Poltergeist

Halloween has already brought a range of scary films on cable (or whatever you should call it). 

I remember seeing the very end of this classic movie, where the father puts the television outside the door.  Does that mean I saw the film itself? I don't remember anything else from the film. Who knows?

I watched parts of it recently and was impressed. JoBeth Williams as the mom had one of her best roles, providing a mix of emotions. Early on, she was amused by the poltergeist activity. 

Later, when her youngest daughter was taken, she was distraught. Near the end, she was full momma bear in protecting her kids. She was a bit of a naughty girl -- had a marijuana stash. Near the end we see her underwear when she finds out the house is still haunted. 

Stephanie Miller's "what's happening!!!" clip comes from this film. 

JoBeth Williams was in multiple well-known films around that time, including The Big Chill and Teachers. She continued to get work (her Wikipedia page has credits up to 2023) but less notable roles.

Zelda Rubenstein (the only person in all three films other than the youngest daughter) also had a supporting role in the television series Picket Fences. 

The older daughter (Dominque Dunne) was murdered soon after the release of the first film. Her father became a victim rights advocate. The youngest daughter died of natural causes before the third film came out.  The son played "Jimmy" in Airplane II.

And, no, the house was not clean!  

New York City Ballot Measures

Federal Races 

The most important thing on the ballot in November, as people have already begun to vote, is the defeat of Donald Trump. 

It would be appalling if Trump, a convicted felon who is unfit across the board, wins. Do we want to be a nation where his message and cause is endorsed by the people at large?

We also need to focus on Congress. Both to act legislatively in a positive way, and to not endorse Trump enablers and supporters, congressional races matter. The path to a House majority includes a few swing districts in New York. 

The Senate remains an uphill battle. It would be appalling (less so than Trump winning) if President Harris is handcuffed by Senate Republicans. It is time for change in places like Texas and Florida. 

State/Local Races 

State and local races also matter. 

Attorney generals and local prosecutors have much power. The counting of votes in the presidential election in 2020 significantly turned on state and local officials. States have much discretion. 

Ballot measures also are an important means for the public to make policy. Abortion is on the ballot in over ten states. Any number of other issues, including marijuana policy, are covered by such proposals. 

New York State Proposal

New York City residents also will vote on six proposals (back of the ballot). 

The first is a statewide measure which is repeatedly promoted and/or thought of as a "state ERA" or an an abortion rights measure. It covers more ground:

This proposal would protect against unequal treatment based on ethnicity, national origin, age, disability, and sex, including sexual orientation, gender identity and pregnancy. It also protects against unequal treatment based on reproductive healthcare and autonomy.

Some criticism its wording. Why not directly talk about abortion rights? The proposal (rightly) covers more ground. Abortion rights are part of a wider whole, involving "pregnancy, pregnancy outcomes, and reproductive healthcare and autonomy." 

The amendment also covers more ground that that. The measure covers "ethnicity, national origin, age, disability." The first categories expand and clarify existing protections regarding race and color. 

The next two expand existing protections in other areas. Without knowing for sure, it appears to me a more significant addition to the state constitution. 

I guess it might be argued that too much is being added at once. It also allows specific classifications being "piggy backed."  I figure less people are worried about "age' while "disability" will interest a specific sector of the population more than others.  

New York City Proposals

New York City residents have five proposals, which are basically the result of mayoral action. There is some mayor v. City Council drama involved. Some argue that mayoral overreaching alone makes all of these provisions dubious. 

Mayor Adams is now under federal indictment for campaign related crimes involving foreign deals. Many city residents (I will count myself among them) are not that so happy with his overall reign. 

The provisions also involve various inside baseball proposals that seem dubious fodder for the ordinary public. The support of a general equal protection measure is something the average vote can have a basic sense about. These measures? Not so much. 

Some form of both of these concerns leads me to be wary about most of the city measures. How important one of more of them will be in practice is far from clear. Nonetheless, as a matter of principle, I am included to vote "no" down the line.

The one exception might be the second ballot measure overall (and first city ballot measure), which involves sanitation. It seems benign:

This proposal would amend the City Charter to expand and clarify the Department of Sanitation’s power to clean streets and other City property and require disposal of waste in containers.

Granting that is unclear if it is necessary to use a ballot measure to do this, the overall sentiment makes sense. Some areas now fall outside of the Department of Sanitation's jurisdiction. It seems sensible to be more comprehensive. 

And, if you like the mayor's policies involving new garbage cans and the like (from what I can see, a modest but important good sense policy proposal from Adams), that's another reason to support it. 

I have concerns that make me lean toward "no." First, again, the overall process involved here is questionable. I am not inclined to give this mayor the benefit of the doubt. Overall, I would let the City Council handle making sanitation policy, not the public at large via ballot proposals.  

Second, the measure involves additional power to regulate vendors. There is a connection there and sanitation. Nonetheless, as the linked article notes, it appears that the measure misleads the public -- if more power to regular venders is at issue, why not openly mention it? 

This is the sort of inside policy details that makes me wary about policy by ballot. Sometimes, there is some obscure proposal on the ballot involving state law. For instance, something about regulating parkland. Why is this on the ballot? The state constitution apparently requires it in various instances. Fine if annoying.

There is no such compelling need for these measures to be on the ballot. Again, one or more might not be problematic, or even might be useful. 

But there is some debate on the matter.  Like voting for some local judges with little clarity on whom you are voting for and often little discretion ("pick three" and there are only three options), sometimes there is too much democracy. That might sound bad but republican democracy involves a balance there.   

It is counterproductive in an overall civics sense to have people vote for things for which they have little grounds to make a sound choice. People have a rough idea who to pick when voting for major candidates, especially when they have party-based choices. 

Some ballot measures will confuse people. We can reasonably hope that a half-way sound approach will be possible when the people vote. At some point, however, a line is crossed. When we get to:

“This proposal would amend the City Charter to require fiscal analysis from the Council before hearings and votes on laws, authorize fiscal analysis from the Mayor, and update budget deadlines.”

I think we crossed it. Anyway, early voting in New York will begin on October 26th and run to November 3 (also "fall back" time day). Then, you will have a day off to worry about Election Day itself. 

Not that it will be the end of things either though except for the stray race it might be in New York.  

SCOTUS News: Kavanaugh Hearings and Advise and Consent

More on Roberts

Joan Biskupic has another behind-the-scenes article that focuses on Chief Justice Roberts, including how people noted he was quite tired after carrying so much water for Trump last term.

Oral Arguments 

The justices had the first oral arguments of the new term. Solicitor General Elizabeth Prelogar shined yet again in a case involving regulation of "ghost guns" (a possible 6-3 win for the Administration, granted the Democrats hold serve; the alternative might make the matter moot).  

The everlasting Richard Glossip saga's latest chapter (remember when he lost a lethal injection case almost 10 years ago?) turns on a pair of technical questions. There are various predictions but the bottom line is that his death penalty case is a mess for a lot more than what is at issue. For instance, an over 200-page report written on the flaws was not just about this.  

Kavanaugh Sham 

The Senate has a constitutional obligation to provide advice and consent on judicial nominees and an institutional interest in ensuring that it receives complete, accurate, and timely information to facilitate carrying out that responsibility. 

Senator Whitehouse has been trying to obtain a full accounting of the investigation of Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court confirmation hearings for around six years. A report released underlined the sham nature of the FBI investigation, which gave the Republicans cover. 

The nomination process from Garland to Barrett underlined how constitutional norms can be broken without there being some "unconstitutional" process that can be upheld in the courts.  

Current Supreme Court ethical problems underline the responsibilities of all three branches. Mere raw majoritarian will is not the only factor.

A president nominates and the person is confirmed (literally "appointed") with the advice and consent of the Senate. Inferior officers can be handled without Senate involvement if Congress so decides. 

The specifics of this process are basically a political question. Again, this does not mean "anything goes" meets one's constitutional oath. 

The process in place provides a means for nominees to be investigated. A reasonable investigation is necessary to uphold the sanctity of the confirmation process, including the power of the Senate to advise and consent. Extra effort is warranted for people with special responsibilities. 

If the process is slipshod, there are various checks. The First Amendment provides multiple means to air out the details and criticize. There is a greater reason to put people to a higher test if officials are not properly vetted. And, those who failed to do their job can be remembered at election time. 

People are understandably angry and cynical. "What does this matter? They will yet again get away with it."  This is surely appropriate when dealing with people with a form of life tenure. (The "good behavior" proviso seems rather meaningless at times.)

But, airing out the details has not been meaningless. The Supreme Court has had multiple hits. People support Supreme Court reforms. The justices have been more careful. And, it factors in at the polls. 

Federal judges were a major reason why voted chose Trump in 2016. It is a major concern for many voters today. The report, for instance, noted that (then) Senator Kamala Harris played a role in seeking information. Harris has joined in the conversation about how the courts again are on the ballot.  

Who do you want to nominate and appoint judges? Who do you want overseeing the courts, both in the House of Representatives (good shot) or the Senate (will take some help)? This report is a reminder. 

It would be a travesty if Republicans regain control of the United States Senate. Their role in corruptly obtaining a SCOTUS supermajority is but one reason.

Upcoming 

There are two argument days in mostly technical cases next week. A Friday conference will lead to the first scheduled Order Day of the new term. 

There are also two executions scheduled next week. I might cut back on my in-depth analysis of executions next year. Maybe, will leave it to those with miscellaneous orders connected to them.  

Odds and Ends

Johnson Amendment

The Johnson Amendment is named after Lyndon Baines Johnson, who supported it as a senator. Charities and religious institutions can get a tax break. 

Nonetheless, they cannot endorse a specific political candidate. Some people oppose this as a threat to religious liberty. A lawsuit pushes that mantra.

It is really a fair trade, including allowing political speech and engagements in many ways. More here. 

Supreme Court News 

A SCOTUS history entry led me to find out that Dorothy Beasley, who argued the Georgia side in Doe v. Bolton, died in May. 

She argued multiple SCOTUS cases and later became the first woman to become a Georgia appellate judge. When notice of the loss in Doe arrived, she allegedly refused to pay the fee to accept the message.

Jets News 

After another disappointing loss, where Aaron Rodgers again failed to do what he is there to do, the head coach was fired. Robert Saleh was good on the defensive side. Not so good on offense, if repeatedly with subpar material. Ownership was not pleased.

I am not shocked or anything. I did think without more there is a shade of scapegoating there.

Maybe, there was some internal understanding of just that. For instance, Nathan Hackett, the offensive coordinator whose product was somewhat offensive (but Rodgers likes him) was demoted.  

The overall substandard play in the division, helped by injury to the QB in Miami, has kept the Jets in the hunt. So, the season is far from done.  

Mets Beat Phils (3-1) & Advance: Is it the Playoff Pumpkin?

 

The View From Down Here: Life as a Young Disabled Woman

Lucy Webster is about thirty. She's a British journalist and activist. And, she has cerebral palsy. This book talks about ... well read the subtitle. 

Webster requires personal assistants (carers) to do everyday tasks. Kim Nielsen in A Disability History of the United States reminds us, however, that we are not the proverbial man on an island. 

The independence trope is more myth than reality.  We all depend on people in a variety of ways:

That all people are created equal and interdependent; that all life on this planet exists interdependently; that the future of all people requires that they live with respect for one another and for this earth.

(my original link to this quote is now broken) 

Webster argues that non-disabled people (or those so labeled) are a big part of the problem. She speaks of the "social model," ableist assumptions and practices that burden disabled people. Ableism privileges certain bodies and ways of living that conform to a perceived norm. 

Sexism gives her a two-fer to handle, including certain things that code "feminine" that she is allegedly not able to do. For instance, Lucy has a chapter on dating and motherhood. She argues the disabled would make good mothers, including in the ways that matter such as emotional connections to children.   

Her experiences as a middle-class (seems that way) white woman with a disability shows the importance of "intersectionality." Webster carefully defines "ableism" while not doing the same with this term. You can figure it out in context.* 

I discussed the term when talking about critical race theory, which was one of my first extended essays on a teaching website:

It is a term created by Kimberlé Crenshaw to describe how race, class, gender, and other individual characteristics “intersect” with one another and overlap.  So, for instance, Vice President Kamala Harris is both a woman and of mixed racial heritage.  No one is one thing, and each aspect makes for a complicated whole.

She argues that there is something specific about being a female disabled person, including a special type of infantilization/sexlessness. People feel it is acceptable to touch her when a man touching some other adult woman would clearly be seen as appropriate.  

Disabled women have specific needs and concerns that men do not have. A disabled man might have his own issues, especially with the macho assumptions of manhood. 

OTOH, people caring for men is acceptable. A woman is "supposed to" be a caring individual. Webster notes most personal assistants are women, which furthers the discriminatory practices often found in the caring industry.

Webster struggled in mainstream schooling, finding friendship and a sense of community once she was in college. Her fellow students in regular school did not accept her, causing a lot of loneliness. Students can be assholes. But she ultimately blames the teachers for not providing an adequate rewarding environment.  

Meeting another disabled person her own age in high school was a key moment. OTOH, she notes two children who she mothered as a teenager gave her much pleasure. Wonderful, supporting parents helped. It does not seem that she has any siblings.  

Webster eventually worked for the BBC. She moved on to freelancing, in part to have more time to work on her book and be an activist. 

She was around twenty-eight when she wrote the book (2023). So, it is all "to be continued," including her decision not to date. 

The book is a well-written personal account that is appropriate for teenagers. For instance, she talks about drinking but is less explicit about the details of sex (after all, her parents are reading the book). I think some readers might feel she is somewhat privileged -- not everyone goes to college and has a job at the BBC. 

A few Britishisms are used but Americans won't have an issue overall with the text. 

===

* Webster grants that she is not a stand-in for all types of disabled women, including those with different disabilities, who are LGBTQ, and so forth. She is speaking about herself. 

Nielsen's book notes that "disability" is a subjective term. Pre-colonial Native American communities, for instance, often would treat "disability" as an inability to fit in. A deaf person who is a useful member of a tribe would not be considered dis-abled. 

SCOTUS 2024 Term Begins

The final actions of the 2023 term took place with some Friday orders. 

The Supreme Court granted thirteen more cases (technically 15, but two sets cover the same topic), including one involving Mexico and guns. It did not block two EPA rules.

As Steve Vladeck noted:

The Court also ended the week (and the October 2023 Term) with two unsigned, unexplained rulings on Friday—rejecting, without public dissent, two of the three sets of applications challenging new EPA rules. 

(The denials were of the challenges to the new methane and mercury standards; the eight even more important challenges to the new power-plant emissions rules filed back in July remain pending.)

As Amy Howe noted in the linked discussion:

The court has not yet acted on a third set of requests to stay a different EPA rule, aimed at reducing emissions of carbon dioxide by power plants. Those requests were filed beginning in late July and have been fully briefed for over a month.

The reasons why here are not clarified though Vladeck noted on Twitter that the implication is that the justices are more divided about this final set of regulations. Court watchers thrive on this stuff. 

These actions completed the term's "emergency" docket, part of its "shadow" docket (Vladeck wrote a book on that): 

For those scoring at home, that brings the total number of full Court rulings on emergency applications for OT2023 to 122(!) That’s the most, by quite a fair margin, since I’ve been tracking the total (OT2022’s total, for comparison, was 76, and OT2021’s total was 72.)

The Supreme Court first had terms in August (they met in New York City; August in D.C. in 1789 was rather unpleasant) and February. They also started "the first Monday" of the month. 

The current first Monday in October practice began in 1917. It is set by Congress. As Vladeck notes, the term began the second Monday in 1873, but additional work warranted pushing things forward a week. 

The Supreme Court disposed of its "long conference" work by dropping a housekeeping order this morning. What stands out for me is that the liberals (Kagan and Jackson here) continued to explain why they did not take part in certain cases while all conservatives continued to fail to follow their lead.

It is unclear why this is so. What it implies to me is that the conservatives do not want to do the bare minimum here, namely openly apply their guidelines to help show the public they can be trusted.

A mild lesson to the voting public as they are already starting to vote in the November elections. The Court is on the ballot. 

ETA: There has been some singling out of the Supreme Court -- among the many cases not taken -- refusing a Biden Administration request involving emergency abortion care in Texas.  

After they punted in a related Idaho case at the end of last term, I do not think it too surprising that the justices do not want to immediately address this issue. 

It should be noted that the Supreme Court more often than not does grant the case when the U.S. government so requests. At least, that was the general norm. Do not know how the statistics these days.  

The Supreme Court does not take cases, including those with appealing facts, for a variety of reasons. Overall, even if the denial was justified (no justice commented), the baseline fact that Dobbs continues to threaten the life and health of women is true.  

NY Weekend Sports: Up and Down

It was a mixed New York sports weekend.

Helped by some dubious calls, the Yanks won a close one. Detroit had a horrid first inning and lost its opener. Dodgers up 1-0 so far. (Now, it's 1-1.)

The Mets fought through some bad calls to win late with their ace Senga (who pitched one game during the season) serving as an "opener." He went two innings. Blew a lead and a two-run homer that tied it in the 9th in Game Two. Big sigh. Citifield next. 

The optimistic take -- which is sort of fake -- is that you would have taken a 1-1 split when you came to Philly. But, that changes when you are ahead mid-game and your closer lays an egg.  And, then you come back to tie, and you lose it a strike away from the 10th. Just my take. I don't find this "fun."

Jets played mediocre but still had a chance late against one of their old QBs. Aaron Rodgers is here to win games like this. He didn't. I didn't want him here and haven't changed my mind. If the supporting staff around him is raw, well, you should be playing for the future.  He's a win-now sort of player.

Bills lost at the buzzer via a 59-yard field goal. The Giants, after being bitten by a 101/2 fumble return earlier, decided not to be the "same old Giants," down to blocking a FG and taking it in for basically the clincher. It was the second time a blocked FG was returned in the NFL today.  

So on Sunday, to summarize: Bills and Jets lost. Giants won. Mets lost. Giants beat one of their old QBs (who also played for the Jets/Geno Smith). Seattle is a team "good enough" to make the playoffs. 

The Giants played well enough today.