistle (with estimated dates included) was written by Paul!  The notes also have lots of "information" like Luke being said to have interviewed Mary (hey, it need not be when the book was written -- she would be quite old -- could have stopped by some other time) Source? Well, no, there isn't a list of notes to all of this commentary.  It is not even necessary -- she easily could have told someone else what happened.  Then, again, some take their commentary seriously.

Substantial Burden or lack thereof

One problem with the Volokh Conspiracy (useful) extended discussion of the contraceptive mandate claims was that its "substantial" burden test was so weak. Marty Lederman has a more nuanced and realistic approach. The Sunday closing bit is telling.

SSM & The Fosters

Same-sex marriage is banned by constitutional amendment or state law in: Alabama, Alaska, Arizona, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Georgia, Idaho, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, Louisiana, Michigan, Mississippi, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, North Carolina, North Dakota, Ohio, Oklahoma, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, South Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Virginia, West Virginia, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

Add Utah to this list since it is in flux and will go the the USSC (if only for a "short stay" -- I see what you did there). Ohio's law, according to a footnote to a more limited ruling (involving recognition) is at risk. A few other states are explicitly in the courts now.  Nevada's law blocking certain benefits to same sex couples was struck down in federal court.  Virginia's law will go to trial mid-2014. The NYT had an article about battles in Indiana.  Will there be or when will there be a case that upholds a ban?

Meanwhile, in the world of fiction, The Fosters will return mid-January.  The network provided a nice three DVD set of the first ten episodes for free on Facebook. Since I watched the episodes more than once (re-watched a few in the last week), sold my two copies (Ebay is bollocks these days for selling books & stuff, except for some new things), but at least one of them was given as gifts -- sort of pay it forward, right?  There are so many shows out there and I seem to watch less than when I mainly had only free channels to watch, but this to me is one of the best.

 The linked episode, e.g., has multiple subplots, providing chances for various characters to shine. The writing, production values and acting all is first rate. Watching episodes of Rules of Engagement against on syndication (mainly on WGN at the end of the day) shows that was a pretty darn good show.  The same applies here with special attention best made to faces. These are very expressive people -- they could probably have done well in that silent movie that Callie had to watch for art class! A close look will often add to the experience -- see, e.g., how Stef reacts as she is chasing a perp with her partner, making sure to get a full lay of the land. Characters repeatedly do this, even minor ones.

The series cliffhung (my word!) on Callie leaving after a forbidden kiss at a same sex marriage (Rev. Camden -- well just the actor from that Seventh Heaven show, here an Internet minister -- did the honors*) with Lexi's undocumented status still up in the air. What new subplots will arise? Will Jesus' (Hispanic pronunciation) ADHD be addressed again (after it was mostly forgotten)? Will Callie and Jude's real dad pop up? Will Brandon say after being challenged for messing up that it was "my time" given everyone except saintly Jude (Callie's little brother, who did have an angry moment with her & look where it got him!) screwed up royally somehow long before now. What further implications will arise from the shooting?**

Time will tell. Hope it retains this level of quality. Maia Mitchell, who plays Callie (with an American accent & quite well), tweeted, e.g., that five episodes forthcoming involved some stuff that really hit her hard.

---

* The show has various "I know that person!" moments, beyond more than one of the leads, including Stef Foster, who just to cite one thing played the ultimate First Lady at the end of West Wing. Her ex was pointed out to be the guy pal of the doomed lead in Titanic. And, hey, Brandon's piano teacher is the son from that '80s show Crazy Like A Fox.

** The show's handling of the morning after pill impressed me, but so did its involvement of Stef Foster's (who is a police officer) gun. At a dinner with her partner's ex, it came out that Lena really doesn't like guns. Also, that off hours, Stef has a gun safe. Which is shown later. This is something many people have, few of them police officers. But, even on those shows, a little touch like a gun safe (or how they carefully store a gun) is not likely to be shown. 

Congress passes military sexual assault reforms

Reading various accounts, there might be reasonable grounds to oppose Sen. Gililbrand's desired legislation to change handling sexual assaults in the military. I'm somewhat agnostic though kinda think it would work. What did pass is notable and she at the very least helped push the line left-ward. Kudos to my senator.