Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
Trump is one big corruption machine. We have had various examples recently.
President Donald Trump on Monday pardoned former Illinois Gov. Rod Blagojevich, whose 14-year sentence for political corruption charges he commuted during his first term.
Blagojevich was convicted in 2011 on charges that included seeking to sell an appointment to then-President Barack Obama’s old Senate seat and trying to shake down a children’s hospital. Blagojevich served eight years in prison before Trump cut short his term in 2020.
===
President Donald Trump removed the head of the Office of Government Ethics from his post, the agency said Monday – the latest example of Trump acting against a government watchdog.
The agency’s director, David Huitema, was confirmed to the post by the Senate in November and officially began the job in December. He had been nominated by President Joe Biden but had languished for more than a year in the Senate before lawmakers confirmed him by a 50-46 vote during a post-election lame-duck session.
OGE directors typically serve five-year terms – allowing them to overlap administrations as part of an attempt to reduce partisanship. On Monday, a statement on the agency website read: “OGE has been notified that the President is removing David Huitema as the Director of OGE. OGE is reverting to an Acting Director.”
===
A judge on Monday granted a temporary reprieve to the leader of an independent federal ethics agency who filed a lawsuit claiming he was illegally fired by President Trump.
The Office of Special Counsel investigates and prosecutes violations of "prohibited personnel practices" like whistleblower retaliation, enforces ethics laws like the Hatch Act, and protects the employment rights of military veterans.
The office's leader, Hampton Dellinger, filed a lawsuit Monday in Washington, D.C., federal court after receiving a termination email Friday night.
===
The highlight (lowlight) for this NYC resident involves Mayor Eric Adams:
The Department of Justice has directed federal prosecutors to drop corruption charges against Mayor Eric Adams, offering him a potential political lifeline as he seeks reelection.
News of the directive comes on the same day the Democratic mayor announced new upcoming guidance on working with federal immigration enforcement and ordered his senior officials to refrain from criticizing President Donald Trump, whom Adams has courted since his reelection.
The reason, via Trump's lawyer (Emil Bove, now a top Justice official) in the election interference trial that led him to be a convicted felon (Bove also has significant prosecutorial experience) is that the prosecution interfered with Adams' efforts against "illegal immigration" and it was politically motivated:
Both Trump and Adams have claimed they were wrongly prosecuted by the Department of Justice under the Biden administration. Adams’ lawyer is Alex Spiro, who has represented billionaire Trump adviser Elon Musk.
To remind:
Prosecutors accused Adams in September of accepting travel perks from people affiliated with the Turkish government. In exchange, they argued, Adams used his influence to expedite the opening of a new Turkish consulate on the East Side, overruling fire inspectors who had found safety violations.
Prosecutors also accused Adams of accepting straw donations to mask illegal foreign donations to his 2021 campaign.
The Justice Department memo specifically references his work dealing with immigration but drops a footnote assuring us that there is no direct quid pro quo for helping Trump.
The memo also takes a shot at Biden's release of Viktor Bout without noting the full nature of the prison exchange involved. Bout was in prison for nearly fifteen years. He was swapped for Brittney Griner, with another woman also coming home. Paul Whelan, a former Marine, was hoped to be included, but Russia rejected the idea. He was released later.
The Adams move is "without prejudice," meaning the prosecution can be brought in the future, particularly after the 2025 mayoral elections, though I would not hold my breath. Allegedly, the prosecution was unfairly close to the election campaign.
Sounds familiar.
Gov. Hochul has the power to remove him but realistically would not do so without a lot of support from other political actors. We are talking about removing a democratically elected mayor of a major city who was not convicted of a crime.
I have seen people call her a coward, annoyed some savior isn't swooping in. If you are upset, be upset with the others city and statewide who looked the other way. The time to start was last year, including perhaps having a special prosecutor or something.
Kathyrn Garcia came in second place after the instant run-off voting was complete in the 2021 Democratic mayoral primary. The final count was 50.4% to 49.6%. Eric Adams then went against some loser in the general. So, we were quite close to a no drama woman mayor. Not exciting, but I'll take it.
Eric Adams had a favorable time of it in 2021 with the opposition divided among multiple candidates and instant run-off ranking still a novel thing. We shall see if the candidates are more savvy about it this year.
Adams is polling badly now though I wouldn't guarantee him losing quite yet. Meanwhile, there is the spector of Andrew "please no" Cuomo being a candidate. There are again no one who is a clear favorite as a challenger.
Ultimately, it is up to the voters. It should not just be up to the voters. The justice system also should play a role. In a system that is not broken and corrupt.
The Bible has various interesting components that are often missed. Bart Ehrman regularly notes how the gospels conflict in many ways, but people don't think anything of it. This is especially notable in the birth narratives found in Matthew and Luke.
People often combine the two birth narratives when they conflict in multiple ways. Nativity stories pick and choose favorite aspects like the Magi and the census story arc in Luke, combining the two.
This is used in one musical modern take, Journey to Bethlehem, which is overall enjoyable. It is somewhat silly to complain about dramatic license when the original had lots of it. I also think even evangelicals accept biblical fiction that adds to the story.
The film rushes the finale some, mostly skipping the usual bit about the shepherds to insert a scene where Herod's son protects the Holy Family! I felt this a bit much. In real life, the son was executed, and not because he went against his father's wishes here.
I spoke about Joseph here a while back. I more recently talked about Joseph as a historical person, following up with one about Mary.
What about his siblings? Years ago, I wrote a paper about James, who because a leader of Jewish Christians. The gospels reference multiple siblings, brothers and sisters, only giving the former names. The gospels do not agree on the names.
I recently read something that noted that the siblings (in general) twice are cited as Christians. They were referenced in the gospels with John 7:5 directly saying that his "brothers did not believe in him."
Luke is Acts, and I knew this, had one more reference to Mary being among the disciples after Jesus rises to heaven. But and this is often a charm with close reading of verses, there is more:
They all joined together constantly in prayer, along with the women and Mary the mother of Jesus, and with his brothers.
The Greek word for "brothers" here could mean "brothers and sisters." So, we are not just talking about James, but other siblings too.
The other example is 1 Corinthians 9:5 where Paul references Peter travelling with his wife. Again, this is what I remember, and what is usually referenced. There is more though, and people miss it:
Don’t we have the right to take a believing wife along with us, as do the other apostles and the Lord’s brothers and Cephas [Peter].
I suppose (to the degree I paid attention) I read "brothers" here to mean the general usage "brothers and sisters" to cover all believers. However, the verse has an independent reference (first Luke, now Paul) of the siblings of Jesus "believing" in the resurrection.
The general usage of "brothers and sisters" is found in 1 Corinthians 15, which is Paul's summary of death and resurrection of Jesus. Note that "brothers and sisters" is not the same as "Lord's brothers."
That reference singles out James as seeing the resurrected Jesus without mentioning any other member of his family. This probably underlines my assumption only James was cited as a believer.
The two references show this is not true. We are left to wonder what ever happened to the siblings and Mary. Josephus, the Jewish historian, says James was killed in 62 though some Christians writers gave a later date. It is somewhat striking rest of the family gets so little attention. I put aside Dan Brown.
There were also some later references to second or third generation members of the family being poor farmers. Overall, the Jewish Christian branch of the faith reflected by James (and his siblings?) died out.
The drawn-out Pete Alonso negotiations ended with what amounts to be a continuing resolution that is as unsatisfactory. It's a two-deal worth 54M with thirty million in 2025 with the ability to opt out. This sets up this whole thing popping up again in a year or two.
Charming.
And Scott Boras is happy because even though he failed mightily on his promise to get Alonso substantially more than the seven years, $158 million offer from the Mets he turned down in June 2023, he was able to save face by getting him an AAV of $30 million for 2025 that is the highest of any first baseman in the game.
Bill Madden provides commentary explaining how Alonso, though beloved by Mets fans and a useful piece short term, would not get a highly paid long-term deal. How much money, long term, will he get above and beyond that seven-year offer?
Is all this stress worth it? He is due to decline in the next few years. The tail end of those seven years won't be as productive or lucrative. Why can't he take that money?
It's not my money but Alonso is supposedly a positive person who doesn't focus on the negatives. There is the usual drive and belief in yourself.
Nonetheless, the stress and hard feelings the drawn-out contract negotiations have brought in theory should affect someone like Alonso more than some others. At some point, a few more million is a matter of diminishing returns. It is depressing.
Anyway, the 2025 Mets might be mostly set though Mr. OMG isn't back yet. The bullpen looks pretty good. The starting rotation is filled with reclamation projects, including Senga off an injury.
Well, things worked out last year. Still, it would be nice if they had one steadier top-line starter. Also, the expectations will be much higher this year.
(People generally give the Mets good marks, other than the rotation, for their off-season moves. One move that has received some pushback is Siri to replace Bader. One analyst ranked it a "C" move.
It seems silly to think too much about this especially with Soto coming in. Siri is a good defensive outfielder. His bat might be weaker than Bader, but Bader was not exactly top notch in that sense.
The tradeoff is not much less than a wash, especially since you save a bit of money in the deal.)
The top two teams basically made it to the Super Bowl. The Lions might have been the #1 seed but they deep down had issues. The Eagles had a special weapon with special thanks owed to the Giants.
I acknowledge that without being too pleased with the ultimate result. Kansas City also seems to get all the breaks. Great teams make their own breaks including pressuring other teams to screw up. Mahomes also has the magic of making those game-clinching plays.
We are told that surely the refs aren't in on it. People just keep on finding cases where things seem to go their way. I can't find it now, but one analysis showed how a bunch of close calls, some the person acknowledged were probably wrong, went their way.
I know. That's loser/conspiracy talk. Toss in some luck and Kansas City seems a bit too blessed this season. Not that I am a big fan of the Eagles, being a NY guy and rooting for the Commandeers (hard not to) this season. And, their season ended with a clunker.
Oh well. Hopefully, it is a good game. I'm not watching it. I would have Bills/Eagles.
I enjoyed Cecile Richards's autobiography, reading the young adult's version. Making Troublewas recently reviewed. A useful device would be to compare the original and young adult versions and determine how much is lost in the translation. I see it as a sort of abridged version.
The Night of Baba Yaga (a European fable character) by Akiri Otani is an LGBTQ novel of sorts. A young woman becomes a driver/bodyguard to the daughter of a mobster. Meanwhile, we are given what seems like some details of the daughter's fugitive mother and her lover. Nonetheless, I think if you read closely, you might suspect something is fishy.
The driver/bodyguard is chosen for her fighting skills (and gender). The book has some violent scenes. The book then takes a gender-bending turn, especially as the last part of this small novel skips along from c. 1980 to the current day (around 2020). I found the ending dubious. Overall, however, it was a worthwhile read with some alt-gender content.
The Death of Socrates by Ellen R. Wilson discusses the title subject as well as how it was understood from the time of Ancient Greece until the present (around 2010). It's part of a collection of shortish (not too much over 200 pages with pictures) historical books covering various topics.
I found it an approachable read for someone not too philosophically or historically inclined. She does not address only graduate school people here. The book started to get tedious around the Middle Ages though some of the more modern stuff was okay. The strongest part was the time of the ancients, including the Greeks and Romans.
The chapter concerning Jesus and Christianity (Socrates and Jesus overlap in various ways though many thought Socrates didn't suffer enough) started to fall into a more academic groove and the book was more of a trudge. The earlier chapters was much easier to read. Still, overall, worthwhile.
I watched some of the film Cluny Brown, one of three adult films (two children's Rescuers films were also made) from books by Margery Sharp. The book version has the same basic characters and storyline but it changes some things around. For instance, Cluny is not so into plumbing and does not meet the professor in the opening scene.
The professor is also not quite as approachably quirky early on. The two wind up together in the book too (if not quite in the same way) but it seems much more out of the blue this way. In the film, the two had more of a connection early on. The film in some ways is an improvement. The other characters are basically the same in the book and film versions.
I found the book somewhat hardgoing at times. I read the whole thing and it had its charms. Still, at some point, it felt that nothing much was going on, and the book would have been better if it was around 30-50 pages shorter. The film seems crisper in that sense.
It's that time of year again -- National Prayer Breakfast. I have talked about this practice before. I won't link to the website again.
"Prayer" seems to have a certain ecumenical flavor to it though perhaps not totally universal to all religious beliefs. The foundation behind the ceremony suggests otherwise in its vision page:
The vision of the National Prayer Breakfast Foundation is to promote and share the idea of gathering together in the Spirit of Jesus of Nazareth, adopted by the Senate and House Prayer Breakfast Groups in the United States Congress.
The Rev. Paul Brandeis Raushenbush, a Baptist minister and head of the progressive Interfaith Alliance, accused Trump of hypocrisy in claiming to champion religion by creating the task force.
“From allowing immigration raids in churches, to targeting faith-based charities, to suppressing religious diversity, the Trump Administration’s aggressive government overreach is infringing on religious freedom in a way we haven’t seen for generations,” Raushenbush said in a statement.
Quakers have also voiced their opposition. Perhaps, Trump doesn't mean those Christians. Religious freedom for all, not for those Trumpites support, is our birthright. Full religious liberty should be honored.
The EO cites his pardon of abortion clinic protesters. They are portrayed as totally innocent and the Biden Administration's prosecution is an example of anti-Christain attacks. Let's say YMMV.
The Hill noted: "Trump’s pardons included a group convicted of a 2020 planned blockade of a District of Columbia-area abortion clinic. Protesters bound themselves with chains and locks and physically obstructed clinic staff and patients during the blockade, which was live-streamed on social media."
The DOJ press release noted how nine people: "forcefully entered the clinic and set about blockading two clinic doors using their bodies, furniture, chains and ropes."
BBC: "The group was convicted of conspiring in 2020 to storm a Washington reproductive health clinic and block access to intimidate patients and staff. Members forced their way into the Surgi-Clinic, injuring a nurse, and spent several hours inside."
The people pardoned included those involved in multiple efforts like this. These are not just innocent grandmothers etc.
Religious liberty includes getting health care according to your faith. Encouraging lawless interference with medical care is wrong.
Trump's involvement with Christian Nationalism had long been reported. It is depressing among other things this person of all people is out there talking about God and the government.
Among the other bad things, he will promote a certain view of religious freedom, including but not limited to the deprivation of various types of health care.
Private prayer, including in non-official meetings of government officials, is a protected activity. How it is expressed can be problematic, including if there seems to be a de facto governmental endorsement.
The same applies to how the government goes about protecting religious liberty. Selective concern, including appeals to the majority religion being the true victims, is not the answer. It can be instead quite hypocritical and counterproductive.
ETA: There is often some reference to "Our God" as if everyone clearly accepts the same one. The arrogance ignores differences in faith, those who don't believe in any god, and some who believe in many.
Daily updates of the Trump Administration display a collection of horrible policy decisions mixed with lies and bullshit.
An example is the confirmation of Project 2025 architect Russell Vought in a party-line vote. John Fetterman has generally voted for Trump nominees, even being the sole Democrat who voted for Pam Bondi for Attorney General; he did not do so here—like Pete Hegseth for Defense, this was a bridge too far. Senate Democrats had an all-nighter beforehand.
Russell Vought now leads the influential Office of Management and Budget. As you might recall, Project 2025 is the over 900-page blueprint for a Trump Administration that the campaign assured us was not something they supported. How dare people suggest that!
Vought founded two pro-Trump groups whose work has focused on discrediting structural racism and curtailing diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs. The chapter that Vought wrote for Project 2025 detailed how the budget agency could be used to withhold money appropriated by Congress and eliminate dissent within agencies by purging them of employees.
A comment on Volokh Conspiracy, a "sometimes libertarian blog," provides a good summary of who Trump truly is. The comment is from one of the people not slavishly supporting Trump, including a few people who you might think should know better. This last crowd at times grants Trump is wrong while still being more anti-Democrat than anti-Trump.
The blog's contributors are a mixture. The person who gave his name to the blog voted libertarian but cited anti-election commentary that is more conservative anti-Democratic than anti-Trump. He mostly provides a discussion of random court rulings as compared to addressing First Amendment connotations of the Trump administration. He covered one such incident relatively briefly with a bland statement he opposed it on policy grounds but its legality was more of a mixed bag, perhaps.
One person does provide a strong opposition, especially involving immigration issues, consistently being libertarian. The other main contributor has had a slew of pro-Trump analyses. The remaining material is mixed, sometimes providing anti-Trump material.
Senator Elissa Slotkin, the former CIA agent who is the new senator from Michigan, provided a good speech during the Democrats' all-nighter. Her speech begins at the twenty-two-minute mark. She ends with four means of reply:
Legislation
Litigation
Communication (Talk About Issues)
Elections
The only legislation that has taken place so far is the far-from-ideal Laken Riley Act, which exploited someone's death to target immigrants.
Nonetheless, long-term, legislation provides an answer, including a slew of illegal Trump moves. We might not like some of them but even if they legitimize illegal executive acts, they are at least more above-board about handling things.
Litigation is already slowing down things like moves against birthright citizenship and attacks on trans prisoners. Litigation is a long game, influenced by a YOLO Administration aiming for the stars.
One thing not to do is to needlessly give in. Trump purported to fire FEC Commissioner Ellen Weintraub. She responded that he did not have the power to do so. Meanwhile, the fifteen anniversary of Citizens United brought some conversation.
Communication is a range of things, including trying to get the media to properly respond to the events. Some articles in mainstream media outlets underline what is happening.
For instance, the Washington Post had an article about how the National Science Foundation is now combing its science research projects to make sure they don't violate current taboo terms such as “inculcate or promote gender ideology."
Communication includes people calling their representatives to make their views heard. It is congressional Democrats showing up at US AID offices. Senator Slotkin is from a swing state that Trump won. She will sometimes play nice. She communicated in her speech, however, she has limits.
The final response are elections. There are special elections even now. 2025 locally is about whether or not to retain Eric Adams, the latest dubious New York City mayor, who at times plays nice with Trump (surely not to convince him to drop the pending proseution against Adams!). The long term goal is to regain control of the House in 2026.
My ambit is in a tiny way to communicate. I'm somewhat evangelistic that way. Don't claim to be anything special. Probably should do more. But, I do think the various means to communicate the issues, including engaging with people online, provides some help in the long run.
Meanwhile, though we are moving along 2025-wise [it's already February -- not too long ago, it wasn't even Election Day], Trump has not been in power for three weeks. It has been a lot in a short amount of time. But, it's just beginning.
The four replies will continue to be important. The final reply is personal. You have to be good in your everyday life. Retain your integrity. Don't be a lying asshole. Treat others with respect. Do the best you can. It's a long haul.
[This entry is mainly about two executions, one which was the subject of a final SCOTUS order. I tossed in a couple more orders of limited note in the discussion.]
Marion Bowman's execution last week had some concerns, but the bottom line appeared to be about someone who committed a horrible murder and deserved a long prison sentence. He served it before being executed. The execution was largely pointless.
He claimed innocence. It does not seem to be one of those cases where there is a serious concern that a truly innocent person was executed. That is, it did not receive much attention. Maybe there is some grounds for reasonable doubt. I'm not saying there is but capital punishment should have a higher test.
The essay does provide some evidence for those who argue there is grounds for innocence, at least, for the specific crime he was given the death penalty for.
==
The two executions this week are also not likely to cause many people much concern. Steven Nelson's best argument was that he only helped murder a young pastor during a robbery. There is an allegation his race was wrongly used to judge his future dangerousness.
OTOH, sounds a bit like a harmless error in his case, if it ever could be. Nelson has a violent history and was no choirboy in prison. Early on, he took part in the murder of an inmate. Texas sentenced him to death in 2012. The time lag is as things go not long.
He did manage to find someone to marry him on death row. I will try not to be cynical about true love. She spoke about people finding him "not guilty enough."
That's not too convincing though confining him in prison is likely the best option. He helped kill someone in there early on. So, yes, we are approaching close to the pure anti-capital punishment position. Since so many few places execute (though more countries than you might think have it on their books), the special cases manage to be handled.
The Supreme Court without comment (as usual) rejected a final request for a stay. The issues raised included competency of counsel, how his "future dangerous" (used to determine capital punishment), and the types of appeals worthy of SCOTUS review.
Justice Sotomayor again cited the usual conceit about how courts are special since they explain themselves. Sure, Jan. She herself separately lifted an administrative stay. Without saying why. Likewise, a split decision regarding pausing cases with the change of administrations? Not explained.
It is appreciated that judges provide opinions in a small number of cases. Even there, other branches provide explanations in multiple cases, including reports that explain the purpose of bills.
==
Alabama does have a long-time lag to explain for Demetrius Frazier (1990s). A complication here was that he also committed crimes in Michigan, which is not a death penalty state. He was sentenced to life there but eventually was sent to Alabama.
His lawyers (and mothers) tried to convince them to take him back, but Michigan doesn't want him. The net result is that Michigan is de facto helping to execute him. Again, we can see why:
In Michigan, he was sentenced to life imprisonment for charges of armed robbery, criminal sexual misconduct, felony firearms possession, and felony murder. At the time of his arrest in Michigan, he confessed to the crimes against Brown.
Yes, if we want to think "worst of the worst," a serial rapist/murderer, who committed crimes in at least two states, is more likely than most to fit. An attempt to call out the alleged problems with the use of nitrogen gas failed. The ask was not too big:
Frazier’s attorneys urged the judge to block the execution unless the state makes changes to its protocol, such as giving the inmate the same sedative used at the start of lethal injections before the gas begins flowing.
Frazier is a dangerous person who was correctly separated from the rest of society. Nonetheless, I am not sure what value it is to execute him after thirty years. Yes, few will be crying that he is gone.
No final SCOTUS order this time. He was executed by nitrogen gas. Will other states follow?
Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand emphasized her opposition to Trump the first time around. She voted against nearly all of his major nominees. More so than most. Now, she seems not to be as firmly against.
The Secretary of Interior nominee received eighteen "no" votes. She was not one of them. I also caught a piece of her calmly asking Tulsi Gabbard questions. Gillibrand ran for re-election this time as someone who in a non-partisan way supported the public welfare. She seems a bit less resistance-y now.
One of the big things I’ve seen over recent days is people being really upset that this or that Democrat voted for this or that relatively (everything is relative) innocuous nominee. For me, I just can’t get that worked up about what amounts to purely symbolic “yes” or “no” votes for a Sean Duffy or a Kristi Noem. But I also see that to a lot of people, those votes send a signal of business as usual. And that’s totally in conflict with any sense of a crisis that you’re focused on battling back against and winning.
I understand why people are not that worked up about the Secretary of the Interior. The nominee is a run-of-the-mill type who some other Republican president could easily have nominated. Still, it is not "purely symbolic," especially (as with Marco Rubio) if senators toss in words of support.
Rubio has already followed Trump's lead by cutting off "X" passports as part of Trump's anti-trans policies and going after the United States Agency For Aid and Development. The subtitle of that article: "The secretary of state accused USAID, which oversees food aid, emergency relief, and health programs in more than 100 countries, of being out of step with U.S. interests." Also, just to toss it in, he doesn't have the authority to abolish an agency established by law.
The TPM piece had this key bit of strategy:
The overarching thing that is missing from what Democratic leaders in Washington are saying right now is a clear statement that this is bad, and that it’s likely to get worse for a while.
But we don’t accept this; we have power too. We’re going to fight this in the courts; we’re going to gum up the works in Congress; and more than anything we’re going to fight this in the court of public opinion. And we’re going to win.
And to do that we need all of you to be on our side. And as we claw back power we’re going to repair the damage and hold the people who broke everything accountable and build something better.
I don't know the exact ways to do these things though find it tiresome that the usual people are in default "Democrats members of Congress are losers" mode. It does sound like an appropriate outline.
Trump and the Republicans are both dangerous and violating our basic values. This is not business as usual. Here are some soundbite reasons why as well as some more in-depth details. For instance. More.
We are fighting back. It's a long haul. We can see some small victories (which for p.r. reasons will be exaggerated at times) in the short term.
We are fighting this for the long haul. Join us. We will win in the end. The reference to Churchill and WWII is suitable. I hope not for the likely death toll.
There have to be events that invite a media presence including showing up at USAID offices. Satire can be a useful tool. Well-organized protests.
A supermajority was allegedly not enough to pass health care reform in the Obama years. Illegal, disgusting, stupid, and simply bad (we dream for simply bad) is not justified by "democracy" now with a small majority in Congress and a plurality in the presidential vote. A fraction supported Trump.
(The data there is interesting. We have a reason to be upset more didn't vote in 2024 but it was actually a reasonable turnout given historical trends.)
Welcome to two weeks in. I saw someone note that the Democrats will have some more influence when they will help fund the government. Republicans will not completely unite there, most likely.
We cannot wait that long though it is not surprising that people who have been in government for a long time (or newbies) are playing the long game.
There are also ways to toss him little and he can claim victory. Meanwhile, we say he got nothing. I understand the game. I am worried that if you give an illegal bully anything, even the image of a win, it will only encourage him to do more. And, no matter what, that will cause pain. It's a risky game of triage.
The link discusses Canada and tariffs. Others discussed his threats to Colombia over military flights for deportees. Colombia "gave in" in return for a promise of respectful treatment. Both sides can be happy there since it doesn't seem to mean much.
I have no magic answers and am not out there in the streets. I find calling people hard. Still, I'm made to think things through. Just offering my .02.
Carter Godwin Woodson (1875-1950), a son of former slaves, is known as the “father of Black History.” Woodson was the founder of the Association for the Study of Negro Life. He promoted the importance of the study and teaching of black history.
He originally proposed a history week. Woodson selected the second week of February. He was taking advantage of the fact that two celebrated figures in black history were born then.
Abraham Lincoln’s birthday was on February 12th. Frederick Douglas (former slave, civil rights leader, ambassador to Haiti) was born on February 14th. It later was extended to a month.
President Ford declared a Black History Month to honor our bicentennial (1976). Congress made it official in 1986, passing a Joint resolution to provide for the designation of February 1986 as “National Black (Afro-American) History Month.”
Don't worry you Trumpies! The Trump Administration declared Black History Month for 2025 and you can celebrate it in "appropriate' ways. Don't think that holidays won't be a target of Trump skullduggery.
DEI programs have been part of workplace diversity efforts to ensure fairer representation for groups seen as historically marginalized, such as African Americans, LGBTQ+ community members, women, disabled people, and other ethnic minorities in the United States.
The efforts aim to remove systemic barriers for groups affected by a legacy of racism, sexism, and xenophobia.
DEI practices include training on combating discrimination, addressing pay inequity along gender or racial lines, and broadening recruitment and access for underrepresented ethnic groups.
If there is an "A" at the end, it means "accessibility," or helping to make things more accessible. Trump finds this quite bothersome.
Black history tells us how longstanding the idea of working to address discrimination and the needs of discriminated groups was cited as the "true" discrimination. We heard that line during Reconstruction.
DEIA is not some horrid thing. It is a range of programs, of varying value, that has a beneficial end. Black History Month itself, which the Trump Administration just endorsed, can be deemed one of them.
Anyway, as I noted in my discussion, there sometimes is pushback to Black History Month along the lines of "Why don't you just teach history." Why teach United States history? Just teach history!
The Supreme Court is in a mid-winter recess. As usual, however, various odds and ends occurred. There is a renovation project:
The Court will begin work next week to install additional lighting around the building and grounds, install a bird deterrent system around the ornate marble features of the West Portico, and perform a general cleaning to preserve the building’s exterior marble façade. The project, which will be completed in phases and during overnight hours, will continue for approximately eight months.
Orders
Two attorneys were appointed to defendant opinions below after the federal government did not do so. As noted here, this happened this term somewhat more than usual. The Court is reaching out to decide things.
Bowman Execution
Marion Bowman's application for a stay of execution in South Carolina was denied. He flagged alleged racism and competency of counsel issues.
It sounds like a fact-based matter that SCOTUS would not generally reach out to take. Granting his guilt, sounds like a horrible crime worthy of a long sentence.
He also said there is evidence the state's usage of lethal injection was problematic, including the secrecy of the details of the procedure. I have talked about this in the past and it's a serious problem overall as a matter of the First Amendment and due process.
The conservative justices have never had much concern for usage reliability issues even though there were many issues. So, this too was a Hail Mary.
He could have chosen the firing squad or electrocution. Those do not sound like great options though some experts think the firing squad is the "best" one for the person.
He has been confined for almost twenty-five years (see Justice Breyer's dissent in Gloss v. Glossip) and proclaims his innocence in the murder of a friend.
Bowman was the first person executed in 2025. He did not ask for clemency (suppose it was not likely to be granted), noting as an innocent person, life in prison was not something he could support.
Other Stuff
Justice Jackson gave an interview, including talk about the necklace that she wore during the inauguration.
Rev. Chloe Breyer (Justice Breyer's daughter) wrote an op-ed against the Trump Administration lifting a ban on immigration raids on "sensitive areas" which includes churches.
In November, she received the Presidential Medal of Freedom. She had been an activist (at least) since junior high when she told her public school teacher that she didn't want to say a prayer at the start of class. She made trouble.
Richards was a labor activist (her husband continued to be), political campaigner, worked in Nancy Pelosi's office and was the president of Planned Parenthood. Her daughters followed in her footsteps (her son became a chemist though also has an activist side), one being Kamala Harris' campaign communications director (2020).
I noted in my obituary entry about reading and listening in to some Cecile Richards material. Her autobiography (read the young adult version, which is available for various books) is also a good thing to check out.
The book contains some activist strategies. A chapter on her mom's run for governor offers some lessons. First, you can't win unless you compete.
Second, politics is ideally a "contest of wills between folks who are satisfied with how things are and those who are passionate about what could be better." You also have to expect some defeats. Richards was a one-term governor. George W. Bush won that time.
About starting organizations. First, be practical, and set achievable goals. Second, you have to be willing to ask and obtain financial support.
Third, when you start your own organization, you own the successes and failures. Fourth, master the organization rules of the road, including using a small room (so it looks crowded!), let everyone speak, do the basics including having a role for everyone and a next step, and overall have fun!
The final chapter was a lesson for campaigns and life. Family life is a team support. Pick your battles. Get comfortable making others uncomfortable. Use your talents to make trouble your own way. Life, like politics, is ideally not a spectator sport.
We need some of her energy in these times. We need organizers. Why didn't we have pussy-themed mass protests this time around? The need for fighting is ever more important. Since she wrote this book, people lost the constitutional right to choose. Or, as we should think of it, it is being denied. Jim Crow America denied rights that people had.*
The book was written in 2018, ending with the beginning of the first Trump Administration. We are at this again. As she noted in the chapter about fighting to defend Planned Parenthood in those days:
The fights we're facing -- for affordable health care, equal rights, bodily freedom, and more -- are never fully won. But the lasting legacy of this moment will be the generations of women it has inspired and energized.
Her husband (Kirk) and children (Daniel, Hannah, Lily) surely are still out there fighting in their particular ways. As Lincoln told us at Gettysburg, it is us the living who must honor those who gave their all.
I’m going ... offer three words of advice to Democratic politicians and MAGA opponents in general: oppose, oppose, oppose. And make noise. A lot of noise. Don’t make conciliatory gestures in the belief that Trump has a mandate to do what he’s doing; don’t stay quiet on the outrages being committed every day while waiting for grocery prices to rise. I can’t promise that taking a tough line will succeed, but going easy on Trump is guaranteed to fail.
Unanimous vote for Marco Rubio. No. Trump has no business being outside of a prison cell. Every day he is in power is a travesty. We cannot normalize things like this in a debating society. A strong Trump critic talked about the right of a president to pick their team.
No. We should not legitimize him. I understand some Democrats will pick their battles. But, there are degrees even there. Anyways, darn Cecile Richards looked tall. And, that haircut looks darn practical.
Rest in peace. The rest of us must fight.
==
* Some people are cynical/realists about rights. They talk about "nonsense on stilts" when people talk about natural rights or rights that are not enforced.
I am not naive about reality. Nonetheless, our nation was founded on a sensible principle that some things are "right" even if they are not enforced. Rape is not "right" just because a local thug in power does it.
The Trump Administration is robbing trans people of their rights in the most disgusting way possible. They are calling people in the military who are trans immoral liars. They are wrong. Trans people have rights. We need to ensure they are protected.
I read the book (interesting perspectives though the writing style is a bit too arch at times) and now re-watched the film. The two leads are very good. It looks beautiful. The DVD has two commentaries.
The film had a somewhat dry spell once she had her little love affair (as in the book, it is annoying she didn't know he was not right for her while the captain warned her she won't have good judgment) but gets back on track when it skips ahead.
The film largely follows the book though rearranges the love affair some and disposes of her annoying son. There is more philosophical discussion by the captain in the book and Mrs. Muir seems somewhat more independent in the film. Gene Tierney isn't quite who I would associate with the book version.
Both have charms. A case where consuming both will be a rewarding enterprise. The t.v. show is a more sitcom-y enterprise and Mrs. Muir is more independent-minded. It's okay on that level.
I found Drool while looking for something else in the NYPL category. I'm not sure where the title comes from. The two adult leads have been in various things. IMBD suggests this was the director's only film.
The film has potential but parts work better than the whole. A mom has a lousy life with her abusive husband and son & daughter who don't respect her.
The daughter uses drawing to deal with her angry emotions. This includes a boy who she likes who just uses her for sex. A new (black) neighbor, a beauty products rep, becomes her friend and a chance for some fun. After an unpleasant moment at his job, the husband comes home to find them kissing.
This leads to the wife shooting the husband dead. The neighbor takes charge and takes the family on a road trip to dispose of the body. The owner of the beauty products business turns out to have repeatedly disposed of her husbands, providing a burial place.
The family finds happiness along the way. One visual evidence of this is the worn-down mom eventually becomes more youthful and energetic as the film goes along. She is not only alive in her fantasy life.
The film takes around thirty minutes of largely unpleasant scenes to get on the road. The scenes do have some verve with the actors doing a good job. Still, it's rather unpleasant to watch. The later scenes have some quirkiness. I skipped around some.
Drool doesn't really work as a complete film. Still, the parts do make it interesting in bursts. The neighbor comes off the best while the daughter is somewhat sympathetic even as she acts like a shit at times.
I do not reference here John Oliver's amusing usage of dogs to challenge the lack of televised SCOTUS oral arguments. Each justice and advocate is portrayed by a dog. There are a lot of fun videos on YouTube.
A daily SCOTUS history blog entry left it open for someone else to provide a list of cases decided that day. One entry of this commenter's popular series (he eventually put together a book) involved drug-sniffing dogs. This led me to examine the Supreme Court's various cases involving such animals.
The first case might have been a dissent by Justice Brennan involving a case not taken. A thirteen-year-old girl sued in a case arising from drug-sniffing dogs taken to a junior high school.
A later SCOTUS case noted that specially treated drug-sniffing dogs began to be a thing in the 1970s The incident took place in 1979 and included the dog sniffing the girl's crotch. The dog "alerted," resulting in a body search at the nurse's office.
Justice Brennan flagged here how drug-sniffing dogs can be a specific privacy concern, even more than something like a metal detector. Drug-sniffing dogs are large German Shepherd-type dogs. Some people also (this arose in GITMO, involving cultural taboos) might have a specific fear of dogs.
The Supreme Court in U.S. v. Place, involving luggage at an airport, reached out to decide that drug-sniffing dogs are particularly benign for Fourth Amendment purposes. They only determine if there is contraband, which people do not have a reasonable expectation of privacy to avoid.
The challenger specifically did not challenge the dog sniff. He won on other grounds. Multiple justices, including Blackmun (a moderate on Fourth Amendment issues), flagged that the Court should not have decided the issue without careful briefing.
(The search of luggage at airports is also a special circumstance though the result of the case shows that even then there are limits.)
The "no reasonable expectation of privacy" theme arose again in U.S. v. Jacobson. The case is far from a typical situation. A private courier handled a package and it broke open to expose powder that clearly appeared to be drugs. It was sealed and given to the government. They then reopened it and did a field test on a small portion of the powder.
A challenge failed. Justice White concurred while also arguing the majority's reasoning went too far. Justice Brennan (and Marshall) dissented. However, even if they granted the intrusion was minimal given the facts. We are talking about a minor situation here.
Their dissent made the important point that just because a search "only" determined contraband, it might still be unreasonable. A search is being performed. Your "effects" (in this case) are being interfered with in a way relevant to Fourth Amendment purposes. Your right to privacy, your legitimate expectation of privacy, does not go out the window because contraband is involved.
The details will matter. A field test to test a bit of powder that was already exposed is getting close to a "pure" law school-type hypothetical. The luggage in the earlier case was seized for an extended period. Dogs sniffing children is next-level stuff.
Illinois v. Cabelles involved drug-sniffing dogs used during a traffic stop. The two cases were cited to uphold the use of the dogs. The use of a field test for powder is not quite the same as the use of dogs. A dog sniffing luggage at the airport is also different. Justice Ginsburg's dissent emphasized the point.
Justice Souter also dissented, noting that dogs are not infallible. He would have logically applied other cases involving the usage of general crime investigatory techniques during traffic stops. As he noted:
They are conducted to obtain information about the contents of private spaces beyond anything that human senses could perceive, even when conventionally enhanced. The information is not provided by independent third parties beyond the reach of constitutional limitations, but gathered by the government’s own officers in order to justify searches of the traditional sort, which may or may not reveal evidence of crime but will disclose anything meant to be kept private in the area searched. Thus in practice the government’s use of a trained narcotics dog functions as a limited search to reveal undisclosed facts about private enclosures, to be used to justify a further and complete search of the enclosed area.
Florida v. Jardines finally applied neutral principles to protect a person's privacy. The difference was that a dog was brought onto the "curtilage" (protected area) around a house. A house has special Fourth Amendment protection. Nonetheless, a person and the closed containers in a car (effects) do as well.
Florida v. Harris is a reasonable opinion that puts forth a totality of the circumstances test to determine if a dog sniff was reasonable. Someone in the blog argued the opinion left open the possibility of the usage of unqualified dogs. I think that is overblown.
The opinion held the dog's skills can be challenged. Also, as discussed here [the source of the photo], we should be careful about unreliable dogs. That, however, goes to the specific reasonableness of any information used in a search. The constitutional test more likely than not will have many false positives.
Rodriguez v. U.S.set limits on the use of dogs. The Court held the traffic stop had ended, so the search and seizure was illegitimate. The dog sniff is granted as something separate from a normal traffic stop (license, registration, record check).
But, now, it is clearly allowed as long as it is done within the time when that other stuff is done. The police, however, cannot extend the stop past the normal traffic-related mission to also do a dog sniff.
I would have not established a precedent allowing the dog sniff as yet another add-on. Dog sniffs should be treated as a "search." Multiple cases show the potential for violation of privacy. They are not painless ways to find contraband.
The "reasonableness" test of the Fourth Amendment can allow for some balancing test. The use of bomb-sniffing dogs, for instance, is not the same thing. Likewise, time, place, and manner rules are possible in a general sense. Drug sniffs in airports v. outside your home and yes during a traffic stop.
A few justices were concerned about the widespread of using dogs. For instance, walking a drug-sniffing dog around the neighborhood as a roving (Rover?) search and seizure device. An alert would be a way to get a search warrant.
Florida v. Jardines shows that the usage of a dog can itself be problematic. It is worse when a search and seizure exposes non-contraband such as when police enter a home. But, the sanctity of your person, home, papers, and effects is generally protected.
The usage of specially trained animals and technology are helpful tools in crime control. They also have value for public safety in non-criminal contexts.
Nonetheless, they are not magical things that lack privacy violation effects. At least, to use the old test, that is a legitimate expectation to have.
The current Acting Solicitor General is Sarah Harris, a former Thomas clerk. She gave notice that the Trump Administration is thinking about or is changing gears on a few cases. This is normal behavior with a change of administration. Expect more of this in the future.
The Supreme Court granted three more cases in part to address a dispute involving funding of a charter school. It provides an opportunity to continue to weaken the separation of church and state, which hinders free exercise too in the process.
(Barrett recused. The conservatives don't say why unlike the liberals so we can only guess why.)
The Monday Order List is generally a housekeeping matter without anything much of note. Barrett didn't explain why she didn't take part in something. Thomas (with Alito) cites what they think is an abuse of habeas/ignoring the limits of AEDPA.
(Did Thomas want to find an answer to a recent opinion that held a lower court misapplied the rules against the defendant? Recall even Alito disagreed with the dissent, that time joined by Gorsuch.)
Monday's Order List is the last official action of the Supreme Court until late February. They have a public non-argument session (often for swearing-in lawyers) and a Friday conference on February 21st. Then, it is back to oral arguments for two more weeks.
The first execution of the year is on January 31st and we will see if there is any final SCOTUS appeal. There also will be other miscellaneous orders and SCOTUS-related actions until they come back.
Steve Vladeck discusses how the Supreme Court in the past few years has decided many more federal government claims, raising the temperature.
ETA: SCOTUS added another case (they usually do this on Friday; was it missed?) for argument, again speeding things along so they can hear it this term.
I was not interested in watching these games. After the Rams failed an upset late, it was to be expected that the Commanders could not manage to beat the Eagles a second time. It turned out to be even more depressing. The first two match-ups were close. This turned out to be a blowout.
Sure sure. Commanders with their new rookie who didn't play like one most of the time QB had a great season. No lie. Still not a great ending.
These two teams are due for further playoff match-ups. Kansas City and the Bills already are a familiar pair. And, again, I didn't want to see this because the ending was oh-so predictable.
KC goes up by three. Bills are stopped. They need to stop KC one more f-ing time to have a final shot. KC gets that necessary third down.
Kansas City had more than their usual share of close finishes where they easily could have lost. Yes, great teams manage to do that. But, this year, it was even more annoying. I'm so tired of them.
Not that I am an Eagles fan. But, them winning the Super Bowl would be a tad less annoying. I have no desire to watch the thing though. Blah.
I like Vera Farmiga and Andy Garcia and the concept of two parents (from different marriages) going out on their own while their children are on a college tour [thus the title] sounded interesting. A good mature adult comedy drama. And, overall, it was.
[Okay. I do feel like Vera Farmiga is someone I like as an actress but other than one film where she had a relatively minor role, it is unclear where I saw her. Other than multiple films that I know she is in but did not watch. She definitely seems like a cool person from watching her in this film.]
If you think the mom-daughter pair look alike, it isn't just good casting. They are actually sisters though the difference in age is significant enough that they could be mom/daughter in real life. Taissa Farmiga later starred in various horror projects.
The film is focused on the parents but we also see how the two children experience the tour in different ways. The two parents have some light moments but also have to address some serious struggles they are having.* The son comes off as the least interesting.
There is a stereotypical marijuana moment that is over quicker than it would seem to warrant though they later carefully have the children drive them home.** I probably could have done without the scene but it was okay overall. And, the set-up is done well.
I enjoyed the film and it was one of those nice little surprises that you come upon. Looking over some of the Wikipedia reviews, sure, it is not some classic work of art. The plot is overall not surprising.
However, it is done enjoyably and with talent, including helping us pretend they are on an actual college tour. Good cast overall, including some nice supporting characters. Always a good part of a successful film. Good overall pace. The whole thing rings true overall, the two stars have very good chemistry, and multiple scenes are impressive.
There was an outburst by the mother (also a bit forced) and the embarrassment by the daughter with the professor that was unpleasant to watch. I muted/sped along one and largely skipped the other.
I had no real problems with the rest of the film though the marijuana scene was a bit much and a scene in a fountain was also a bit forced. Also, not sure if they looked that wet afterward. Might be a continuity error. However, both of those things weren't too bad.
There is a DVD commentary track with Andy Garcia (also one of the producers), the writer/director, and another writer/producer. Interesting.
The film is from 2013.
==
* The daughter is a bit too overhyped about going to college and is upset when her favorite professor bursts her bubble. She tries to call her mom but she is unfortunately getting high and dealing with things.
Parents do deserve to have some time to get through their own stuff. It's good to have some "me time." Your child will be able to handle things for a few hours especially if they still can just call their dad.
** The children don't seem to pick up that their parents had recently been smoking marijuana. OTOH, again, the effects seemed to be over rather quickly.
"I broke the law that day, period. Black and white," Pamela Hemphill told NPR's All Things Considered of the role she regrets playing at the Capitol that day. "I'm not a victim, I'm a volunteer."
Pamela Hemphill's response to Trump's blanket pardon of the 1/6 insurrection defendants was referenced. It warrants emphasis as an example of what should happen. Single role models can seem of limited idiosyncratic effect. We should not be too cynical about them.
People do change. They do learn. Hemphill again:
"It's like, how was I so naïve? Well, I see now how I was, because it's a cult and you get gaslighted, and they lie to you and say there's this deep state, and the DOJ is against Trump and all this garbage."
When a partisan like Liz Cheney dissents, it is one thing. When someone is directly involved, it is more powerful. Hemphill:
"It's like, how was I so naïve? Well, I see now how I was, because it's a cult and you get gaslighted, and they lie to you and say there's this deep state, and the DOJ is against Trump and all this garbage."
====
Meanwhile, when Melissa Murray co-edited a book setting forth the Trump indictments, it was noted that various other nations have prosecuted leaders for wrongdoing. And, this was not a bad thing by rule. Everyone should be bound by law, including our leaders. To wit:
South Korea’s Impeached Leader Is Indicted on Insurrection Charges
This might appall certain members of the Supreme Court. Nonetheless, others might appreciate that "President Yoon Suk Yeol will stand trial along with his former defense minister and others who participated in his short-lived imposition of martial law." The rule of law is a good thing.
It might be a shock when readers see that he is in jail. So fast?! Surely not even four years is long enough.
A majority of South Koreans approved of his impeachment and consider him guilty of insurrection, according to public opinion polls. But Mr. Yoon’s die-hard supporters have called his impeachment “fraud.” Some of them shocked the country when they vandalized a courthouse in Seoul after one of its judges approved a warrant to arrest him on Jan. 19. Nearly 60 people were arrested in connection with that unrest.
