Odds and Ends

Television: I noted recently checking out China Beach, since the actress there was in All Rise, which just finished its run. I watched some of China Beach when it was first on, but don't recall how much. I also recall liking it more than trying to watch some of the episodes from the first two seasons suggests. I will try to watch a key episode where a once naive young "Donut Dolly" dies on Memorial Day, a fitting day to do so one would think. As usual, my immediate concern for that holiday is peace. 

[I did see the episode where "Cherry" died and the one after. They were good episodes.  I did like the pilot movie (though only saw the first half or so) and first episode.  But, yeah, others weren't as good.  Guess there was a mixture.  One I recall is McMurphy going for therapy after the war because of post-traumatic stress. The actress played a medical examiner years later.]

The Friends reunion special was finally released with various interviews and so forth provided on other outlets as well.  For instance, there was a nice video on YouTube involving children of the main actors in real life (Matthew Perry and Jennifer Aniston did not have any).  The actors are in their 50s now, so it's understandable (Perry also had health issues), but they seem a bit older than they should be.  They all changed some (less so Ross and Joey) over the series.  Chandler's health issues clearly showed on his weight fluctuations.  Monica at the beach and early in the Chandler/Monica relationship to me was too skinny.  

[The NYT article was light in nature and toss out a flippant comment about no one knowing Chandler's job, but true fans will know it was mentioned a few times. When he quit, Monica actually said the actual title when she reassured him that it was okay to move on.  Basically, he was in data analysis. ]

I did not see it yet since you need HBO Max, though there are free trials.  I might try that eventually, but the various odds and ends out there available without that gives you a taste without going thru all that.  There is this video that is narrated by "Emma," though she apparently is not aware that Ben is not her step-brother, but her half-brother (Ross being their dad).  

==

Baseball: No major changes in this department, including rain outs. The Mets faced the Braves, who are staggering around like other NL East teams, this weekend.  The Mets in 2015 stuck around, eventually needing to come back to first place during a key series versus the Nationals, but there was more excitement there since it wasn't like one team alone seemed to have much life.  It's a bit depressing. 

The one game that were played this weekend was such a blowout that even Maybin finally got a hit (after having a new record for new Mets without a hit -- 0 for 27), an infield dribbler that refused to go foul.  After missing at least twice on great plays, he will take it.  The other two times were rained out.  And, the one game was a FOX game, though old Mets hand Kevin B. was one of the announcers.  Plus, some players are coming back on Monday versus the Diamondbacks, one of the road kill teams out there.  

[Guys are coming back already on Monday, including Pillar, so Maybin was DFA'ed.  He did his job; got his hit.  Good luck.]

===

Voting: President Biden released this statement regarding the latest anti-republican Republican voting rights bills:

Today, Texas legislators put forth a bill that joins Georgia and Florida in advancing a state law that attacks the sacred right to vote. It’s part of an assault on democracy that we’ve seen far too often this year—and often disproportionately targeting Black and Brown Americans.

It’s wrong and un-American. In the 21st century, we should be making it easier, not harder, for every eligible voter to vote.

I call again on Congress to pass the For the People Act and the John Lewis Voting Rights Advancement Act. And I continue to call on all Americans, of every party and persuasion, to stand up for our democracy and protect the right to vote and the integrity of our elections.

Nice sentiment, but the current line for either one passing is "good luck with that."  People have been rightly bothered (if with various degrees of sanity) with the Garland Justice Department trying to split the difference regarding a lawsuit involving the Barr Legal Memo on prosecuting Trump.  Just as normal institutional behavior is nice on some level, but the stakes are too high just to rely on that.   How to move forward? Heck if I know.

[Added comments later in brackets.]

1/6 Commission Filibustered but hey Breyer is optimistic!

This is relevent to something below (I'm not the only one who flagged it), so I'll lead off with saying the 1/6 Commission was filibustered 54-35. To be clear, this is the debate for it, which is supposed to be the basic point of having a filibuster. To allow the minority their freedom of speech. Senator Warner, an old Senate institution just died, but this brings to mind Senator Byrd. Byrd was a big believe of the right of a senator to talk.

The vote was predictable -- it basically matched the votes to convict with Toomey and Burr not voting, but Toomey's camp saying if it mattered, he would have voted for debate. Burr opposed it, arguing congressional investigation is enough. The only change was that Sen. Portman, the "moderate" that is retiring but did not vote to convict, supported the commission.

Sen. Murkowski was noticeably upset with the Republicans being worried about election success. This is nice as was her solitary vote to confirm Vanita Gupta (Collins was the sole Republican vote for Kristen Clarke; such a travesty, especially on the anniversary of George Floyd's death), but only so much. You need some sanity in the Senate, though again, at this point, I give her limited respect for still mostly aiding and abetting the Trump Republican Party.  

Murray and Sinema, Democrats, were of the eleven who didn't vote. It's Friday before a break and senators want to get home.  The vote happened this morning, a China related bill holding up things late last night with a few usual suspects among Republicans wanting to talk particularly. This would include Ron Johnson and Skeletor (insurrection friendly) from Florida.  Anyway, this vote should be seen -- like the votes to block the electoral votes on 1/6 -- as special acts of perfidy.  

====

The vote also provides the basic path of the Republican Party at this point, even among the Republican senators, who on 1/6 warranted some respect for not joining with their House members (less than 10 senators voted that way as compared to 2/3 on Pennsylvania).  The fact Republicans are not TOTALLY there yet, even when the vote would be only a message (the worry now is what happens when they control state legislatures and there is even a halfway credible reason to block Democratic wins), only takes one so far here.  

The institution has some credibility, but at this point especially with Republican leadership in both houses, the party deserves little.  I simply don't know how bad it is, not quite in the four alarm fire mode of some people.  Still, I concur that the concern is not partisanship as if "both sides" are the problem.  At this point, that is basically crap.  I'm not a bs artist so frame it that way to underline that Democrats are a party; they have some partisanship.  But, males being dubious creatures still don't make them all rapists.  And, only one party is the Trump Party.

Breyer is worried that the appearance of a political court will erode public confidence and faith in democracy. For him, the main problem facing American liberal democracy is partisanship. But he’s wrong. The main problem facing American liberal democracy is fascism. And insisting that the fascists and opponents of democracy are good-faith partners in bipartisan defense of democratic institutions is the quickest path to destroying those institutions for good.

I basically agree with this criticism of Justice Breyer, who as the 1/6 vote was going on was taking part in some video event.  One thing he offered is that if you spend time talking with Republicans, you will eventually get common ground.  That's nice.  The lowest common denominator won't get us very far at the moment.   I like Breyer in various ways.  But, this sort of Panglossian business at this moment after all the water that flowed under the bridge is hard to take.  I still hope the guy realizes it is time to retire. Even given his concerns, trying to do so in the middle of a midterm election season would be hard.  So, what?  He will wait to 2023?  

===

I updated my Supreme Court summary to briefly note some developments. It is unclear what the death penalty in Indian Country stay will mean, so it's okay to not add to that for now.  One thing there, however, is that three justices dissented on the record.  The accepted rule there is that you can't assume votes.  Hey, maybe Thomas dissented silently!  

But, Supreme Court reporter Kimberly Robinson -- in response to a tweet of mine -- said she was not playing that game.  If they don't say otherwise, she will assume silence means consent. I think that is the correct approach.  I also think back-loading all these major opinions into June is bad policy too. They had two opinion days this week, all to release three minor opinions.  Hey, sure, they are important to some degree for the litigants. The costs ruling is not totally trivial for litigants.  

And, the SCOTUSBlog summary praises it for its clarity in providing a national rule, which is basically a core job for SCOTUS.  Doing so without drama might even be something justices want to highlight, suggesting some value in a stand alone opinion while court watchers were hoping/expecting a big ticket case.  But, they still are minor rulings, and with over twenty left, we will how have like six a week in June with a bunch of major opinions in the bunch.  Another way to show that they are doing their job in an organized no drama way is not to have a so many opinions at once, particularly a bunch heavy with hot button stuff. 

And, yes, there will be an Opinion Day on June 1st.  

Mets Update

El Mago magic!

Have you ever seen anything like this?! pic.twitter.com/aHQs6eAxCG

— MLB (@MLB) May 27, 2021

Sometimes, life gives you quirky stuff, making things interesting. These things repeatedly are easily prevented -- suggests why they don't happen that often.  And, this play is something, requiring multiple goofs.  

All the guy had to do was to touch 1B (the 1B caught the ball near the bag) and the inning would be over. In fact, even after the run scored, tagging first would have negated the run that scored (sometimes, getting the out first matters in that situation but not here).  But, the 1B was not the only goofball here. The catcher should have yelled to throw the ball to first.  No need to rush it.  Again, even after the run "scored," an out at first would have done the trick.  The misthrow by the catcher was not as asinine as that run down, but it helped.  The Pirates are not a good team, but this really put them out there.  At least, they didn't lose by one run. 

---

The Mets have continued their gutsy play (shades of 2015) while various people are hurt, keeping in first place with a mixture of pitching (including "B" level relievers) and defense. When Dominic Smith is not playing, their outfield is a bunch of rookies and cast-offs (one is like 0 for 26 though sure he was unlikely a couple times). They even had McCann, who last played the position in college or something, play first a few times. 

They are helped by the division being bad -- it is not like the Mets beat up on them either; they didn't play each other that much. Like beating the lowly Rockies (especially bad on the road), you take what is given to you. Gary Cohen referenced the clown show that started this entry during the doubleheader.  Something like that is easy to avoid, but there are various other basic things you can do to win.  They separate winners from losers. 

Getting help from role players and replacements is important as well.  The Rockies are not a good team, but even bad teams should win more on the road than they have been.  And, Lindor's struggles to get a hit are made particularly painfully clear while multiple back-ups get key hits.  The first game was won 1-0 via a homer from a back-up.  Even Joey L., the spot starter who was struggling to give anything has had two good (if short) outings. Sure, versus the Marlins and Rockies (on the road), but you pitch against who is out there.  It's a cliche, but still true.

---

“My family and I fully support MLB’s strong stance against harassment and discrimination and are grateful to the Commissioner and his office for their thorough investigation,” Callaway said in the statement. “I apologize to the women who shared with investigators any interaction that made them feel uncomfortable. To be clear, I never intended to make anyone feel this way and didn’t understand that these interactions might do that or violate MLB policies. However, those are my own blind spots, and I take responsibility for the consequences.”

Mickey Callaway is a former Mets manager (there is an amusing Twitter account, "Clueless" Mickey)  and became part of a continuing list of people found to be victimizers.  MLB is trying in their imperfect way to address, including its domestic violence policy.  Society aims to be better, rough as it might be in practice.  And, limited as this statement is, it is helpful.  

Often people like him are no mindless assholes, though the "never intend" comment here should be taken with a grain of salt. These people often are not "clueless" about doing something they know is wrong. They don't care and don't expect others to care enough to be a problem. Still, people do have blind spots. The taking responsibility is the most important thing here.  Not that he has much of a choice, but the sentiment is right.  I would leave out the previous part -- the women are not likely to quite believe him and it should be implied unless said otherwise. 

All Rise: Series Finale

Time to find a new series. In part because of internal problems, All Rise was not renewed for a third season. So, yesterday, with help by some of the cast tweeting, was the last episode. The title of the episode was "Yeet." Okay. (Looking) Okay.

The episode had to rush some to sew things up (we found out where various people were going and the answer to at least one mystery), but it was overall enjoyable. I think a defense attorney dropping a video anonymously to the police that showed their client is guilty is probably unethical. You sometimes know that your client is factually guilty; the other side has to prove it with the evidence they have available. Also, we never received an update of the judge's plans to propose to her girlfriend. Unless I missed a ring on her finger at the end.

The show was rough at times, but was a superior effort to promote diversity and serious progressive values while believing in the ability to get justice (up to a point) in the system. Plus, it had a very good cast. And, in a recent episode, even a prosecutor that didn't seem very likeable came off as someone we can get behind, helping Luke. Good luck.

SCOTUS Watch

There are many cases to hand down, but SCOTUS in their wisdom only provided us two (both unanimous and under ten pages) lesser ones. [More Thursday; not much - one boring case.]

One was another statutory case involving deportation matters, the United States winning. The other (to cite one summary) "Guam may pursue its Superfund cost recovery claim against the federal government for a $160 million landfill cleanup." That is good news for Guam, but it was a limited win. The Order List was mostly bland.

Death Penalty Orders: Sotomayor (joined by the liberals) dissented to a denial involving an ongoing death penalty case where a person who alleges lethal injection would be particularly risky tried to offer the firing squad as an alternative. A blog recently noted his concern the death penalty crowds out other concerns. You can see my reply. [Update: On Wednesday, with the liberals dissenting and no explanation overall, this ruling was stayed.]

Priceless: On Knowing the Price of Everything and the Value of Nothing

Lisa Heinzerling wrote a somewhat viral review of a Supreme Court book, noting in part her role in a key environmental case. I checked to see if she had some other stuff available. She worked a case book on Food Law, which appears fun. Further back (2004), she co-wrote the title book, which is a relatively painless economic analysis from a progressive point of view. I say this since money (in more ways than one) simply isn't my thing.

The book had a few basic themes. The core theme is that things like the well being of human beings simply cannot be really translated into monetary terms. In that sense, it is "priceless." The attempts tend to be bad and anti-regulatory biased. The book ends up promoting a precautionary principle as well as supporting non-cost/benefit rules for this type of thing.

So, like the military promotes certain ends, the Clean Air Act protected something; it didn't ask agencies to make cost/benefit weighing. The book doesn't really clarify the choices to be made here, perhaps implicitly noting it is up to us. It does emphasize fairness, including noting how cost/benefit weighing of human life tends to discriminate against various people.

Waterloo Bridge (1931)

This movie was on TCM last night and is one of multiple prime roles for Mae Clarke at the time (she, e.g., played a key role in the original Front Page, later remade as His Girl Friday). Bette Davis had a small role. The director also did Frankenstein. One interesting bit is that this is a WWI drama (the remakes jumped to WWII) because many (well me surely) might be surprised at serious aerial bombardment of Britain during that war.

The bridge is a pick-up spot for prostitutes. The naive solidier who met our heroine there during an air raid (again a thing in WWI) was not aware. The two fall in love, but she doesn't want to marry him because she doesn't think she's good enough for him. She finally agrees at the very end, before she is blown up. Seriously. The remake has her commit suicide. Third time was the charm, that one made after WWII (not 1940).

Sometimes, very early films like these are a bit stiff, and it started in a way that suggested that might be true. But, it soon became much more smooth, though the guy does come off as a tad too naive. Still, it is a touching melodrama with "pre-Code" touches (though reading the summary, the remake has her become a prostitute too). Anyway, in 1915 or whatever, would a soldier blithely go to a woman's apartment he just met, except if she was a prostitute?!

BETHEL SCHOOL DIST. NO. 403 v. FRASER

One of these days, the Supreme Court will decide the Case of the Cursing Cheerleader, who expressed her dislike about being passed over by cursing a lot on Snapchat. The last school speech case involved a student holding a "Bong Hits For Jesus" sign at an Olympics event. Then, there was a case that dealt with discretion to edit a school newspaper. (Special situation.) Before that was a case involving a giving this speech at a school assembly:

I know a man who is firm -- he's firm in his pants, he's firm in his shirt, his character is firm -- but most . . . of all, his belief in you, the students of Bethel, is firm.

Jeff Kuhlman is a man who takes his point and pounds it in. If necessary, he'll take an issue and nail it to the wall. He doesn't attack things in spurts -- he drives hard, pushing and pushing until finally -- he succeeds.

Jeff is a man who will go to the very end -- even the climax, for each and every one of you.

So vote for Jeff for A. S. B. vice-president -- he'll never come between you and the best our high school can be.

After taking the Tinker case involving wearing armbands to protest the Vietnam War, the Supreme Court's choices for school cases in this context have left a bit to be desired. It might be said that they took fairly asinine cases, except for the school newspaper case, one involving deletion of various stories with personal details of a sensitive nature. One wonders how they got that far.

The cases, to be clear, involve general concerns above and beyond the asinine nature of the speech involved.  For instance, Bethel concerned the power of public schools to regulate non-viewpoint based speech to uphold a proper manner of speaking for students.  The cheerleader case will provide some clarity about speech "off" the campus, to the extent that includes the Internet (which can be viewed on campus).  And, the other case dealt with promotion of illegal drug use and some clarity on what a "school event" entails. 

A middle school student can wear an armband; making sure they don't make sexual innuendo during school election campaigns is a fair cop.  The opinion as a whole basically said that a school can do that even without it needing to be the level of disruption that was the test in Tinker.  Justice Marshall briefly dissented to note there was no disruption, but would use of expletives do that?  Would that be allowed too?  Suggests the limits of the rule.

Stevens had a longer dissent and a major theme for him was the due process concern that the student did not really have fair notice that the speech would violate school policy.  On that, the fact two lower courts went the other way helped convince him to go the other way, speech being involved warranting care.  The majority (Brennan concurred to be a bit more careful; he included text of the speech) thought it rather obvious.  

The lawyer for the student during oral argument had a bit of a rough time, including not sounding very comfortable at times arguing the case.  He only has one case listed on Oyez.com.  (As an aside, he was suspended for a year about fifteen years later. And, he had issues later on too, see here, where it appears his expertise was patent law?)  It is one of those times where that website's recently added "wisdom of the stairs" feature of adding new answers to certain questions raised at argument comes to mind. 

A basic sentiment taken from the oral argument and opinion (but it wasn't just Burger) that the speech was sophomoric, not to be taken seriously.  An important thing to underline here is the basic principle at stake.  You could not basically leave the sentiment that what was at issue here was a stupid kid's asinine speech.  You have to firmly (pun intentional) push back on this. The student was chosen for his ability to address the sentiments of his fellow classmates. High school students, even if the majority wants to talk about some being fourteen year old. High school students that are taught various things with sexual connotations.  

(A telling point.  What is the breadth of the school's power here? What if a comparable speech was used in a personal essay during composition class or something?  A teacher telling the student that it was improper, write something else, would be a lot different than suspending the student, perhaps for reading it to the class.) 

The speech was not just given; it was shown to three teachers.  Their reaction was mixed; the implication that it was a clear statement that he violated the rules is suspect, especially given what is at stake.  It was a political speech, a core concern of the First Amendment.  At least one justice was dubious that it was political.  But, what else is it?  

It was a campaign speech.  Is it the content?  Campaign speeches repeatedly are personality based, not about "the issues" or something.  Is it the off color humor?  Such speeches traditionally -- see Abraham Lincoln (hey, when it was Hustler's ad about Falwell's mom having incest with him historical greats of political humor were cited)  -- had that too.  Like people in the past and present, speech makers are chosen for knowing their audience. Stevens is right to underline the contemporary community standards issue.

If the content is asinine, what about suspending him for three days (!) for giving it?!  This brings to mind an answer that the advocate had trouble giving a clear answer to, to the annoyance (sorta justified) of the justice who asked.  What if the school said this exact speech was not allowed? Well, basically, he said the Court did not decide if that speech was protected.  So, he was loathe to grant that it would be okay for the school to disallow it.  The question tried to avoid the back-up issue, treated rather summarily by the Court, that it wasn't clear the rules were violated.

One thing -- and that's brought out here too -- that comes up in these cases is the concern about "making a federal case of it."  I would be sympathetic. Schools are trying their best here and this was not some blatantly arbitrary move on their part.  But (sad tone), there is a problem. This isn't the case of a student knowing from past experience that this sort of thing was not allowed. At least, that doesn't come out in the opinions.  It isn't the exact speech.  If some other sexually suggestive speech or something was not allowed, it would be fair warning.  

But, that didn't happen here. 

The principle doesn't go away because many might deem his speech as asinine. We are talking about high school students.  They will at times have asinine, sophomoric speeches.  There are ways to address that, including talking to him afterwards, and making clear that in the future this sort of thing would not be allowed.  The question tried to avoid the due process concern, but also emphasizes free speech concerns.  We try there to avoid overbreadth.  To avoid days of suspension, the student will be extra careful, even in borderline cases.  Note again two levels of courts and multiple justices disagreed that the speech was clearly over the line.  

It was noted that education is about teaching values.  Again, the oral argument should firmly agree with that, and use it for one's own purposes. This was suggested -- the appropriate path was by persuasion.  But, I think the person could have done so more firmly.  The teachers' persuasion did not do it, but in some other case a student would follow teacher role modeling.  And, again, after the fact the school can use this as an example of what was deemed improper political rhetoric. 

The justices might wonder why this stupid speech is even in the courts, but it is, and they had an obligation to take the basic issues seriously. Because that is the reason a case is taken -- not merely for the specific case, but to decide wider questions of law.  Mere error correction is generally not the job of the Supreme Court, especially when taking a case for full review with specific constitutional questions with broad scope.  

At least, that is how I would have focused the argument if given the chance. As to the actual decision, I'm sympathetic with both Brennan (concurring) and Stevens (dissenting), thinking Marshall (dissenting) is a bit too limited. The majority had a point too, but was a bit too dismissive of the other side, especially the due process concern.  Note that Blackmun only concurs in result without an opinion.  

A previous case said a ten day suspension was not trivial.  A couple days (the third day dropped) is to me not quite trivial either.  Again, if the case actually came to me, I am inclined to hold that the school could bar such a speech in an official assembly, but free speech and due process was violated by the way they did it.  The case very well might be close. Close enough that damages would not be warranted except maybe in some minimal way. And, the opinion can again make the point that the school is allowed to regulate this sort of thing differently than armbands. 

Let's see what the current, tainted, Court hands down tomorrow.

Mets vs. Marlins ... same old, same old

The Mets have a ton of injuries, but are helped by the NL East overall staggering around. The Mets do have six or so (one suspended in the first inning) games to make up. The state of the team is suggested by a sort of AAA outfield, including a worn out vet they picked up from some team who disposed of him for a $1 (seriously). First place though.

The Mets are also benefiting from a great bullpen, even with Lugo injured, and injuries to starters pushing them. They also was helped by the Marlins, who really should have won on Friday (lost in twelve; even after their guy gave up three runs -- all hit by the AAA crew -- they got two back ... a bit late to finally score), who couldn't buy a clutch hit much of the weekend. True they managed a winning homer in the 9th Saturday, after Joey L. finally had a very good outing (though taken out after four).

The Marlins finally had a big inning (one) today. But, it took some help and luck. It is a bit unfair to speak about the spot starter "melting down." He did load the bases. He gutted out a key out. Then, the pitcher hit a dribbler that only a great play would have stopped from being a hit. That turned the inning, which easily could have been mostly an escape job. And, Lindor (still struggling) didn't help, botching a double play. The Marlins only scored that inning. The starter not only led the next inning with a hit but tossed two more innings.

King Kong Escapes

Our Svengoolie film this week is sort of as silly (if more expensive) as the monster tree movie a few weeks back. Dig that hovercraft. The sole goofy villager on the island. The Marlo Thomas sounding American nurse in what looks like a band uniform that Kong somehow understands (and likes since you know, he's a guy, she's not). The comically over the top villains, including Dr. Hu (or Who?). etc.

The plot is some silly mix, involving a research submarine that conveniently needs to get repairs just near King Kong's island and other happenings. This includes characters and Kong himself traveling long distances for plot reasons and what comes off as a tacked on final battle in Tokyo. As was the case for an earlier monster film, I got bored at some point with the action focused stuff later on, though liked early plot developments in part for the camp value. I think it could have been shorter, it getting too plot heavy later.

Jan. 6 Commission

And Also:  I appreciate that Secular Coalition of America had a productive meeting with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership.  Any effort by the White House to involve religious groups should take into consideration everyone, including those whose "religious" like beliefs are of a non-theistic nature.  On this, they should be Unitarian. 

Judge Posner was dismissive on the results of the 9/11 Commission, which I on this blog found unconvincing. Moving past how that was nearly 17 years ago [the timing might be compared to the criticism that the December 2021 deadline here is too soon], my opening paragraph is relevent here given the comparison to the proposed 1/6 Commission:

I was impressed by the 9/11 Commission Report, though realizing that there were various limitations, and that the reforms suggested might be problematic in various aspects. All the same, it was well written, provided good background material, had striking "you are there" reporting of the day itself, and provided some important thoughts on how a successful policy might be carried forth.

The Lawfare analysis linked above, which I will referenced at times, cites possible benefits that overlaps with why I found the 9/11 Commission attractive:

The success of the 9/11 Commission—which both issued a compelling narrative history of the events leading up to Sept. 11 and issued a set of bold policy recommendations for Congress and the administration in response—shows that the structure the bipartisan bill embraces is at least consistent with effective investigative work product.

There is an argument being made that current congressional investigations would be satisfactory. Those sympathetic to the goals of the commission, as compared to those fearing it will hurt their political chances, are complicit in some fashion and/or supportive of the insurrectionists, have questioned it as well. A major concern is the Republicans will in effect be "fifth columnists" here. But, such people also think some sort of select committee or perhaps special investigation in the Justice Department would anyway advance the goals just as well.

This is why such an inquiry needs to be removed from the hyper-polarized environment that is Congress and instead be established as a well-resourced independent commission with a clear and specific mandate focused squarely on Jan. 6 and overseen by commissioners who aren’t focused on their next reelection campaign.

There to me appears to be various arguments in support of a commission outside of Congress, which has more independence than a normal select committee. The legislation provides a method for those experienced in various things relevant to the investigation in a way not as likely in Congress. Concerns about the possibility of bipartisan commissions, especially given how one side is more self-interested than in the 9/11 context, are quite valid. It looked like even the Minority Leader would see some common ground. After all, during the impeachment, Trump's lawyer said such a commission was the right way to go. It might not seem like it, but thirty-five House Republicans in this environment voting for the measure is also significant.

And, contra let's say a comment made by Charlie Pierce on Twitter, there does seem to be public support and value to some united effort. We might think it stupid, but continual pushing for that on policy underlines that the median voter very well trusts something more when it does not seem one-sided. And, here, it also is important, noting that there will be some passionate minority that won't trust anything of that sort. 

The Lawfare piece as noted is concerned about the end date, which might be a legitimate concern -- I'm not sure about needing to release it after the 2022 elections, though there is a message of neutrality advanced there.  It also suggests a mechanism to break possible ties (ties as well lack of quorums have made regulating federal elections, the FEC split by party picks, a continual problem), which might also be useful. As noted there, what will be key is who is picked.  The 9/11 Commission Republican chair was Tom "former Drew University head" Kean, an establishment Republican type.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was also on the Commission. Query if Souter or Kennedy would be ideal here. 

As noted above, the bill to form the Commission passed the House with thirty-five Republican votes.  That is still rather bad, especially after real effort (not that they want to admit it) was made to find middle ground.  By the way, it is not clear to me why articles on the passage cannot simply clearly provide a damn link to the bill -- I repeatedly have to search for thing (the same thing popped up during the impeachments).  The current chances in the Senate are a bit dim, which means ten Republican senators do not want to join in.  Graveyard Mitch grave yard-ed it.  

This is one somewhat cynical partisan argument for pushing this thing.  There is (again contra to Charlie Pierce) apparent strong public support for this sort of thing.  As with other things, the weight of such support is not necessarily so compelling that another path won't work out in the end.  Still, there is partisan value in tarring the Republicans here (other than it being patently legitimate on the merits).  And, then Democrats can have a select committee or whatever, saying "we tried, man." 

I'm open to all arguments here, but do think there is some good arguments on the merits.  A separate commission independent of Congress provides a means to examine the situation over a span of time, focused on one thing, in a more organized and expert fashion.  A report, with narrative and proposed reforms, can also be useful as in the previous situation.  It also provides a chance to show that government works, which even can give Republicans a chance to show some good faith.  On this subject, the party surely needs that.  With around 1/6 (how apt) of them voting for it, this is sort of a free riding exercise on their part, but so be it.  

The complaints of Republicans that this is redundant given their past actions (BENGHAZI!) are as believable as senators at this point saying they didn't read a nineteen page bill that has big margins so can't comment on it.  And, also wrong on the merits -- the bill even instructs the commission to try not be too redundant with what was already done. The insurrection occurred in January and the prosecution process is still ongoing, with we still getting news of arrests.  New knowledge and judgments are quite possible, especially with different types of people involved.  As with the Supreme Court commission, time will be helpful.

So, in conclusion, I recognize the concerns and find them reasonable ones. Nonetheless, especially before we see who is chosen to be on the Commission (including as minority co-leader), I am guardedly optimistic about the enterprise. And, even if I was less so, the effort is probably in the Democrats' self-interest. I generally trust Pelosi and Schumer's basic political judgment in that regard as well.  Finally, the impeachment trial here was a useful prologue, including McConnell saying Trump is clearly not not guilty.  His intransigence now is unsurprising but his words then are still on the record.  

Can we have a 14A, sec. 3 enforcement bill too?

Books

I added Tangled Up In Blue: Policing the American City to the side panel. It was a quick read, largely narrative of a law professor/public servant (such as in foreign policy roles) Rosa Brooks (whose mom is an old time lefty) becoming a reserve police officer in D.C. I like the idea of getting a more diverse group to be member of the modern day "militia," and even better if more members of the community served that role. The book is also referenced here. Compare another liberal blog with ten part series about there not being any good cops.

The book is divided between a section on the author thinking about it, training and then about half talking about her time as a new recruit. She ends with a more academic flourish, discussing her academic contribution involving giving the police a way to examine their role and other issues. The book provides some commentary on policing but is largely a narrative of her personal experience. The police comes off as mostly benign (if not always the system) with some questionable actors. You won't find any blatant abuse, except during training.

Meanwhile, had various false starts. A Kiss For Midwinter was something of a mix -- I skimmed the novella and it had some interest. The particular interest was to give the heroine (based on Lydia from Pride and Prejudice, at least her experience as a teen; Lydia in the book seems more flightly and the parents are different here) sexual agency. I was intrigued after reading this article by the author while she was a law student.

Professor's Use of Pronouns

There are less than seventy Supreme Court opinions due this term involving cases that received full briefing and treatment. This is not all they do, to be clear, and order lists repeatedly involve treatment of other cases (such as sending back cases like the ones they decided). There is also the whole "shadow docket" issue where the Supreme Court decide at times significant cases. But, even with all that, we are talking about a small number of cases.

There are thousands of cases in the lower federal courts and state courts every year. Some get significant attention given some interesting facts or significant happenings. For instance, a few years ago, the Kansas Supreme Court signficiantly protected abortion rights, using the state constitution to use a stronger test than the "Casey" standard. We will deal with one such case here -- one involving a professor pushing back from using the desired pronouns and related forms of address ("Mr.") in a college classroom.

The case has received some attention in places like Slate, but my immediate reaction here arose from a blog discussion and comments. The case has various complications that often arise in these cases, complications that cloud the issues that get the most attention.

So, for instance, this case raises allegations of religious discrimination. The court of appeals panel (a trio of conservatives) frames the facts to suggest evidence of heavy-handed religious discrimination. It is a bit unclear to me in fact how (as they noted) the professor had no problems practicing his religion for years until this specific issue came up if the college actors here were so crude. The district ruling went the other way, and yeah, the players come off a tad bit differently.

The panel decision also frames the student as a rather crude character while the professor comes off as a victim who reasonably is trying just to practice his religion and express his views. It is a hard to really determine how much spin is involved here. For instance, a comment argued the core issue was his right to state his dissenting views on the syllabus, which the school rejects.

But, a read of the decision doesn't really tell me what exactly he wanted to say and fully why the college rejected this. Anyway, as I note there, if that was the only issue, it would be a narrow opinion. It wasn't and I understand not in effect treating a syllabus as just a public forum of sorts. OTOH, a simple disclaimer on his part might be possibly crafted.

My basic position is that a respectful rule to allow students and professors (staff) to choose what to call them is an acceptable one in this public context. It is basically a legitimate time, place and manner rule. A couple quotes from CLS v. Martinez, allowing an "all comers" rule for official school organization fits.

They do so by participating in a community that teaches them how to create arguments in a convincing, rational, and respectful manner and to express doubt and disagreement in a professional way.

The basic theme of the blog piece is that usage of "Ms" or someone's maiden name as compared to their husband's name is a matter of respect. And, again, that is what immediate comes to mind for me too on a basic level.  The quote, as many quotes turn out to be, does offer the other side something as well. The professor wants to "express doubt and disagreement."  The syllabus disclaimer is a possibility though there are other ways he can as well.  That might be a fine line, since the syllabus is in effect a limited public forum, to perhaps use the term close to accurately.  OTOH, a basic rule of respect includes agreement on certain respectful usage of names and titles in professional settings.  Rules of order in this respect do no violate the First Amendment.

A reply speaks of the professor "forced" and his "sin," which to me is rather heavy-handed language (the first reply came off to me as annoyingly fatuous and the second -- after the professor calmly basically noted there are close calls, but somehow we manage without the hypos cited ever coming up -- just annoyed me more)  for basic social graces that we managed to do daily without being required to call people silly names.  How is unclear going by "rational outlook" person. 

Academic administrators routinely employ antidiscrimination rules to promote tolerance, understanding, and respect, and to safeguard students from invidious forms of discrimination, including sexual orientation discrimination.

But, and this touches upon a reply that bothered me [spent time to provide a reply but deleted it; then the second reply just led me to have a morning rant aloud], the immediate case does raise discrimination concerns. I touch upon this on my comment. If we want to treat this as a "value," it is a constitutional value, one that is factored in when regulating speech.  Discrimination law does in some fashion involving changing social understandings.  This has speech implications -- it is not a violation of the First Amendment to have a civil rights law that deems usage of "boy" as discriminatory, even if a person honestly is expressing a dissenting view on the matter of racial relations. 

This isn't just something that pops up in this country. Somehow, Canada, e.g., in 2021 as compared to 1921 has more concern for sex and racial matters.  Again heavy-handed language ("dominant societal position") can be used here, but that sort of thing is factored in when regulating how to address people in public accommodations. If the person merely said that respect was not the only rule used, okay, but the idea line drawing here is just arbitrary value choices between "sinners" and saints is another matter.  The "at least in the U.S." comment is just one of many badly reasoned heavy handed comments that triggers annoyance.

"Leaf Blower" or something is not the same as gender pronoun usage or wanting to be called by your maiden name. This is part of why the first reply annoyed me -- yes, an "anything goes" rule isn't in place. There are various complexities. You cannot just require a professor call you "Mr. Asshole." And, race and sex discrimination concerns factor in here among other things.

The blog post might largely focus on respect, but the gender based examples are still notable. Sex discrimination is specifically a thing. Gender is a fluid thing which cannot be easily handled by some visual test and there is objective reasons here to provide a personal choice.  The basic rule of letting the person have a personal choice is a basic reasonable default, but there are going to be concerns around the edges.  And, being called "Leaf Blower," e.g., isn't going to raise federal sex discrimination policy questions or something here.  

I don't see why this is not a "great" or rather reasonable "idea." The allegedly absurd (not that one is safely advised to say that, since this is a game of gotcha) examples are also both not quite the same or even relevant.  The issue at hand is what choice specific of gender titles are appropriate. Wanting to be called "POTUS" or "professor" (if one is the student) is not the same thing.  Not only is the gender equality questions not arising, it is not a choice among some set. It is wanting to be given some other title.  And, yes, the objective reality of trans students as compared to someone thinking they are POTUS is not the same thing either.  It is simply not merely a "value choice" to see this difference.

People also have silly (to some) or maybe even somewhat offensive (let's say Jesus, which some might think blasphemous) names.  The latter shows their might be close calls (the "offense" here is different than "Mr. Asshole").  Some names actually translate to something as mundane as "Leaf Blower."  If that is a person's name, the name on their transcript especially, you call the person that.  That's a neutral rule.  Ms. Jackson over Mr. Jackson is not the same thing as Jackson wanting to be called Hillary Clinton. 

As Prof. Colb noted, she never had someone ask her to call her that.  It is more likely to be some sort of troll challenge of the rule, a rule that as applied here is not just a matter of respect, but a result of discrimination concerns.  And, if someone actually, seriously, wants to be called that, I bet it can be handled.  Still, there ARE reasonable lines to be drawn here. It is not all subjective values all the way down.

The cat example to me is just asinine.  I'll play the game -- let's say someone comes from a clan associated with an animal.  A "cat" clan and they feel they have the spirit of a cat inside of them.  Blah blah.  So fucking what? Really.  You call cats by their names.  They might not care, but they have names and personal pronouns and titles.  So, Mr. Whiskas or whatever.  So, what does the reference even get you at all?  There is even a name matching a cat -- Cat or Catherine.  It is not like there is a box on the transcript that says "human" or some cat related means of address.  You call cats by their names.  That is a "rational outlook."

So, I think as a general rule that you are not likely to have any problems by calling someone by their preferred name and pronouns, at least if some neutral standard rule is followed.  So, you know, they don't get to have one each day and if the professor goes by what is on the official records, it is a basic safe harbor. A professor might ask "Oh. So, you want to be called Sponge Bob Squarepants. Is that what you want on your formal recommendation letter?"  Because the average woman who uses her maiden name or a trans student very well is likely to consistently do so.

Still, sorry, "societal attitudes," attitudes that arise from objective things like the science of gender and constitutional discrimination rules, will somehow factor in -- at least along the edges.  The same arises in the Fourth Amendment. What is "reasonable."  Likewise, what is "cruel and usual." And so forth.  Yes, some close rational analysis is warranted since common sense is not always sense and all that.  Still the point holds. 

And, the cat example is simply stupid.

TV Update

The Mets chug along, more injuries coming, including after Kevin "stud" Pillar had his nose broken after being hit by a pitch (nasty way to score a run) and was in the dugout watching -- if not able to play -- the very next day. Let's see how they handle a heavy schedule with maybe (DeGrom will have a rehab start) regular starters, one still wet behind the ears.

All Rise is basically the only fiction series I watch regularly. The only other constants of "new" stuff are John Oliver, baseball, Rachel Maddow at times, Hallmark type movies at times and C-SPAN non-fiction programming. I don't watch various "in" stuff, including on the cable networks available to me. Of course, All Rise has been cancelled. It has been having some behind the scenes issues, but its somewhat continuing plot lines made me feel like there was a lot left. Not so much. Maybe, I will check out the book that inspired it.

I got out China Beach, which co-stars one of the supporting cast here, and which I watched (if not consistently -- don't recall seeing the later episodes really) back in the day. I checked out the pilot and it was well done with a good commentary track.

More SCOTUS News

Conference Day: Thursday was the day the Supreme met for their conference.  There will be an opinion day on Monday -- with over 25 opinions left, it makes sense to release a few a week until late June.  See below for an update on the below post.

The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States had its first public meeting, basically to deal with preliminaries. One thing it did was to flag the areas it will cover:

Then several of the members summarized the five areas that the commission will study: (1) the genesis of the reform debate, including why reforming the Supreme Court has been a debate throughout the nation’s history and what factors contribute to the debate of late, (2) the court’s role in our constitutional system, including debates about the scope of judicial review and the authority of the court to invalidate the acts of the other branches of government, (3) length of service and turnover of justices, (4) membership and size of the court, including proposals to expand the size of the court, and (5) the court’s case-selection process, the shadow docket, and the court’s interactions with the public.

The White House page for the commission provided video as it occurred, unlike the actual SCOTUS.  I think this commission can be useful, both to inform and perhaps push the conversation and maybe a few actual reforms (such as ethics).  It provides a national platform that the public can watch, which puts the issues out there.  The fact the commission isn't supposed to set forth proposals to me doesn't erase its value.  

===

There is some more talk about Justice Breyer, including some thought that he might not want to retire now since it would cause partisan divisions that will hurt the Court.  To me, it would make more sense for him to retire now, which would be a normal practice and lower the temperature a bit while some of those most angry will find it appealing that a younger black woman will take his slot.  Just holding one of the three seats liberals have really won't mean too much, but there are also a few lower court slots (including court of appeals) opening.  

Anyway, there is the fear some Democrat will die or something and thus losing the majority.  But, let's say he wants to retire in 2022. That is an election year.  That will invite problems.  Why would he want to be there when two major cases (guns and abortion) are likely not to go the way he likes?  One person not too dubiously suggested Breyer just likes him job and doesn't want to let it go.

He also is supposed to have a new book out that seems to cover the ground of his recent big speech.  Just retire -- RBG is dead, so keeping on her now is a bit gratuitous, but yeah, he better fucking retire in June.  Yeah.  Look at me.  Tough guy.  But, it's time.  I granted RBG a bit of lack given everything taken into consideration; we saw what happened.  Breyer used to work for Senator Kennedy.   He should care a bit about the risk of not retiring now.  It does come off as stupid and selfish if he holds on. 

===

Quintin Jones (20) murdered an elderly relative after she would not give money for drugs.  That was in 1999.  His supporters say Jones turned his life around in prison, and is remorseful.  And, those supporters include relatives, including a sister of the victim. They opposed executing him. "What about the victims?"  The legal claims raised arguments of mental disability and questions on the use of expert evidence.  A reporter in an interview referenced the problems of proving future dangerousness.

If the legal claims were not strong enough (especially given current doctrine), it would not surprise, but I believe that the Supreme Court should always at least provide a brief explanation in a capital case for these final appeals.  None this time; none from Breyer or Sotomayor (who is more likely to at least drop a statement) either.  Just a standard denial.  He was then executed, the first state execution of the year, and without media witnesses for I guess Big V related reasons.  

The federal executions in January were patently corrupt affairs. This was the first state execution since last July.  It was not patently corrupt. It was more typically arbitrary.  The guy at twenty murdered a family member for drug money.  The family doesn't want him executed.  Over twenty years later, they execute him.   To what end?  Worse of the worst? Come on.  

ETA: It turns out the media did not view the execution because of some mix-up that led them not being called.  

Texas is meanwhile passing a ridiculously extreme abortion ban that is particularly bad since it has a broad opening to make civil claims for violating the law.  This is disgusting and all that, but it is a bit tiresome that some people do the usual bit about them being "pro-life" (sneer).  

A big year -- which hasn't happened recently -- for executions is around 100.  In 2017, there were 140 abortions in Wyoming.  Put aside some sense of perspective (or even "thou shall not kill" didn't mean no death penalty -- the same book lists lots of capital crimes), the numbers involved here are ridiculously different.  If you want to complain, complain about Texas' social welfare system, including caring for parents and children. 

Joe's Eclectic Thoughts Comes Of Age

Another blog turned 17. Well, hell, I'm 18. If this blog was a ... well, you know. On Saturday, May 17, 2003, this blog started. As a link there shows, I was commenting on the now defunct Slate "Fray." I also had a website that actually is still up though I didn't add to it for a long time. My old email address was from the show Reboot, not something else.

I will continue chugging alone for the time being, finding it helpful to have a spot to express my views and stuff. Few people come here, mainly because I linked a porn movie (seriously), but a few do, so it won't be treated as some sort of private diary. Just an educated civilian who is not an expert on the things expressed expressing things. Stay frosty.

SCOTUS Watch: Abortion Case Taken (etc.)

Order List: The big news is that -- after repeatedly putting off making a decision -- the Supreme Court WILL consider on a broad basis (they separately took a case determining when the government can bring a case to defend a law) the right to choose an abortion. Avoiding narrower questions, they will decide "whether all prevability prohibitions of elective abortions are constitutional."  One account here.

There is surely some behind the scenes going on (including delaying a big case in Barrett's first term), including why today (why not when other news might partially crowd out attention, such as the ACA case) and how that specific question was decided upon.  The lower court struck down the 15 week ban unlike another case where a law that in a somewhat narrow fashion blocked doctors openly agreeing to perform abortions on account of the fetus having Down Syndrome.  This created something of a circuit split, but the question presented widens the debate significantly.

It's something of a parlor game now to try to fashion how the Supreme Court is likely to rule.  But, of course, that is what one does.  Me?  I think the question might have an implicit implication that the answer is "that is a pretty extreme position" -- so, it would in some fashion leave open some sort of prohibitions of pre-viability abortions (like the Down Syndrome one?)  but will not go full Handmaid's Tale.  A surprise might be a Kavanaugh plurality making prohibitions disfavored (if not closing off all cases) but inviting a further watering down of Casey as to regulations.  

A basic point to underline here is that the SCOTUS is tainted. One third of the Court, in large part this issue is a major driver, was confirmed using corrupt methods.  It is simply not fit to decide such a basic question.  The hand-wringing of "packing" the Court is asinine. It was already packed. Meanwhile, Jen Psaki today again noted President Biden supports codifying Roe v. Wade.  How that would be done is a bit unclear, but state and political means to safeguard abortion rights is now that much more important. 

In a somewhat related action involving blocking the communication of certain abortion related information (via a Trump rule), a challenge was disposed of after the Biden Administration provided a letter brief as requested.  Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch dissented without opinion from the dismissal.  The whole procedural matter is a tad confusing, but seems to be that the whole matter is disposed of as of now.  (See here for more clarification.)

----

Two other cases were taken for oral argument but much less hot button.  Justice Sotomayor again found a problematic criminal justice case, this one involving what can be used to help determine if someone should be sentenced to die.  As she does repeatedly, Sotomayor did not dissent from the grant, but inserted a statement on why she was concerned, even if the matter is not "cert-worthy."   

Opinions: The biggest case is a 6-3 opinion that did not retroactively apply the unanimous jury case.  In the process, it basically finished the job interring the possibility of doing so in other cases.  So, it amounts to a major criminal justice opinion, though experts can debate how much it matters given actual practice.  Kavanaugh, who briefly concurred in a federal courts case Kagan wrote to argue her opinion in effect narrowed two precedents (rightly so in his view), wrote the majority opinion.  

(Sotomayor wrote a separate concurrence in that case, arguing Kagan's opinion should be treated as a narrow one.  I wondered if Kavanaugh was making a bit of a dig on Justice Stare Decisis.  Gorsuch also wrote a federal courts case in which only Sotomayor dissented.  Alito didn't take part because of unstated financial conflicts; a pending bill would require justices to explain why they did not take part.  

I won't say anything else about these two technical cases, except to say that a typo was found -- the date the case was argued was misstated.) 

Kagan, who dissented in the original case on stare decisis grounds, wrote a strong dissent for the liberals.  She in part framed the jury case as a racial justice matter (Kavanaugh has made that one of his things), which is an easier case to make on the facts.  I personally thought there was a way to concur in judgment before without necessarily overrule the non-unanimous jury rule completely.  Anyway, another strong liberal dissent.

Easter Egg: The majority opinion attached an over hour long video of the confession (which the defendant tried to suppress) which is of unclear relevance. There was a dissenter on the jury -- inconveniently the sole black juror for a black male defendant -- and the current constitutional rule is that means a not guilty verdict.  11-1 isn't enough.  We aren't supposed to say "enough if the evidence is crystal clear" and who is going to watch the video anyway?  The Supreme Court nearly never attaches video and past cases repeatedly were separate opinions.  So, this stands out.

Edward Caniglia (petitioner) retrieved a handgun from the bedroom, put it on the dining room table, and asked his wife to “shoot [him] now and get it over with.” She declined, and instead left to spend the night at a hotel."

Justice Thomas wrote a four page (something of a record for a full press case) opinion noting it is obviously wrong to across the board allow no warrant entry into a home for "caretaker" reasons. That is, if the police act not for normal police investigatory reasons, but for something like to check in to see if someone is doing okay.  

The treatment suggests per curiam possibility, even with Roberts/Breyer concurring briefly separately to reaffirm that there is a special circumstances emergency medical treatment situation exception.  Kavanaugh basically covered the same ground, but with somewhat more verbiage and a lot more citations. Alito also had a concurrence reminding people that the opinion was narrow and that there were various  possible contingencies to cover along the way.  And, that leaves 29 opinions (per SCOTUSBlog).

Fiend Without A Face

Tonight's Svengoolie film was a better made and acted creation than last week and maybe somewhat less silly. OTOH, the ultimate "spoiler" (Sven was particularly concerned there) turned out to be silly looking brain creations. But, the rather ridiculous explanation aside, the film itself was pretty well put together and the "invisible" danger was rather creepy. 

[I will now add some more commentary, including a bonus film.]

The movie fits in the overall brain experiments etc. plot into a 1950s context with the U.S. doing secret testing of a nuclear based aerial surveillance system outside of a small farm area in Canada. The locals blame them for problems with the milk (the cows eventually adapt to the noise) and later the strange deaths. The military stuff is handled pretty well without a big budget. Though the hubris of the scientist is truly the problem here, the nuclear power provides an opening for the problems.

So, the film in a fashion had shades of other films (especially in Japan) that suggested the at times unexpected problems with nuclear power. OTOH, once the brains are destroyed, like last week, the locals are shown to be ready to pro-American. So, there is also a pro-U.S. bias involved here too, even if the film takes advantage of topical fears.  The balance is better here than last week as well with smarter locals (they are not as off as it seems) and less stereotypical Americans.  But, related dynamic.

There is a copy of this film with commentary and other materials available in the NYPL and it might be interesting to get some more background.  Generally, films can be seen as an expression of the time as well as telling more than merely the basic story.  It can be rewarding as well as interesting to examine them in this fashion.  The same can be said, for instance, about various 1980s films of various types.  And, films today.

One thing that is often a constant in these films is some sort of romantic aspect, at times heavy-handed and/or crowded out some of the other plot that many people want to see.  One thing that this does is provides a relatable way to find a connection to the characters and plot, perhaps feeling them as a sort of stand-in for you, the viewer.  In these films, the woman often is a scientist or otherwise professional type, such as the level-headed woman here who acted as the scientist's assistant. 

The concept in fan fiction of a reader stand-in, the "Mary Sue," is a sort of heavy example here.  It also provides something to take screen time as stuff happens (action can only fill so much time; horror movies, for instance, are often very exposition orientated).  Traditionally, women (and children) also are characters the viewer feels protective about.  And, it also might be a way for women viewers particularly to have someone to relate to.  

To toss it in, there are other tropes, including characters with a more flippant attitude about things (such as the hero's assistant here), who sometimes are the heroes as well.  Anyway, the film as a whole put all of this together in enjoyable 1950s monster movie fashion, including the heroine, who is shown on the movie poster in a towel (she has a shower scene! if a 1950s version and is so petite, the towel hides most everything).  Kim Hunter has a limited IMDB page, but seemed to me to have potential as a pretty good supporting actress in films of this nature.

One thing that often comes to play in these Svengoolie films is that the ending is somewhat lame.  There is a mix here, but after all the build up, the brains are kept at bay with handguns while the hero runs and blows up the control room (this is how to stop a nuclear reactor?) with what looks to be a rather small explosive device.  Admittedly, some final battles are a bit better.  And, here, noting the stop action work being impressive for the times and all, the brains were a tad silly.  Better off camera. 

===

Bonus Film: I have noted here at times that Hallmark and UP TV romantic movies include some enjoyable content -- given how many there are, just the law of averages would suggest that (other channels also have such content, especially at Christmas time -- so, e.g., Lifetime).   

Some films are good enough that repeated viewing still is enjoyable.  Uncorked overall is one such film.  As is often the case, older familiar faces pop up, here as the male lead's parents.  Hey, it is Ross and Monica's dad!  And, he's charming here too.  The film is interesting in that there is a sizable lead-up, parallel stories, of the couple's stories before they start to have a relationship.  The woman has wide resume in other types of films.

Usual person of color (Asian) friend/colleague.  Spouse disposed of by death, often a single dad?  Check.  So, yes, various usual tropes.  But, good feel overall, including the workaholic business woman who wants more.  The film has an overall seriousness (including business matters) that also adds weight to things.  These films have some of that (many are simply light affairs)  and as with the Svengoolie films we can "deep dive" them as well.  Again, you can do that while still having fun with the films.

TV Update: Friends and Mets

Over the years, I enjoyed various shows in syndication and it often was a matter of them being on at midnight (Star Trek, years back, with baseball at times pre-empting it; Dharma and Greg, Rules of Engagement, The Closer on Sunday nights etc.).  [To toss in an aside, since a key character is played by someone on All Rise, I'm going to try China Beach again.]

The latest was Friends and as perhaps a sort of book-end purchased Friends ... 'til the End: The One With All Ten Years by David Wild. For the $5 or so it cost me used, a worthwhile purchase.  The cover price is $24.95, which probably is appropriate too for what amounts to a coffee table book. But, it is an example of good book to get used for a fraction of that price. 

It is not comprehensive but summarizes each season with a list of episodes, interviews each friend as well as the big three producers/writers, has two more quick interviews (including Janice), a bunch of photos and comments from a range of supporting/guest stars etc.  On the comprehensive front, for instance, the third season summary and photos barely reference an important Chandler/Janice relationship subplot (I liked them together).  But, there is a good amount of stuff there.

One suggestion: when people talk about "such and such," ask for an example.  How was scripts edited on the fly? What sort of things that don't sound like jokes did Lisa Kudrow make funny?  But, it often seems that I read articles and other stuff, and feel wanting more. And, I think the "Friends make people get over 9/11" thing was overdone a tad. 

My copy was originally a present for a fifteen year old. 

===

Jarred Kelenic, a leading Mets prospect that was traded to the Mariners in the Cano (remember him?) and Diaz (doing well this year) deal, got his major league debut. Started off 0-4 but then hit a homer. Teams do that regularly -- they trade key prospects for a "win now" attitude. Diaz was seen as a top closer, though he had some growing pains. Cano was the real dubious move given his age, contact and history. Good luck -- the Mariners need some. 

Matt Harvey recently started versus the Mets too; he didn't do well though overall is doing decent for the Orioles after years of post-Mets struggles. Good luck to him and his team.  It was too bad that he didn't do well -- he did have a good first inning -- though he received a nice reception at Citifield. 

Update: Just heard on the Mets broadcast that the team is not close (says Gary Cohen) to the 85% threshold for the vaccination requirement to avoid wearing masks. I was wondering why they all were wearing masks at this point.  Weeks back, the player rep used the standard line that it was a "personal decision," which is sorta bullshit since it has group effects. 

SCOTUS Watch

There was no conference last week (there was one this week and two more Thursday conferences scheduled this month) and it appears the justices are mainly focusing on writing all those opinions. Less than half of the cases taken for full briefing/oral argument has had opinions written. There will be an Order and Opinion Day on Monday.

One thing to note is that there is now not only a page but a place for public comments (first public hearing next week) for the Biden Supreme Court commission. I submitted one so far. See also, here. Something of a "viral" article that is a book review criticizing a book on an environmental law case was interesting, including to provide a realistic view of things (and gender issues). Also, a profile of Kavanaugh.

No orders this week.

House Republicans = Trump Party

The vote of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) as conference chair sorta pretty much seals the deal. What was her message?

“I believe that voters determine the leader of the Republican Party and President Trump is the leader they look to.”

Graveyard Mitch avoided challenging the move from Rep. Liz "conservative icon but Trump Disloyalist" Cheney. He had his moment after voting not to convict. Time for him to go back to gravedigging. This is the "moderate" position in the national party, I guess: you don't need to continue to bow down to Trump to retain good standing. But, are there any Cheney anti-Trump level leaders in the Republican Senate caucus?

Anyway, if Trump is your "leader," you are disqualified from having any moral right to control. Republican control of the House in 2023 has to be seen as simply anti-republican. It's not a party thing alone on that level. Stefanik's vote btw was comparable to the votes to disqualify the electors though this time around thirty didn't vote.

First Mayoral Debate

I'm not a big debate fan though do look at responses on Twitter and so forth to help get a sense of things. Twitter can be fun here including a Mystery Science Theater 3000 vibe.  Debates can be useful, especially to get a flavor of a bunch of candidates. This is particularly the case when you have eight (Democratic) candidates, some of whom (at least) you are likely not to be familiar with.  Or, whatever Republicans have.

My choices are gong to be decided in other ways though like Supreme Court oral arguments, maybe it will help along the edges. When you have five options in ranked choice voting, that matters more.  You will have your first choice, who might not be someone that has a good chance to win.  A second might be your "pretty good" option; but what happens if that person loses? Do you have a back-up and/or want to play a role there?

My opening choices are fairly set; my trick will be back-ups. Dianne Morales is my choice here -- she has strong liberal activist energy, but seeing "she has a plan for that!" sounds ominous.  Then, you have Maya Wiley (who said Morales was her second choice; Morales didn't return the favor though I saw that she did early on) who is a more establishment friendly liberal choice.  Both also add that POC/woman vibe that maybe this time (as compared to the presidential race) will work out. 

Who next?  This is my concern really -- what happens if Wiley is not the one and Morales doesn't have an upset?  My safe third was going to be Scott Stringer, but then the sexual allegation came out. And, people I respect who endorsed him removed their endorsement.  As noted in my last New York election entry, part of the problem here was his response (as well as the overall situation, including respecting #MeToo in a Democratic city).  Seeing that he during the debate brought back Biden's accuser didn't help there at all.  Looking into the allegation, other than a misleading bit where she supported a candidate with the same last name as Andrew Yang who was also on the ballot, there simply was no similar "RED FLAG!" alert about the accuser.  

If Stringer is going to keep up this over the top defense, it would be so depressing to even put him on my ballot.  The problem is who else to put in that slot. Kathryn Garcia is interesting -- she got some good feedback for her work as a public official (and interestingly was second choice of more than one candidate though Yang picking her didn't really help).  But, she's a longshot. Yang is horrible. Shaun Donovan? Eh. 

Ray McGuire (the black businessman) is somewhat interesting and huh Spike Lee likes him (!), but realistically I don't see him as the one. (He might be a possible second choice for many though.)  Eric Adams?  The black Brooklyn borough president and former police officer has that office experience I appreciate.  But, he came off as much too conservative.  So, if Garcia and McGuire are put after Morales and Wiley, who is fifth? 

I'm left with Stringer, who experience and policy-wise along with a shot at winning is a Morales/Wiley alternative with a bad taste in my mouth.  But, then, he is just going to be a back-up, and they are likely to have problems.  Stringer is a problem here -- Yang by one article "leads" with twenty percent, which is still a fraction.  It's hard to see how many second place slots he has.  So, I still am fairly comfortable with saying he won't win, ranked choice helping there.  Without ranked choice, there is a shot it would be Yang and someone else in a run-off.  Even then, hard to see Yang winning.  But, some see him ahead in a big field and say "he'll win." 

After 2016, each time, of course, we will always worry.  But, that too is a cheap approach without more.  First, Trump winning the nomination in hindsight was not too surprising.  I was blinded at the time by how horrible he was, but it was pretty clear by early 2016 that no other candidate really could challenge his core thirty or so percent. Yang doesn't have that high number.  And, ranked choice changes things here.  It would be interesting to imagine how it would have changed Trump's win.  

Back to Stringer.  The ranked choice strategy is to keep the liberal vote together, so Morales/Wiley -- make sure Morales voters also pick Wiley.  Stringer has a shot -- in a race that might be close -- to split the vote while not getting enough since the allegation caused him to lose key support. After all, the Working Family Party used to endorse him.  So, on the issues, he can be appealing.  But, other than being a tad bit boring, again he's tainted.  So, the fear is he will split the liberal vote.  It all can get a bit complicated and possible front runners might be hoping for also rans second or third choices.  Anyway, Stringer would be a bit depressing, Adams for another reason (too conservative) and Yang?  Please no.

One thing about other races.  The comptroller race is known now as the race that the current president of the City Council, Corey Johnson, is running in.  But, I see that my assemblywoman -- and current Bronx borough president choice -- is supporting Brian Benjamin. He's a black state senator who supported various progressive issues, including police reform.  Not exactly a financial issue as such, but that would be the type of person I would generally support.  Johnson was a bit of a later comer, perhaps can be seen as a johnny-come-lately who just wants another position because of term limits.  BB might be my first choice.

Public advocate it seems to be the incumbent and also rans.  So, I guess I'll have to think a bit more about city council (back-up option) and borough president (maybe -- looking at the choices, only one other one kinda looks okay).  Mayor?  Well, let's see how Scott Stringer survives.  Last time, the assumed front runner turned out to be an also ran.  Stringer had a major upset.  I thought he had a decent chance before that.  Now?  I guess I'm leaning toward Wiley winning though would not be shocked if she doesn't.  Still seems people aren't quite 'in' to an important race yet.

Morales-Wiley-Garcia-McGuire-Stringer for me now.  

Twitter Reactions: One left leaning type, a Morales supporter, flagged how third and fourth supported more police if MTA asked for them.  That would be a potentially damning thing for some left leaning types trying to fill out their ranks.  But, Stringer has other issues, so yeah, that won't change my mind yet.  

Another Twitter reaction, this time from the criminal justice reform Rachel Barkow, listed her choices.  She leads with Wiley and the rest also overlap with mine but she likes Shaun Donovan.  She leaves out Stringer though also noting her list is in part a strategic one.  She is strongly against Yang and Adams, which is also my concern as well.

Donovan has pushed his Obama Administration role and probably is okay on various things, but just doesn't excite me that much.  And, it is hard to see him being included as a strategic choice since he is such a longshot.  So -- as she noted -- if you are concerned about Wiley not winning, who would you include?  

I'd toss in Stringer for that reason.  Fifth.  I can see some second (etc.) choices there since he comes off as boring, experienced in local government and informed.  Maybe, being a white male will help a bit too. If Donovan had more positives, maybe, he would fill that spot.  But, Stringer also had more liberal votes going for him before and the pullback was the sexual harassment issue.  Some will deem that not enough, at least for back-up choices. Or, at least, that is my overall logic here.  

ETA:  I'm open to leaving Stringer off and it is really my remaining decision along with as noted also rans in a couple races.

Garcia, who would be a rather striking upset, has the striking benefit of not only second place ranking by one or more (though she rather Yang shut-up about having her on his mayoral team), but endorsed by both the NY Daily News and the New York Times.  She's my #3 now for being a woman as well as her previous experience.  

The DN don't like Morales/Wiley and now Stringer for being too liberal. The paper is basically Joe Lieberman Democrat in editorial style and that shows here.  They also like her experience.  Donovan has some of that, but like me, he rubs them the wrong way.  They are less turned off by Eric Adams (their second), since again, they are more conservative, but he has been "too erratic" and made a few questionable moves.

The NYT likes her problem solving ways. They are concerned about Adams' record and like their competition reminds he has supported police reform (he still doesn't earn me any marks by supporting stop and frisk and wanting to wear a gun as a mayor).  The sex allegations cloud things for them regarding Stringer (the paper is more center left Democrat).  The others seem unready to run a city.  Garcia: most qualified.

Well, I'm more left and reformist minded, so Morales/Wiley for me.  But, this helps me ranking Garcia third and if she works out to be the compromise choice between the wings, that would be okay.  

And More: AOC and Warren for who for comptroller? Guess maybe I have some more thinking to do. Do have time. 

Mask Update

The latest CDC decision is that those vaccinated (still a fraction of the country) can generally -- not in places like nursing homes or transportation -- not wear a mask. Even inside.

But, how does one determine that? Some are saying this is a honor system relying on dishonorable people. Recall the change only applies to the vaccinated. Some now are pressured to wear masks because others are. If some don't because of being vaccinated, others will use that as a reason to "free ride" even if they aren't. Let's say in supermarkets.

The sensible approach there is for certain areas to still require everyone to wear masks unless there was a means to check. New York has the Excelsior Pass with a bar code (I have it) though it would be even better if they upload a photo on record.  Basically, a place can scan it, though a photo would make things quicker.  A NYC location can have a scanner that reads the bar code at entrances.  Some nation-wide pass would make sense though the usual suspects are talking as if that was a yellow star.

Liz Cheney: Voice of Principle?

“You can’t have a conference chair who recites Democratic talking points,” Jordan added.

The jacket-less wonder might not be a great spokesperson here, but it is not like the wannabe leader of the House of Representatives (Kevin McCarthy) is much better here. After Liz "yeah she's still horrible on a bunch of stuff" Cheney was removed, KM lied that the legitimacy of Biden's election is no longer an issue for Republicans. That is the "Democratic talking point," apparently. The election was not stolen and Trump can't be the face of a credible party. Can't "ruin it" and make that an issue.

Maybe so. If so, it is a black mark on the Republican Party, which cannot accept basic republican principles. Biden might officially have to take a party line that he still is taking them as a credible policy partner, but I need not. And, as she said, if Cheney wants to make sure Trump is not the party's leader in 2024, she can co-sponsor a bill in place to enforce the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Get it done!

From Hell It Came (eventually)

The Svengoolie movie this week was a ridiculous evil tree film though it only killed the three people who murdered the native prince who ultimately gave birth to it. It was basically a revenge monster; it also went after the lady scientist that helped to keep it alive but that basically just opened up a "shot" to end things. And, the natives now were willing to trust American medicine now that the evil tree defeated the evil medicine man. Tad ironic.

The film was silly but watchable though it took a while before the tree "came" anywhere. The ridiculous nature of the whole thing -- including the final bit where the natives decided to accept the Americans and the "blooming onion" man hungry white comedy relief -- helped the slow spots. 1950s films like this makes me again challenge the idea Plan Nine From Outer Space was somehow the "worst film ever." Ed Wood Jr. could easily make this film.

Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week

A reason why things go on for so long is that you in not too long of a time get used a state of affairs. Thus, in a few months now, it is like President Biden was in office for some time.

That we did not have some horror show in power. Instead, we have Jen Psaki providing a reasonable face of the Administration, with "#PsakiBombs" to give a special "CJ" (West Wing) verve at times. Reports are she is planning to step down some time early next year (I heard this before, but now it is being widely reported). On that front, saw that she has two sisters, one having some science role, the other perhaps some sort of minister.

The sanity makes it a satisfactory thing to check on the White House page (I still have not found a VP page though she has a Facebook page and Twitter) to see if there are any updates. This includes various promotional type days like for older Americans or the Day of Prayer. I saw the subject announced too. Police wrongdoing makes things more tricky in recent memory there. So, as well as honoring them, we have this:

In order to rebuild that trust, our State, local, and Federal Government and law enforcement agencies must protect constitutional rights, ensure accountability for misconduct, and embrace policing that reflects community values and ensures community safety. These approaches benefit those who wear the badge and those who count on their protection.

One blog I regularly read has had a series asking if there were any good cops and citing a range of horrible things they did. We can go down that line with parents, teachers and so forth. Twice now people are like "well do they kill" or whatever, as if bad parents and so forth do not really cause much harm of any note. The person behind the series even was annoyed a former police officer isn't running for governor in Florida (Val Demings). She's not a totally horrible person, huh.

Bad actors must be addressed, but a continual thing flagged is that it is not just a few "bad apples." It isn't, however, that every single parent or whatever or bad. It is that the system is bad, worsening the situation while there also being bad actors. They aren't ALL bad. This second thing, while not just letting the bad actors off the hook is very important. On some level, focusing on the bad actors has an emotional valence that is easier than addressing the wider problem. Biden's message also goes there:

We must also stop tasking law enforcement with problems that are far beyond their jurisdictions. From providing emergency health care to resolving school discipline issues, our communities rely on the police to perform services that often should be the duty of other institutions. We then accuse the police of failure when responsibility lies with public policy choices they did not make. Supporting our law enforcement officers requires that we invest in underfunded public systems that provide health care, counseling, housing, education, and other social services.

I think the "defund police" message hits to an important concern that merely "reform" does not. We need to think about radical structural reforms of society here, especially the criminal justice system. But, many do not want to go that far. The term bothers many who are comfortable with accepting there are many problems, but feel it suggests "abolishing" police as if we are just dealing with anarchists (let's put aside the complexity of that philosophy). Mixed in there is discomfort from some of the anger and tactics. It isn't just some two word slogan.

The middle ground is reducing the police's reach. It is accepting realistically (at least) that we will not "abolish" or totally "defund" (move past the argument we should not take that literally) police departments. This opens up a lot of room for change, change that in various ways will not be opposed by police. At some point, this very well will mean some reduction of funds that police departments might want. But, there will remain a sizable police presence that can focus more on specific matters. And, checked and balance to ensure the first quote holds true.

We honored police that defended the U.S. Capitol, including by angrily opposing those who harmed them and/or did not properly deal with those that threatened their well being. The police officers who were harmed and the few who died (one by natural causes that the latest report suggests was in some fashion made more likely because of being attacked) are "good cops" from what I can tell. This doesn't change because of some mismanagement from above of the overall situation. They and are lots of others have very well served the public. Like bad parents, it is not just all assholes.

Dealing with problems, to use an old term that was used a bit too self-assuredly, in a reality based community requires a complex accounting. The people we need to address are not just horrible people. They regularly very well are doing things necessary, things the average person basically delegates to the government in particular. They deserve to be honored for that. But, as there always is on this blog (always a "but"), we have to face up to the flaws of the system and address abuses as well.

The proclamation -- see also the prayer one that honors prayer and freedom to make such decisions on one own -- helpfully covers multiple bases there. And, unlike just a few months ago, we can expect that regularly for them. This is why I will continue -- as I did with Obama -- take any criticism with a grain of salt, especially when it is one-sided. Criticism is fine. But, when there is a core of decency, that too is to be factored in.