How to be an Asshole

After (sometimes, I think "what's the point?") carefully making a general argument, Daniel here [has his moments, but not usually this bad] infers a specific one and does so in a particularly crude way. And, tosses in (again crudely) a "you are wrong" (that's it, has nothing more). Yes, calling people "illegal" doesn't send a message about their essence, as do other labels (be it "Christian" or "white" or who knows, "person"). Hardest part is this sort won in '16.

Basic Lesson: Show a person, especially one who earned it, a certain level of respect. This includes not being an asshole generally; particularly, if you really call out someone, you better have a leg to stand on. There is no special online pass here. Update: I add more here.

Kevin Plawecki

"Thor" looks bad for not having that MRI now that he left the game hurt. Sean Gilmartin finally got a chance, got a hit, but that third inning was a killer. As were other innings. So, Anthony Recker (back-up catcher pitched an inning in past) not available (and Logan Verrett with the Orioles, winning for them in the 11th), Plawecki pitched a pair of innings. ONE went well.

Blue Lagoon

This was on t.v. over the weekend so reserved the DVD to get the commentary track version with the director, writer and Brooke Shields [male lead in other track]. Film looks good and the commentary is interesting enough. Live action with sound, at least while they are teens, is a bit much: sort of a teen fantasy. A well written realistic version would be interesting. It's based on an early 20th Century novel that was filmed earlier (got better reviews).

TV Watch

Two of my shows came back recently: Better Call Saul and Veep. It has its moments, but Veep to me has yet to get into a groove, especially the non-Selena material. Somewhat the same with BCS, the summary of the most recent episode here basically matching my views, including the deliberate pace (getting annoying) and Kim material. Meanwhile, sure I'll find a book to get into -- multiple false starts along with the one cited.

Good Christian Sex: Why Chastity Isn't the Only Option‑And Other Things the Bible Says About Sex

Rev. Bromleigh McCleneghan (her sisters are named Whitney and Taylor) speaks about the book here (above is a sermon of hers). You can see various shades of reactions, positive, negative and mixed. Think I would provide a positive/mixed review, thinking her overall approach was good, but the book somewhat limited (and at times too rambling).  Overall, it is from a "mainline Protestant" (to quote) perspective, generally a good liberal viewpoint, average middle America style. A bit more bite might be needed at times.

The subtitle is a type of way to catch your attention, one not just about that to be fair. She talks about her own experiences, which does seem embarrassing (the reader is hard-pressed not to see her in a sexual way, I myself having a general tendency to put myself into the place of people in books, get a vision of what is happening -- here it's attraction, sexual etc.). And, this includes masturbation (which gets a chapter; pleasure is part of humanity), desire, sex before marriage and so forth.  But, this is not really a book where all the "good stuff" is checked off (that is, types of sex, porn, etc.).  The core involves relationships with others.

Late in the book, the author notes that though her husband is not a Christian, she "recognized in him a manifestation of the gospel - of trust and hope and forgiveness, of the abundance of love."  This is a somewhat common thing -- people often use "Christian" to in effect mean "good" or some such, which might confuse those who tie it to belief in the resurrection of Jesus Christ and so forth.  The book too expresses "Christian" in a big picture, the spirit of the enterprise, sort of way.  This is not to say Jesus is not referenced.  "Grace" is also referenced a lot.  

Still, "the Bible says" should be taken in a broad sense here.  The book rarely is particularly "Christian" as in "different from Jewish or Buddhist" about things.  This provides a wide audience but turns off some who view Christianity differently.  In the chapter about "playing fair," she also discusses how her "Protestant tradition" (again, quote, not the recent tendency to use that as snark) approaches the Bible.  It is "divine inspiration" but not "infallible."  Humans wrote it, though it still is in some fashion the "Word of God," and it is not the end of things.  God continues to speak "through the presence and work of the Spirit."  Thus, "reason or knowledge, tradition or collected wisdom, and experience, both personal and of others" are places to look for truth. 

She opposes "proof-text" techniques where biblical verses are picked out and strung along to make your argument, without regard for the greater overall intent.  This is a favored approach of some, verses used like proverbs, which tend to have meaning different for different people. All of this tends to also arise when dealing with constitutional analysis, including some of the same self-righteous tones. This includes trying to apply "original understanding" (or intent or whatever), which is often done without fully understanding what that was.  But, as suggested above, even then, specific guidelines for sexual activity found in the Bible might not be infallible.  Those anti-fornication verses of Paul won't trip her up.

She does cite them but basically in passing. The book is largely about how to have good relationships as a whole. Again, there is nothing uniquely "Christian" about much of this, the most Christian language to me at times the most forced parts of the book.  Then again, I'm more in the camp of her husband when it comes to Christian beliefs.  So, "playing fair" is respecting others, not treating them as things. "Chastity" is really temperance, which can be a good thing without (as seen with alcohol) prohibition; that didn't turn out that well.  Sex involves vulnerability but the ultimate connection can be wonderful.  But, you still need to know when it time to leave.

The book is very personal (though she used a survey to get other perspectives) and that is somewhat of a flaw.  Basically, we get one perspective -- a female leaning, heterosexual, comfortably middle class and probably white one.  For instance, she's clearly uncomfortable about porn from the few remarks referenced.  Homosexuality and the complexities of gender in relationships in that fashion is not really covered. The relationships are a tad too safe and idealized, though one chapter does cover those who were hurt.  She rejects settling, argues for the potential of marriage, the need to continue to find new things there.  But, for some, maybe not someone like her who found someone great young and still is with him, choices very well might be made. 

And, yes, at times, I thought the book rambled. It's a little over 200 pages, and it could have been shorter (or other things added).  I did obtain an "uncorrected proof" version, but gather it is mostly the same as the final copy.  But, overall, I would recommend the book.  It is what it is: a personal account that provides a lot of good things and those who want more probably can still build off what it gives.  Plus, any book where one endnote is "Ha" (in response to a pun) can't be that far off.

Arkansas Continues Their Execution Month

Mixed reports suggested the first lethal injection didn't go off without a hitch, but for the first time in years a state had two executions in the same day. Yay! This is a "clean case" (as far as we know) where innocence and other claims were not made, it coming down to the system itself. Beforehand: After three of the eight planned were stopped, the fourth went on with problems lingering. Which is a blatant problem: it's all so arbitrary. Meanwhile.

ETA: Obtaining those drugs have been a problem. One more execution [red flag: intellectual disability], after reminder of problems with other three. Claims of botching.

420

Today is "420 Day," the "420" code originally standing for a good time to get high. It is also Justice Stevens' 97th birthday. And, then there are overlaps, cases where Stevens wrote opinions on both sides.  The video also touches upon how there are a myriad of policy questions involved here, including allowing states to have local discretion that goes beyond voluntary executive discretion. 

There are a myriad of constitutional questions involved here. For instance, one of the cases cited above held: "Congress’ Commerce Clause authority includes the power to prohibit the local cultivation and use of marijuana in compliance with California law." Reading Scalia's concurrence, one wonders why he did not go along with RBG in the PPACA cases. An earlier case dealt with the question of the defense of "necessity" and the concurrence appeared right to leave it open.  But, the Supreme Court was probably right in the first case.  Justice Stevens was sympathetic but rested on standard liberal Commerce Clause theory. 

I think there is a reasonable liberty claim for those who need it for medicinal usage and a statutory (or agency) one to deal with the scheduling.  As a matter of general policy, yes, I would at least allow state and local discretion here. As is, state liberalization leaves open federal prosecution and things like using cash in a big money business because of federal banking regulations. But, marijuana is a major national and international business. At the very least, the regulation of medicinal usage here involves enough activity to constitutionally be up for regulation.

Various liberty arguments do arise. Overall right to privacy arguments as well as specific Fourth Amendment claims can arise. A link above addresses the First Amendment claim involving a puerile banner, but such an argument could arise in a more serious situation.  Students have a right to promote the view that marijuana should be legal.  Doctors should be able to talk to patients about it without problems arising. Marijuana also clearly has a certain message overall as shown by its association with jazz and other counterculture matters.  Finally, the change of consciousness involved can have religious connotations. And, fines/punishments/forfeiture here can also raise various constitutional problems.  Other matters might be cited.*

[One might even raise Second Amendment concerns since breaking the law is one area that might result in loss of rights in that area.] 

Meanwhile, a broad amount of people use marijuana, legal or not.  This doesn't mean the rules do not matter.  They run the risk of falling afoul of them, especially those of certain races and classes.  The number of people in the criminal justice system on account of marijuana offenses is far from trivial.  Likewise, there are various benefits that might be lost, including public housing even if third parties are involved.  And, if this usage should be deemed constitutionally protected, basic infringement of constitutional rights are involved.  Harshing one's mellow there would both be bad policy and unconstitutional to boot.

Again, Happy Birthday, John Paul Stevens.

---

* Justice Clark, repeatedly a conservative dissenter in criminal cases in the Warren Court, provides a taste:

Justice Clark had personally expressed great concern for those who used drugs. In an article published after stepping down from the Supreme Court, which today seems wholly extraordinary, Justice Clark spoke about the “badge of criminality” that a conviction for marijuana use placed on “thousands and thousands of our children” and called for the repeal of marijuana laws.

He also suggested the right to privacy applied.  A recent bipartisan rule by an unclear degree disallows federal funds to be used to for federal prosecutions when the activity is protected by local law.  This might be a matter that will arise in the next few years as well as other questions such as damage claims for "leakage" to states that still has bans. Lots of material here.

The Islamic Jesus: How the King of the Jews Became a Prophet of the Muslims

The book is an interesting and well sourced take that in effect argues that the Quran provides a Jewish Christian take on Jesus. It even tosses in a take (without Joseph) of a virgin birth. Jesus gets rather top billing, down to the final days (if a bit more hazy there)! It ends with the author's liberal/reformist take, the "something for everyone" approach fitting rather well there. Some of the details might be open to debate (and weeds a bit tedious), but it's overall rather fascinating. More of all faiths need to know the details here. Well written.

SCOTUS Watch

Various actions in Judge Gorsuch's first week at oral arguments, including this order in the ongoing Arkansas death penalty drama which might be the first thing he formally took part in. Didn't take part in various orders and decisions (only one somewhat notable to me) handed down. Today was a very well moot religious liberty case that the Supremes might reach out to decide. Eh. I'm with Sotomayor. Finally, this doesn't bode well ala Gorsuch. And, Emoluments.

Update: The Arkansas drama continues, even if one person was executed after the Supreme Court rejected a stay 5-4. Doubtful the guy is innocent [but see], but the process, as Sotomayor/Breyer noted in dissent, was a mess. Due process reasons again. Unconstitutional and bad policy. ETA: NYT might have questionable political coverage at times, but some of their commentary (and entertainment/etc. coverage) is pretty good, including this.

Tax Day

Taxes are what we pay for civilized society, including the chance to insure.

The weekend pushes things to Monday, but still a useful reminder from Justice Holmes. Rather so given the basis of the PPACA Cases. Then, there is the tyranny of Trump never releasing his tax returns. And, there continues to be the Emoluments Clause[s] issue. While they formulate means to screw us over tax-wise, perhaps the Republican Congress can help.

Easter

It involves a good amount of supposition to understand what might have "really happened," but is important to get a sense of the context of the times. This is so even if you are an atheist and don't accept the (rather hard to take seriously, if you think too much about it) supernatural components. There is also a way to accept a meaning to it all, like Christmas, it having certain somewhat universal aspects such as rebirth. Ditto Passover in some sense.

And Then There Was None

Good t.v. adaption of Agatha Christie story.

Elle

I really enjoyed Isabelle Huppert in Things to Come, a leisurely film of sorts about a certain time in a woman's life. She has a commanding presence and style that impresses. This film is somewhat similar though is a tad more twisted, starting with the opening scene involving her being raped. We first see this from the perspective of her cat. The fact she is a businesswoman crafting a violent video game involving a woman being raped by a monster suggests a certain ongoing theme here. Some overlap in relations with family too. Very good.

Tainted Supreme Court

2nd Monday in April: when every decision by SCOTUS is a bit tainted because of stolen seat being sworn in (cute baby justice stories time! reference to an article about Kagan helping the new junior "justice," who has certain jobs like messenger boy at Conference). No, after over FORTY YEARS, we don't finally have a 5-4 somewhat liberal leaning Court. I'm depressed and pissed on about equal levels. God he looks like one pleased sanctimonious asshole.

Beyond Loyalty: The Story of a Kibei

Reading about the internment of Japanese after watching Allegiance came across this book about a son of immigrants who also went to Japan for a few years to be educated as a child. The book covers the first part of his life, through internment, renouncing citizenship, college, service in the military and further education in Japan. He returned and had a long career in academia. It is a well written philosophical account rich in detail about the triumph of human spirit. Bit of a cliffhanger -- is "Nancy" the woman he married? What happened to "Anne"?

A Perfect Ending

Found out about this movie because Stephanie Miller (a lesbian) on her show joked about a scene involving Morgan Fairchild, involving dolls that look like her employees. The scene, along with one where she tells one of her escorts to "shut the fuck up" is amusing. The movie is a tad overwrought, especially some of the music and imagery. But, it has some charm on a serious level (see first link for plot) with some good acting etc. Good DVD extras.

ETA: Special interest flicks, include religious ones here, are a mixed bag. I see the director here was involved in Claire of the Moon. Lol. Well, overwrought fits there. Director also was behind Elena Undone, also a tad overwrought.

Judge Gorsuch

The Honorable Neil M. Gorsuch will be sworn in as the 101st Associate Justice of the Supreme Court on Monday, April 10. Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr., will administer the Constitutional Oath in a private ceremony at 9 a.m. in the Justices' Conference Room at the Supreme Court. Later that morning, Associate Justice Anthony M. Kennedy will administer the Judicial Oath at a public ceremony at the White House.

Yes, it is appropriate the person who got his job in part because of Bush v. Gore and who swore in Trump (Roberts) and Gorsuch's former boss (AMK, who Trump has a back channel to via their kids) are involved.  People like myself will just swear. 

Last year, though given his age and probable general health shouldn't really have been, was a tad shocked to hear that Scalia died  Figured it would be that for the first time in my LIFETIME (early 1970s) that there would be a 5-4 leaning Court my way. Ha ha ha!!! As President Obama noted last year, for democracy's sake, Garland deserved a hearing and vote.  He was a compromise pick that many on the left was wary about, but Republicans repeatedly praised.  Blocking him without a hearing and replacing him with a Heritage Foundation wet dream (it is insulting to claim liberals should think him reasonable, all things considered, given how much support he got from the usual suspects -- are we morons?)  led to "nuclear" option.*

It is b.s. how some are STILL making this about the Democrats not pulling back or even tossing in some "both sides do" it crap.  The tears about how this is the "end of the Senate" (calm down -- looks like it is still there) etc. in part relies of pipe dreams of future actions of "moderate" Republicans. They did nothing to stop us from getting this point, one that was quite predictable.  Did they expect yet again the Democrats to be the "serious" party?  The government party?  The Senate is split 52-48.  It might be a bit less narrowly so after 2018 (still, I'll take that the other way!)  But, senators like McCain whine about how horrible things are and do nearly nothign substantive, when it counts, to stop it!  It's nauseating.

A reasonable (no snark -- these days, every use of quotation marks etc. seems to be) sort just wrote an op-ed decrying the end of the filibuster for justices and predicting things will get more extreme soon enough.  Personally, though the undemocratic (small "d" -- those against cloture here represent a majority of the country and that isn't even the whole Democratic caucus)  nature of the Senate troubles me, the concept of a filibuster is not horrible.  Think on a small scale basis, a group of friends. There is a desire to have a consensus, not just decide things by a majority vote.  If a small number are strongly against, you might be inclined to try to compromise.  But, there needs to be reasonableness here.

In 2013, it was the Democrats who opened the door to the so-called nuclear option by eliminating the filibuster for non-Supreme-Court nominees.

This was used to show that it wasn't all the Republicans' doing yesterday. WHY did the Democrats (glad it isn't just "Harry Reid") do that? Well, the ultimate cause was Republicans blocking three D.C. Circuit judges, a primary "extraordinary circumstance" being that Obama appointed them and it was felt that there were enough judges there anyhow.  Right.  This wasn't the first time the old "extraordinary circumstances" test of the Gang of 14 was applied rather broadly.  A honest accounting NOTES this!

This is not a partisan argument. The Affordable Care Act passed without a single Republican vote, and that single fact probably politicized the statute more than any other. But it wasn’t for want of trying. Indeed, because of the filibuster, the healthcare law was crafted, even if not ultimately passed, with moderate Republicans.

This most honestly suggests that we reached this point by actions that weren't just "both sides do it," but one side playing more hardball. The summary is off since numerous amendments had Republican involvement, more than once notably affecting aspects of the bill.  Anyway, this still is a questionable defense.  Conservative Democrats in both houses played a key role since Republicans en banc did not play ball to vote on the full bill.  There were over ten in the Senate and at least on abortion, enough in the House to require alterations. It is far from clear, e.g., a public option would obtain even a mere majority.  Contra to the op-ed, no filibuster would not mean a "Sanders" health bill.

Plus, again, such a one-sided process makes the filibuster (along with the undemocratic Senate -- Madison, e.g., wanted it split by population) more stringent than it otherwise would be. At some point, it gets too much.  I'm open to some sort of mechanism here where we don't just rely on a mere majority.  Supermajority mechanisms are not only present in the U.S., and as noted, the concept makes sense as a generally matter.  This is so even if "elections has consequences" and other things (like courts) are present for a check.  Garland being blocked like those D.C. judges et. al., however was a bridge too far.  As was the Senate, once the Democrats were down to 59, not being even able to tweak the PPACA bill (a major reason it was not cleaned up, this not noted by potshots over at King v. Burwell). 

Anyway, Neil Gorsuch will be sworn in on Monday.  A Democratic attempt to at least delay the confirmation until late April (Senate is going on a break) might have kept him off the Court until after the final round of oral arguments.  He might now have a role in some of the closely split cases, including those that might be granted for consideration (one, e.g., was held up for multiple conferences).  But, like Trump, I find him on a basic level illegitimate and not worthy of a title. He will for me be forever Judge Gorsuch, a constant open sore to remind me of 2016-17.

I'm pissed off.  The whole thing is also bad on a basic civics level.  The approach some take is that it is bad, but you have to move on. Find this on a basic level normalizes things.  It pains me, let's say, to hear Chris Hayes repeatedly use Trump's title.  It's what you do as a news host.  But, it normalizes him.  That's horrible.  Gorsuch is better than Trump. He's a credible governmental figure that would be a reasonable Scalia replacement in another situation.  His hearings et. al. still would make him distasteful to me (guy really comes off as an asshole).  But, in this situation, the whole thing is tainted.  It's 1/9 of the Supreme Court. 

I, sorry Scalia, will not get over it.  Call me an old man who shakes his fist at the sun (not quite old, but do recall typewriters and cassette tapes), but I will not.  The link in the footnote also provides some good material to understand the Syria business.  See also, Just Security. 

---

* The term is a tad overblown and ultimately is a sort of "constitutional" option where a majority of the Senate under Art. 1 make a rules change. (No matter what technically was done, that is what it amounts to.)  Plus, with the military attacks on Syria yesterday, a sense of scale might be noted.  Overall, the term is a tad exaggerated especially to the degree it was just the recent step in a series. 

Split Sixth Circuit panel uphold injunction blocking Ohio lethal injection protocol

Best in cases like these to admit limitations in re factual allegations, but does just involve deeming a district judge's holding action decision reasonable. Of special note to me is the concurrence that eloquently discusses the "national conversation" regarding the death penalty, including how it affects obtaining drugs. The dissent opens with the facts of the crime. Remember, only the right sticks with the law as compared to empathy and policy.

And Also: The "nuclear option" invoked to end cloture on Gorsuch (ultimately 52-48, strict party lines), an attempt to delay things to after the two week break rejected. If fake moderates cared instead just being Republican tools, they might have accepted at least that. Gorsuch final vote due Friday, in time for end of term. "Justice" Deplorable.

Miss Sloane

The title of this film is notable since it focuses on the person (Jessica Chastain makes the movie), others overshadowed, often just there to be amazed at her (good supporting cast; positive/negative). The ending also has a realistic edge to it, suggesting it isn't just some sort of fantasy (at issue, background checks) of "good guys winning." It has that people talking too much to preach to us quality of let's say West Wing, but overall, liked it more than I thought I might. Guess it a mixture of liking the actress, pace of movie and overall ideas.

Federal appeals court holds workers can’t be fired for being gay

It is hard, especially in these times, to be optimistic, but it helps to look long term. Now, in lopsided votes, appeals courts are starting to see discrimination against gays as "sex" discrimination. Others are using such laws to protect trans, though this is more in its infancy (if going on for a few years). Judge Posner's concurrence on how words gain meaning over time, including statutory terms, is also good stuff. Subtweet to Scalia? How about Gorsuch?!

And Also: Really depressing how once on fence Rick Hasen has the passion of a convert (especially on Twitter, where he keeps on citing his case & minimizing the other side, including as "catharsis") on Gorsuch. Relying on Republicans to be moderate later? Meanwhile, he keeps on tweeting how horrible Gorsuch is. So, let's enable Republicans based on hopes and dreams of the future full with maybes! Moved from "respectfully disagree" to "oh shut up!"

Kirsten Gillbrand

“Which is that we’re here to help people, and if we’re not helping people, we should go the fuck home.” Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand

She's passionate, for the right things and a crafty politician. She even has religion! Meanwhile, white child defends buying a black doll.

Play Ball!

As college basketball finishes, MLB baseball season begins tomorrow. The Mets team this year is basically the same as last except along the margins. Wheeler is due to start (Lugo/Matz on DL along with Lagares; please retire David!) and Big Sexy is no longer with us. NY Daily News (boo regarding their MLB preview not having a full team breakdown like past years) generally predict playoffs (split on route) but only one says World Series. Famalia out for 15 days.

ETA: It's a bit hard to believe it's April already. Seems to be months of holding action. Gorsuch on edge of confirmation really bothersome in part since will be perhaps first major thing that happened nationally since 1/20 that really sticks. Pissed off about it generally.