Wholehearted Faith

Wholehearted Faith 

 By Rachel Held Evans with Jeff Chu (224pg)

Brief Overview

Whole·heart·ed·ly

/ˌhōlˈhärdədlē/

adverb

with complete sincerity and commitment

Rachel Held Evans said “yes.”  

She said “yes” to marriage and parenthood.  Earlier, she said “yes” to being a Christian.  She had many doubts over the years, but she continued to have faith.  And, again, it was a struggle, a public one, but Evans strived to have faith in God wholeheartedly.

When asked to sum things up, Jesus taught that we should love God with all our heart and love our neighbor as we love ourselves.  So, wholehearted faith includes wholehearted living -- after all, how can we love others without loving ourselves?  

This book is thus largely a self-help manual.

It is hard to truly love ourselves.  We have so many doubts.  We have many moments that are a sort of personal wilderness.  In the Bible, Jesus and others had to survive the wilderness, including their own personal battles and temptations.  But, our self-worth should be honored.  God surely does so.  God has unlimited love for us all.  How can we not love ourselves?

Jesus taught us to love even our enemies.  So hard, including when we are our own worst enemies.  But, Rachel found some of her “enemies” had a lot to teach us, including her journey to a more liberal minded Christianity. She grew up with idealistic dreams of being an evangelist of Christianity. In the end, others had a lot to teach her.  A lesson for us all.  

Rachel Held Evans, as in her other books, blogs, and many public appearances talks about these and other issues in her own special way.  The last chapter speaks of coming “to the end.”  And, tragically this book was completed by her friend Jeff Chu, she herself dying in May 2019.  

Favorite Quote

I’ve come to believe that wholehearted faith isn’t just about coming to terms with the heart that beats inside me.  Wholeheartedness is about seeing and comprehending my place in a bigger family of faith.  It is about risking hurt and confusion for the sake of the thing that so many of us seek: belonging.  

Evans said “yes” to being a Christian and this book is about why she did. Being a Christian to her is being part of a community, and the community is a basic reason she said “yes.” And, doing so is a struggle.  Her struggle is also a key part of this book and adds to her empathy.  

Should I Read It?

The basic audience for this book are the millions of people, especially evangelical Christians who struggle in any number of ways with doubt about their membership in the Christian community, who have long loved Rachel Held Evans.  And, enjoyed her writings, both her blog and books.  

This provides one more time to read her words in her usual style. The book provides the basic things people have long come to expect from Rachel, and allows new readers to do so as well.  

Rachel Held Evans provides a humane version of Christianity with her own personal poetry and at times bemusement mixed in.  

Rachel was an evangelical, in (to me) a good sense, and a great writer as well.  She also had some nerd mixed in, showing her joy in doing the research about such things as how “apple” and “evil” in Latin sounded alike, and what “midrash” means.  

The book accepts -- perhaps with a bit more assurance than she felt at times -- the existence of God.  It takes various biblical accounts at their word -- she does not second guess, here, for instance if Mary actually said the Magnificat.  

Rachel did not in her later years follow a belief all of the Bible should be taken as the literal truth.  But, this book doesn’t discuss those details, except when Evans questions biblical glorification of violence as a reflection of God’s own path.    

Some will not accept her choices here, but I would suggest the reader not focus too much on such matters.  The book can be enjoyed, for instance, as a general guide to life.  It has certain basic lessons such as dealing with doubt and being part of a community.  And, I think “God” need not be taken literally.  Her personal journey there has a lot to teach the reader.  

Some again won’t accept that.  Maybe, the book might not be for you. Some also might want a shorter look at certain subjects, more “blog size.” And, there are no pictures, not even of the author.  I think that is unfortunate; the children’s book, for instance, has a family picture.  

Finally, some might be wary that she was not able to see the final result, wondering how final result be different if she did.  Full disclosure: I am somewhat wary about this myself. 

(Rachel spoke of her love for her family regularly, including how her parents gave her space as she took her journey in faith, and her sister Amanda.  You can listen to her father and sister.)  

Comprehensive Summary

Introductory Materials

Rachel Held Evans’ husband provides a foreword introducing Jeff Chu, who worked with her in the past.  Her husband, after she died, asked him to edit the book she was working on.  

Chu agrees, but makes clear that he had to edit the raw material available. The end result is the best he can provide, with help of her family, of expressing her voice.  

An afterword is added by Rev. Nadia Bolz-Weber, who honors her as a “woman of valor”  (the biblical reference used by Rachel to honor women is discussed).  

Prologue: Because They Said Yes

Rachel said “yes” to faith in Christianity because of all the people before her in the Christian community that did so.  And, they -- like her -- were often vulnerable while doing so.  

God said “yes” to becoming a vulnerable child, born of a woman, reliant on parents to care for him.   And, so did a range of others, particularly women, in the Bible and outside.  

Part One: Wholehearted Faith

1. On the Days When I Believe

Wholehearted faith for Rachel includes fully loving God and loving neighbors like ourselves.  The two great commandments.  To love your neighbors, therefore, means to love yourself too.  Loving yourself in this fashion is not the same as narcissism.  It is to love yourself with honesty and grace.  This will make you vulnerable, but the reward is worth the risks.  

2. My Wicked Little Heart

Rachel honors her parents as providing her the basic belief, which many in her church and elsewhere would refute, that she is good.  

Her parents gave her room to ask questions and doubt while still always accepting her. Wholehearted faith needs a basic security in one’s own life, a wholeness of oneself.  Personal and community support is required here.  

Others do not have such security.  Religion can break them, especially a conservative religion that demonizes people who are gay, have different ideas about women’s position in the church, have mental health issues and so on.  This is not the wholeness that God wants for all of us.  

3. Where Stone Becomes Flesh

Rachel speaks of “wholehearted living,” a belief that though you are vulnerable, you are still worth loving and belonging.  She wants to believe in a loving caring God and Christian community.  

4. The Liberation of the Know-It-All

Rachel has always been a big questioner.  She is often skeptical [rejection of conceit is one thing people often reference when talking about her] and intellectual.  But, faith includes some acceptance of things you can not be totally sure about.  Doubt is still acceptable here.

Rachel’s view of God is seen through his creation including his deep love for all that is created.  

5. Thick Skin, Tender Heart

The title of the chapter is a piece of advice (is it a Friday Nights Lights thing?) given to her by her husband.  Love is a basic biblical message.  A wholehearted faith should be focused on love.  But, you still can have a thick skin, to be able to take criticism.  

6. Jonathan Edwards Is Not My Homeboy

Jonathan Edwards was a 18th Century theologian with a famous sermon about how humanity is at risk of God’s damnation.  This is not her view. She honors love and belonging for all.  

Part II: Essays on the Christian Life

7. Beginning Again with Love

Rachel discusses the story of Adam and Eve’s “fall” after eating from the tree of knowledge.  She provides a bit of a revisionist view that argues the story tells of a God who gave people the room to rebel without rejecting them.  God is love -- even God’s “wrath” grows out the harm certain acts do.  This is as it was from the beginning, it is as it is now.  

8. From Death to Life

Rachel is a competitor.  But, people are more likely to be persuaded when they feel seen and heard.  Not by being threatened, which causes them to be defensive.  The one that is often threatened is oneself (“Satan” biblically was originally translated as “the Accuser”); we have a sense of shame.  A feeling we cannot be loved.  This is not God’s way.  

9. The Steady Work of Living Water

Baptism is the entry into the Christian community.  Rachel as a child and in college had an idealistic desire to improve the world, promoting Christian faith.  But, entering into the community also greatly changed her and her beliefs.  She too continually improved.    

10. Many Voices, Many Masks

There are many complexities to reading texts, including biblical accounts. We impose “masks” on God, emphasizing certain things over others.  We do the same thing with ourselves.  

11. Wilderness

Wholeheartedness includes not certainty about all things, but vulnerabilities.  

Wilderness in the Bible is often a metaphor for a character’s vulnerability as well as an actual location. Wilderness is a complex thing, a possible place of refuge and contemplation.  It includes a lot of “maybes.”  Such is life as it really is.  

12. God Has Made a Home With Us

Rachel is glad she was instilled with a deep personal relationship with God from an early age.  Wholeheartedness includes faith that God cares about each one of us.  

Sin separates us from God. Anything that divides us is “demonic” in the sense the Ancient Greeks understood the word.  Prayer can express our hurt at how much things suck.  But, deep down, God still cares for us all the same.  That is part of her faith.  

13. Loving Our Enemies

The core of Christianity is community.  The Bible discusses the experiences of communities and is meant to be read to groups of people.   A basic problem is dealing with enemies, be it ourselves or others.  We need to understand the potential to harm and ways to address it.  

14. Dwelling in Sabbath

Sabbath, the day of rest, is a day to honor God and God’s creations.  This includes addressing those in need, including our own needs toward being truly whole and complete.  

Epilogue: Telos

The biblical word for “end” is telos.  It is something or someone’s purpose. The purpose of humans is to love, like God loves.  Such is what she has tried to believe and live her life honoring.   “So we have come to the end.” A bittersweet statement.   (RIP Rachel Evans Held.)  

Points to Ponder

A reader of this book will find it hard not to read it in the context of the fact it is a book published a couple years after the tragic death of the author. But, the book was not written with an expectation of the author dying.  This should be remembered too while reading.  

The editor admitted this is not the same book as Rachel Held Evans herself would have written, but he believes that it is a good expression of her views.  The book is still in her voice, including using the first person.  Is this problematic in any fashion?  Should more have been done to discuss how her words were specifically edited for publication?  

FAQ

Rachel Held Evans (1981-2019) was a journalist, blogger, author, and overall an evangelist.

An evangelist is someone who speaks the “good news,” particularly to try to convert others to their version of the Christian faith.  And, that was her overall mission.  

Evans wrote various books:

• Faith Unraveled: How A Girl Who Knew All the Answers Learned to Ask Questions
• A Year of Biblical Womanhood
• Searching For Sunday: Loving, Leaving, and Finding the Church.
• Inspired: Slaying Giants, Walking on Water, and Loving the Bible Again
• What Is God Life” with Matthew Paul Turner; Illustrated by Ying Hui Tan

Jeff Chu  is the co-curator of the Evolving Faith conference, which was founded by Rachel Held Evans.  He is the editor-at-large at Travel + Leisure.  He also wrote Does Jesus Really Love Me?

Is Wholehearted Faith a Reliable Source?

The issue of reliability, which is a standard category in my reviews in this format, has a wrinkle in this context.  There are three aspects to this question here.

Rachel Held Evans has carefully researched her books with endnotes provided.  This book follows that path, if not as in depth regarding the biblical materials as Inspired.  

(At times, this bothered me, and I am not totally sure how she would have handled things in certain cases.)

Some of the material is an expression of her personal faith, a more subjective matter, but done with reasoned argument based on certain premises about God.  

And, then there is the question of the underlining reliability of the editor’s translation of incomplete raw material into a final product.  Chu with help of her family can be relied upon, but he is upfront that Rachel herself would have written a somewhat different book.  

It would have helped if more discussion was provided pointing out what material had to be edited and how much.  The specifics are not provided, so questions remain for this reader. 

SCOTUS Watch: Fiddling While Texas People Suffer

President SCOTUS Commission: The next meeting of the Presidental Commission on the Supreme Court will be on December 7th. The Federal Register notice describes:

The Commission will hold a public virtual meeting on December 7, 2021 from 3:00 p.m. to 4:30 p.m., Eastern Standard Time (EST).

The purpose of this meeting is for the Commissioners to review the draft Commission Report and vote on its submission to the President pursuant to Executive Order 14023. This meeting is open to the public and will be live-streamed at www.whitehouse.gov/​pcscotus/​. Materials relevant to the public meeting will be posted at www.whitehouse.gov/​pcscotus/​ prior to the meeting.

So, we should be getting to the final report. As noted in the past, I have wished that more attention would be given to this. Still think it can and somewhat similarly it will be useful in the long term. There are so many other things going on. And, a major purpose of this was to kick the can down the road anyways. Once it is out, more focus can be put on the issues. Plus, once other major things are addressed, more attention can be put on it. 

I hope the final report is well done and means will be available to promote it to the general public.  The 9/11 Commission Report was well written and ultimately made into a graphic novel.  I don't think this will placed in graphic form, probably, but other means can be used such as a website or summaries that can be helpful.

I don't want it just to be a government report that is forgotten about as the 2022 elections are focused upon. 

“So we look at them like a ticking time bomb and wait for the complications to develop,” Dr. Palmer said of her patients.

I tacked on a notice to the last Supreme Court entry that on Monday there dropped an opinion on an interstate water dispute. There was some expectation when the Supreme Court announced last Friday that one or more opinions would drop on Monday that it could involve the Texas abortion cases. I thought too maybe the death penalty case involving prayer/laying hands in the execution chamber. That too was pushed ahead of the pack.

But, again, it was (as is usual for November opinions) nothing that big.  The Order List was a nothingburger too.  For whatever reason, they dropped the granting of a case (involving a voting rights matter, but only setting terms on how it can be litigated -- like one of the abortion cases, this long term has potential to help the conservatives, but in some other situation, it might help liberals) on Wednesday.  

The quote is from an article about how Texas doctors are concerned about how the law makes it harder for them to take care of the health of their patients.  As with abortion generally, very hard cases (I add the qualifier since the others are often not very "easy") are a small portion of the whole.  They are focused upon for understandable reasons, such as the usual hypotheticals that might not be typical.  

They still arise.  And, they reflect a wider concern.  Abortion is part of health care.  Now, you might be morally and religiously opposed to it.  It is still part of health care.  Pregnancy and childbirth among other things has health related effects.  Some pregnancies are particularly problematic here, but they all have a range of health effects.  And, people obtain abortions in part to avoid some of them.  It is part of why it should be an health option, including when paid by insurance, private or government (Medicaid, military health plans etc.) in nature. 

(The article was flagged here too.   It reminds me of a pro-life -- article's word -- physician providing a quote that "even a girl as young as 9 or 10" (again, the author's words) "can" give birth safely.  Well, I guess anything is possible.  And, to use her [yes, the doctor is a woman] word, it depends just what "safely" means.  Low enough standard, why not?) 

But, the Supreme Court did not hand down the cases yet.  The expectation is that they will at least in some fashion hold that there is a  right to bring lawsuits against the Texas law.  Note the two cases are not about the substance of the law, but the right to bring cases against it.  Both in state court and as part of a federal government civil action.  

The Supreme Court is letting the law stay in effect while this is all pending.  They had a chance to "stay" the law, hold it from being applied, while the litigation is pending.  They rejected that September 1st by a vote of 5-4.  And, now doctors have to risk the lives of their patients.  It is a total travesty.  As some debate the specifics of how a lawsuit could be made here, people are being harmed, including but not limited to a threat to their constitutional rights. 

And, the supposition -- one that is arguably not a gimmee but is expected -- is that the Supreme Court will eventually at least hold that the law can be challenged now.  Which should, I say should, mean that it quickly is  held up since it is blatantly unconstitutional under Planned Parenthood v. Casey.  As other things occurred, people -- girls, women, and all others involved (non-binary, trans) -- in the second most populous state of the nation are being harmed.  And, it damn well should be getting more attention.  

Thanks a lot tainted corruptly put together Supreme Court.  And, we are back to the PSCOTUS Commission and the long term effects.  Short term, there is little ground to be too optimistic.  But, pushing back will help somewhat, including to address the rights and well being of the people involved.  And, the importance of the 2022 elections, which will not just be -- oh well, sigh -- the Trump Party will win.  

At least, it need not, should not, just be that.  

(I checked the public comments and there were like 300 in one day recently.  That seemed a bit much and a spot check of a few of the first bunch suggests some right wing website asked for anti-change comments.  Or, the site decided to collect a bunch of troll-like quickie hit shots together.)  

ETA: I added something I forgot to put in the first time, but read this after writing this.  Payne v. Tennessee is famous for being Justice Marshall's last dissent (at least of a regular opinion; he actually wrote at least one more death penalty dissent in regard to a last minute order), somewhat hypocritically criticizing the quick overruling of a precedent.  That is, he wasn't exactly consistently regarding being loyal to conservative precedents.  His law clerk, Justice Kagan, has shown more of that.  

But, as is often the case, the result was not the end of the line.  I say more in the comment there, but it often is the case that such a litigant finds a way to linger, sometimes gaining relief in state court or some other way.  Such was the case here -- if long after the fact -- the state recently passed a law allowing him to make an intellectual disability claim. 

Again, this is not totally surprising, and the professor in my view doesn't really accurately flesh out the situation.  Regularly, people are procedurally barred from making a claim.  The unlikely thing here is that the state actually changed the law to open the door.  Even there, I figure over the years states passed laws tinkering with the process, allowing the death penalty, but adding some procedural protection that helped some people.  

I'm unsure about the timing here.  It does look like Payne was sentenced to die, and that factored into the timing of the law being passed. I saw one reference that there was a fear it would not be passed in time.  Another person in Tennessee was scheduled to die, raised an intellectual disability claim of some sort, and argued COVID should push things forward since he could not properly make the claim.  His sentence was postponed. 

Anyway, Purvis Payne is off death row -- after thirty years -- but is still in prison.  He claims innocence, and like the Oklahoma person who had his sentence commuted, who knows how strong the claim is. But, horrible crimes or not, over thirty years is pretty long.  I think unless there is a very compelling reason, at most, that is too long.  He's in his 50s now, so is not as old a someone in prison for over 30 years might be believed to be. 

Thanksgiving

Thanksgiving provides us with a time to reflect on our many blessings — from God, this Nation, and each other. We are grateful for these blessings, even — and especially — during times of challenge.

I continue to focus more on national matters, so will cite President Biden's Thanksgiving Proclamation. I continue to be thankful that he is in office. With all the imperfections, he brings sanity, decency, and some good policyI was not very supportive during the primary. And, that probably is fair -- it's okay to push for the person you like there, unless the net result will be bad. But, I was a bit too harsh probably. Well, 20/20 hindsight.

I should be more concerned with local stuff, but part of the reason I am not is that there is more reporting online regarding national stuff.  So, for years, I read the online magazine Slate and wrote on its "fray" comment board.  I'm sure there is important things locally though my particular middle class area, which seems almost the "suburbs" though its the Bronx, seems fairly boring. Still, even here, not too long ago a bike path was drawn in on the main street near me.  Not that I ride any more.  

Anyway, it is Thanksgiving again.  I noted at dinner that I was thankful for my sister's websites, for which I contribute content.  Another one is pending too.  The apple crumb, maybe dutch apple crumb, cake I bought at a local bakery went down well.  As usual, she made a great dinner. And, the family part of the holiday -- always key -- is especially added by young Austin, Connect 4 expert, going on four himself.  

The dinner also shows that you can enjoy vegan content, the non-turkey / animal related content fine.  I'm not sure the apple crumb is vegan, but it is at least vegetarian.  Mushrooms, stuffing, bread, mashed potatoes, etc.  On the football front, the Bills had their quite needed victory, Detroit lost again (well they did have that one non-loss/tie), and Las Vegas upset Dallas.   

The day before I went to get my J&J booster.  I scheduled it this week and could have done it earlier (even working around a dentist appointment).  The website provides a lot of options, both time and location-wise.  I went to a place in Harlem, since it is convenient to the IRT train near me.  I say "J&J" but could have received another one.  

That's just what I got last time, without issue, so decided to get it again.  It seems less popular and at first it looked like I might not be able to get it.  Something about it not being in the system.  But, at least for now, it was available.  Quick shot and wait for fifteen minutes to see if there are any issues.  None.  I think I had a bit of a side effect -- felt a bit out of sorts later on, nothing too much, but somewhat so especially early the next morning -- but glad I got it over with. 

The whole Big V thing is rather something, huh?  That includes how vaccines were developed so fast.  It still is with us, including mask rules.  We probably still have things to learn about it -- it might seem forever, but COVID19 (recall some form of COVID occurred earlier too) is just that -- from 2019.  2021 seems to be going quickly, but it is still not even two years from when things shut down in March 2020.  

Things personally and for the country still are iffy, but yes, I am thankful for various things.  Politically, I realize, for some it is sometimes hard to see that.  Like it looks like someone certain Republicans targeted in horrible way, a Biden nominee, will be blocked by a few "moderate" Democrats.  Not just you know the two usual suspects.  If so, that's just bad.  But, some of the responses are just annoying kneejerk. 

(I can link to what exactly what I'm talking about, but I won't, since I want to be general here.  And, the nominee is not for a trivial position, but the position isn't THAT important either.  So, I won't.)

The longer one lives, though I have tried to be balanced ("but" and related words are like my favorite blog terms) for the long haul, the more you have to see that things are pretty complicated.  There is a lot of bullshit there.  Damn there is.  It is getting to me too.  But, it is not all bullshit.

And, for that, yes, I'm thankful.  Now for Christmas season. Hanukkah first, but the First Lady has already accepted the White House tree, which for some reason was brought in by a horse dragged carriage. Old timey.

Boy Meets Girl

Found this movie looking for something else and got the DVD. It was very good, including very good performances. The last twenty or so minutes feels a bit forced (with various plot developments), but was very impressed overall.

The movie is about a trans girl who starts to go out with a woman (both actresses are great), who turns out to have more connections to her than expected. This ultimately provides a push to her long supportive friend to admit his own feelings.

The film has various qualities of a good flick, including a great supporting cast and nice sense of place. Good intro to the characters. One nice moment is when a very conservative (and clueless) dad snaps when someone goes after his daughter. The sexist fiancé turns out to have complexities. Bet the dad might too. And, love the voice of the lead.

New York Moves to Allow 800,000 Noncitizens to Vote in Local Elections

The article notes the final vote (over the mayor's opposition, but with a veto proof majority) is due on December 9th. A few towns allow this, but this is the first (recent) case of a large city doing so. I'm all for it. The new mayor will look into it.

There is a concern it will "weaken" the power of citizens. Okay. A tenth of the city's population, legally residing here, should have a say on local government. You can debate how long they should be here. But, it is quite okay if they have a voice. As to discouraging citizenship, I doubt that is a major driver, or overwhelms the other positives, including providing them an incentive to be an educated part of the community at large.

Apparently, state law allows it. Meanwhile, SCOTUS took a voting case on a procedural ground today. Not sure why it wasn't part of the Order List.

Best Sellers

 

I saw this film referenced in an article cited here regarding Michael Caine deciding to retire from films. It sounded like it could be a good little film so was glad to see it available on demand for a fairly reasonable $5.95. Oh well. It was pretty lame. Waste of him and Aubrey Plaza. Cary Elwes (Princess Bride) had a small role, but didn't catch him until the credits. His brother is a producer of the film. Meanwhile, nothing notably new on the Xmas movies front.

Jets put in back-up Joe Flacco -- after not starting him for three games -- since Miami's defense is not a good fit for Mike White and the starter is still not 100%. So, the Jets lost in more "respectable" fashion. Houston had the big upset over Titans. Giants/Tampa Monday.

Kyle Rittenhouse Acquitted

Kyle Rittenhouse's trial was one of the "celebrity trials" which have been used as a special window into current events. I'm wary about such things though understand the value of having some example to provide a launching point to examine wider things. So, e.g., I have noted my support of using Supreme Court cases as windows to wider events.

But, we need a wider understanding to fully know what is happening. We will basically have to grant certain limits here.  People aren't going to "deep dive" everything.  This shows the importance of others doing it.  For instance, coverage can provide background and easily accessible links to key issues. For instance, one local paper has a FAQ page about commonly asked questions about its coverage. 

I have seen some limited positive developments here. A key controversy here, e.g., was when the judge would not let the prosecutors call the people he shot (and in two cases killed) "victims."   This op-ed shows the reactions of many -- that's outrageous!  But, as noted here, that is not a rare ruling. It presupposes guilt.  WE can call them "victims" as much as we (unlike the prosecutors during the trial) could call OJ a "murderer."  And, some on Twitter (to use that as a flawed judge of things)  seemed to understand the concept, at least eventually.

Meanwhile, the defense will be allowed to refer to the three people Rittenhouse shot as "arsonists," "looters" or "rioters" so long as they took part in those activities, Schroeder ruled — a decision prosecutor Thomas Binger called "a double standard."

How about this? Well, the "so long as" part is key here. The judge required the defense (who unlike the victims have constitutional due process rights) to provide a basis for this. And, as I understand it, the labels could only be used in their closing argument. I thought it probably reasonable for the prosecution to also be allowed in their closing argument, if a foundation is provided, to used "victims." But, that is a big step from thinking the judge was being horribly unjust for ruling as he did.

The judge -- who ran multiple times unopposed -- was criticized for various rulings he made.  At times, he did seem to do things problematic. How bad he was overall, especially as compared to other judges, is far from clear.  It is far from clear -- as some argued -- the judge basically clinched the deal.  Still, he didn't help matters.  But, it would be helpful to put even that in context.  Other trials very well has that concern.  

Okay. So, what is this trial about other than some white teenager whose picture makes him look like a bit of a ... well let's admit it, he looks like a bit of a chubby weenie.  These are his victims.  Yes, I can say that, not being a prosecutor making a case at trial.  Surprised they are all white?  I think you might not be alone.  I think some very well think at least one of these people (like one member of the jury) was a black guy. 

Jacob Blake -- now partially paralyzed after a police shooting in Kenosha, Wisconsin -- is black.  This led to protests.  It came out during the trial (in a detail that would seem rather useful to be more prominent) that Michael Rittenhouse lives in Kenosha.  Rittenhouse is Kyle Rittenhouse's father. Kyle himself lives in Illinois, though near the state border.   

So, Kyle (left) and his sister once boyfriend (Dominick Black) decides to go to the area allegedly to help keep the peace.  It is unclear if a car dealer actually sought out armed guards (one of those important details that flesh out these stories)  but he wound up "protecting" it.

Being a minor, Rittenhouse had Black buy him the gun (AR-15).  Late in the trial, a gun charge was dropped by the judge, who decided the technicalities of Wisconsin law might allow him to have it.  This is another thing that outraged people, including the timing of the judge's actions.  I simply am not sure about the legal argument involved here.  

This is the basic travesty of the whole thing.  Someone his age should not have the ability to take assault weapons (or whatever you want to call that thing) into public places like that, especially not into that sort of situation. It is just asking for trouble.  See also here, regarding the collision of the First and Second Amendments.  

Some will, sometimes in patronizing/condescending tones, explain how Rittenhouse's not guilty verdict was reasonable or even clearly warranted.  Some will add that the prosecution screwed up to boot.  Maybe, it was.  Maybe, calling Rittenhouse a "murderer" with strong angry conviction is a bit too loose.  Though again, I bet some  thought at least one victim was black. Okay.  Early on, I did.  But, I doubt I was alone. 

This does not erase that problems with our self-defense and gun laws.  Two people were killed by some 17 year old inserting himself into a situation with a dangerous gun.  One had serious damage to his arm (the third person in that photo).  All three of them rightly saw Rittenhouse reasonably dangerous, especially after he let off multiple shots, and killed someone.  

A close examination of the events -- and I read summaries, including accessible in the links -- might get you a conviction on at least one count.  Maybe, not.  That isn't the core issue -- toss someone, especially some "kid" (Chris Hayes hoped the "kid" will make something of his life on Twitter after the verdict, which came on the fourth day), into that situation with a damn AR-15, where bystanders will see him as a threat, and something horrible happening is not shocking at all.  

And, of course, the usual suspects (Rep. Matt Gaetz suggested he would make a good congressional intern) see him as some sort of hero, especially if one has a racist mentality.  Killing white people is okay there, I guess, if they were protesting the shooting of a black person.   

Another thing flagged by responses was the racist double standard. If he was black, would police ignore him when he came up to them with a big gun on his chest, arms up?  He walked away, arrested later.  The police argued that in the moment they had some sort of tunnel vision, not realizing he was trying to surrender or something.  Sounds bad to me. 

Would black claims of self-defense be respected?  Stand your ground laws, e.g., are applied unevenly.  The fact every black suspect with a gun in such situations (black people have been arrested for shooting or even killing police officers, after all) wouldn't have been shot dead or found not guilty (which some people did argue) is not the only test here.  

The next step is possible civil suits.  But, what lessons can we learn here?  A few.  (1) A judge should carefully try to provide an appearance of not having bias and act carefully in such a public trial   OTOH, people should understand the nuances of rules during a trial, even if the rules seem unjust.  If a judge is seen as biased, they will be less able or willing to take the bitter with the sweet. 

(2)  Gun laws should be carefully written and enforced.  Relatedly, though they do not just apply to gun usage, self-defense rules, especially in public places, should be intelligently framed; gun usage especially should not be basically encouraged.  People should understand the dangerous results of our current rules. We need not just keep on granting them as unfortunate givens that cannot be changed. 

Yes, this could include a not guilty verdict here though this case very well might be a hard one if all the facts are considered.  (For instance, one comment he made that seemed to suggest the was looking for trouble was excluded, but I'm unsure how relevant it was as the criminal background of one or more of the victims was not.)  [Blanket note: this is not a complete account of the events on my part though more of a "deep dive" than many have done.]

(3) Rittenhouse's presence there was dangerous as well as immature and people should have flagged this, not made him a hero.  The protests were one of many responses to events that have potential for trouble.  We need to carefully deal with these things, the best we can.  Throwing a lit match into a puddle of gasoline is not a good idea.  Glorification of Rittenhouse will encourage this happening again.  

(4) And, there is overall lessons of racial justice and other issues such as use of police force.  The situation arose after a police shooting when dealing with a domestic matter cited in one account as related to a third degree sexual offense.  He is cited as having a knife.  Should be a way for police to deal with that instead of shooting and partial paralyzing a man. Maybe, the #AbolishPolice movement is not totally stupid, especially if it means a serious reduction of the use of police force.  

I don't know what the whole thing clearly means.  There are other uses of force.  Other trials.  It does provide us a chance to look at things.  What we saw was far from clear.  As Paul noted, we look through the glass darkly.  

ETA: After writing this, I saw this regarding how certain media accounts framed things.  That tends to be a useful thing to look at in these celebrity cases. 

SCOTUS / Death Watch

No oral arguments this week, but various things happened.

Order List: The basically notable (somewhat) thing in the order list is the granting of an arbitration case. We were told in the SCOTUSBlog relist watch that it was the one case relisted. So, this is not really a big surprise.

Issue: Whether the arbitration-specific requirement that the proponent of a contractual waiver defense prove prejudice violates the Supreme Court’s instruction in AT&T Mobility LLC v. Concepcion that lower courts must “place arbitration agreements on an equal footing with other contracts."

===

Death Penalty:  Two executions were scheduled this week. The first is for someone who murdered his wife (and did other horrible stuff) in Mississippi.   This blow by blow has a lot of details.

"One thing that moved this one along is that he wanted the execution," [Mississippi Department of Corrections Commissioner] Cain said of the speed in which Cox's planned execution has panned.  It all is rather fast.  The last execution (some might find this surprising since it seems that it would be in the so-called "death belt") was in 2012.  He was sentenced then.   As things go, nine years is rather fast.

This is one of those "first principle" cases on some level.  He's white.  Doesn't seem to be a case of innocence or some issue that taints the judgment in some other fashion.  Not saying there isn't one (he previously raised certain procedural claims).  But, if you are going to execute someone, this seems to be who you would go with.  Since it's a "volunteer" case, no SCOTUS order.  OTOH, maybe even here there should be an automatic appeal to make sure the execution is appropriate. 

Even there, this was a bit of a red flag: "David Cox pleaded guilty in 2012 to eight charges, including capital murder, sexual battery and kidnapping. A jury unanimously sentenced him to death for capital murder and 185 years for the other charges."  

Seems a bit off he is in effect only getting 9 years.  I can understand accepting his waiver of claims if it was a longer period of time.  One recent case was like thirty years.  But, this hasn't even been a decade.  I think execution is different.  Still, he seems to want it, and maybe force him to stay in prison more than someone who didn't kill and raped/kidnapped would receive.  

Yeah, that is not great.  Anyway, he was executed shortly before his 51st birthday. The article notes "Cox, 50, would turn 51 on Nov. 30." Okay.  Things supposedly went smoothly.  Okay again.  FWIW, there are media witnesses at these things, and unlike the last Oklahoma execution, there was no citations of apparent problems.  

The whole thing underlines the basic problem of capital punishment. Something like three dozen people are on death row in the state, but this one execution occurred because he agreed to it. And, in the process, it almost seems like an early birthday present, the guy avoided years in prison for horrendous crimes.  Plus, each use of the death penalty has its own problems, including the possibility of more problems and basic moral and constitutional concerns.   

----

Julius Jones' received a lot more attention, even before Cox was executed.  The Supreme Court already 6-3 rejected holding up the execution, leading to the first Oklahoma lethal injection for a number of years.  It didn't go that well though the state (shocker) said otherwise.  

Few years back, Jones' lawyers challenged his conviction as racially discriminatory, a matter that the docket page shows hung around with various extensions for over a year.  He also claims innocence. Jones has been in prison for twenty years now for the crime. 

(On the racist front, a somewhat related issue here involves the state's treatment of Native Americans, including a still pending jurisdictional dispute that in part involves capital cases.) 

Jones earlier this week got a win.  Oklahoma’s Pardon and Parole Board voted 3-1 to recommend clemency for Julius Jones. They recommended Jones' death sentence be commuted to life in prison with the possibility of parole. It looked like the governor would reject that recommendation.   Turned out he only partially did so -- he decided LWOP.  I'm not sure how final that truly is; hopefully there is some possible wiggle room. 

It was also reported that the family's representative wanted to make clear that they were not just bloodthirtsy.  They thought the death penalty appropriate justice (the daughter of the murder victim Cox raped, e.g., viewed his execution).  Empathy would accept that is not an outrageous sentiment, even if you think it is very wrong to think that way.  

So, we are 1/2 for Oklahoma executions since they started up again, and 0/2 of executions without a hitch.

===

Presidential Supreme Court Commission: PSCOTUS is still debating the draft report.  Looks like the commissioners want to be clear, adding a proviso to the draft materials: "discussion  materials  was prepared by a working group for the Commission’s use in studying and deliberating on the issues" and "should not be understood to reflect the Commission’s views or those of any particular Commissioner"  nor are they "final."

Well, that has been a theme for me too in response to critics of what isn't the final report.  I have not read through the longish materials, waiting to see the final report.  A commission formed by Biden isn't going to be some BFD anyway, but the optimistic take is that it can be a useful means to educate and help push the rock up the hill at least somewhat.  Plus, there already was some ability of dissenting voices (including for expanding the Court) to have their say.  All of this is of some value.   

As other stuff is happening, PSCOTUS remains largely forgotten, including when SCOTUS somehow gets in the news cycle, like when Alito gives a speech. A few comments are tossed about it, what has been done so far, including those dissenting voices that can be further brought to light, not given the notice that they might get.  Again, I am not overly surprised.

Anyway, they talked about the report -- nothing too exciting -- and ended with a note that they will come back in around three weeks to discuss the draft report (maybe updated some more) again. Maybe decide whether or not to submit it to Biden, which would be mid-December. 

 ==

Other Actions: We have a listing of oral arguments for January 2022, one flag of how fast this year is going on some level. Each time, I remember how the current tainted SCOTUS was put together with three members whom I don't find worthy of the title "justice."  After guns and abortion etc., the cases will be somewhat more low key. 

There was a conference on Friday and an Order List (likely thin) is scheduled on Monday.  Also, there is a flag of at least one opinion, one likely to be not controversial.  They will only release it electronically according to Amy Howe (SCOTUSBlog) though they are back in person for oral arguments.  Might be because of the mini-holiday break.  

ETA: Nothing special Monday morning.  Four page Order List (nothing notable) and the one opinion was the Mississippi water dispute (it lost). 

Some Biden Matters

A few Biden related things of some note.

@POTUS spoke with @VP and @WHCOS at approximately 11:35am this morning. @POTUS was in good spirits and at that time resumed his duties. He will remain at Walter Reed as he completes the rest of his routine physical.

— Jen Psaki (@PressSec) November 19, 2021

Vice President Harris was acting president, under the 25A, while President Biden had a routine colonoscopy as part of his annual physical exam. Something like that happened with Bush/Cheney too. Trump never wanted Pence to be acting president and don't think that ever happened. Until today, no woman (or POC) was acting POTUS too. 

Hopefully, she did something at least symbolic during her 85 minutes or so (per a question to Jen Psaki in the press briefing later on).  VP Harris has been involved in a range of things, including a recent climate related summit in France, and (unlike Biden in two terms) has repeatedly cast a tie-breaking vote.

Today, President Joe Biden announced his intent to nominate two leaders to the bipartisan United States Postal Service Board of Governors to replace outgoing Governors Ron Bloom and John Barger.

There is so much happening, but the state of the post office [which I served a few years back during Christmas rush] has been a major concern for some time now. As noted in one article, the move amounts to the "replacing two key allies of Postmaster General Louis DeJoy, including its Democratic chairman."

Some want Biden to make the very serious move of directly supporting DeJoy's removal on for cause grounds. Given the current independence of the post office, this would be a very controversial approach, especially since there is some debate on HOW compelling his wrongdoing really is. Having a clear Democratic majority to remove him would be another way to go. 

President Biden participated in the annual Thanksgiving turkey pardon at the White House. This continues to be an asinine and somewhat insulting tradition.  I'm not really sure what the basic point of the whole thing is supposed to be. The turkeys aren't somehow in federal service or something.  Why would a president "pardon" them anyway?

The White House page discusses it here.  And, the basic idea appears to be that the turkey(s) is/are symbolically given to the president, who then symbolically "pardons" them, lets them go. Whatever. It's still stupid, and if anything, I think some rather not be reminded of what they are eating. On that front, maybe it is mildly helpful.  I'm a vegetarian, so won't be eating turkey myself.  And, given our treatment of them, find the whole thing (down to the cutesy names given to the birds) at best stupid.

So, the word is not really being used as the "pardon power" usually though it does provide a lay-up opportunity for criticisms of failures, including of President Biden in that area.  (I answer the op-ed in comments there -- I really do hope President Biden and his Administration does more, fear he won't do enough, but think there is some overheated "he has done nothing" stuff.)  

After I wrote this, the remarks at the event were posted on the White House page.  The usual lame jokes.  A reference to the importance of tradition.  Well, not every tradition (and this isn't that old) needs to be kept.  Some serious stuff about giving thanks.  Tossing in some vaccination stuff.  

Timely.  Not noted, but covered in media accounts, is him laughing off a serious question regarding pardoning people, particularly his promise to give relief to those in prison for marijuana crimes.  As I noted, his remarks had some serious stuff, if "on message."  I am not surprised he handwaved this part.  But, it very well did provide an opening to say more. 

A recent letter signed by a few senators flagged the issue.  When there is a story that the Senate Majority Leader is on the side of doing more than a mild (if important) reform of banking rules because of the fear it would prevent a key opening to do more, this is not really a minor issue.  I'm not saying I think President Biden will do nothing here.  But, the pressure is appropriate.  The criticism is appropriate.

And, this turkey pardon thing should end.

Lost Christianities (etc.)

I re-read The Lost Christianities: The Battles for Scripture and the Faiths We Never Knew by Bart D. Ehrman, which turns out to be available (perhaps not quite legally) online. This was helpful since I wanted to copy an endnote about textual analysis that also applies to constitutional texts (religion and law tends to overlap like his here):

I should stress that the question is not whether meaning is to be imported into or taken out of this or any other text. Everyone, of course, wants to know what a text itself means, not just what an interpreter wants it to mean. But there are some assumptions about a particular text that can make better sense of it than others. And it is never simply a case of “letting the text speak for itself,” a common plea of those who want to propose a new interpretation for a text. But as literary theorists have long known, texts don’t speak. They are written and read. And they are written and read by people who have thoughts, opinions, perspectives, beliefs, worldviews, values, priorities, likes, dislikes—living, breathing people who have to make sense of the world, including all the texts in it, and can make sense of the world only in light of who they already are and what they already think. It is naive to maintain that we can interpret a text in a vacuum. And if you ever read anyone’s attempt to interpret a text simply by “letting it speak for itself,” you’ll see that not even wanting to do so can make it possible

I have reference Bart Ehrman over the years here, finding his books worthwhile. Did not find his latest on "heaven and hell" to my liking. The book was organized in a way that seemed off to me.  Ehrman tends to repeat various themes (such as the development of texts before they were in their final form in the New Testament) in his works.  He also ultimately (last I checked) traveled from being an evangelist to an agnostic.  

One theme of his is that there are various "forgeries," no cushioning the blow there, in the name of apostles and so on.  And, this would include something like the so-called Pauline letter to Timothy or the like.  Many scholars in these cases often speak of the letters in effect being from a "school" of some sort of Paul's followers.  And, writing things in their name was supposedly accepted to some degree.  

Ehrman (at least in this book) doesn't even reference that as a (wrong-minded) theory.  Another thing I recall from reading accounts about Gnostic works particularly, was that some thought it fine to write in the name of some historical figure as a sort of "inspiration" or something.  It is hard to know how many actually thought such and such was really let's say something "Adam" or "Seth" actually "wrote."  

This would be an interesting subject to read an article about.  Let's take something like the Book of Daniel, which is generally thought to be written in the Maccabees period (that is, c. 165 BCE) with concerns arising from that era.  (Jews trying to retain their Jewish ways; end of times prophecy).  But, it is supposedly about someone that lived years earlier.  

How many of the readers (or as Bart Ehrman notes, listeners, since maybe one out of ten were literate, but many more heard the works in some form) actually thought it was about Daniel himself?  We might have low opinions of the insights of these people. There is no good reason to be too dismissive of them.  Many knew not to take this stuff literally in a range of cases.

This is one of the cases where I am largely reasoning from what is likely though some accounts suggest as much.*  Bart Ehrman, for instance, notes some of the stories about Christians written later on -- let's say in the 2nd Century -- were clearly seen at least partially as entertainment.  Did Peter really bring a smoked tuna back to life?  Did anyone really care?  

Anyway, the book is a bit academic, but it covers some interesting ground about "lost" Christianities, including aspects of the current "orthodox" view.  Many of these are expected losses -- a belief that you had to retain Jewish practices or that the old Jewish god was evil does not seem to be likely to retain wide support.  Plus, the "proto-orthodox" view supported a more organized, hierarchical view more likely long lasting in the Roman Empire especially. 

A nuanced understanding (seen by some of the people involved) about "Old Testament" (just using the term without qualifying it is a partisan Christian conclusion) ways of God would be best there.  Some today do point out that there does seem to be "two gods" here, a strict OT figure and a more peaceful (up to a point) NT Jesus figure.  "God" clearly developed over time though carefully admitting this is often not done.

(Again, one should remember part of what was "lost" here was some aspects of even the more organized churches.  The Nicene Creed has doctrinal nuances that developed over time, including following where logic of a sort might lead on the divine nature of Jesus.  This was not the same really as what Jesus himself taught or even what might be that logical on some level.  Both fully divine and human?  Don't focus too closely!) 

The most popular "lost" belief here is Gnosticism.  There is some interesting aspects there, as seen by how much scholars like Elaine Pagels are fascinated by it.  But, gnostics are are just darn esoteric -- try reading some of those books -- and were elitists too.  

Only those "in the know" truly "got it."  Still, among the many books that didn't go into the New Testament, the gnostic (if "early") Gospel of Thomas is the one that has a pretty decent shot at being ideally included.  

A few books in the New Testament very well might have been left out, such as the second letter to "Peter," or a letter to the Hebrews.  But, most of it really is fairly early material as compared to favored Gnostic works that were written mostly later, middle and late 2nd Century.  And, the works included are a lot more approachable to the average reader.  

OTOH, something like the Gospel of Truth or even a shorter Gnostic work like the Gospel of Mary (we only have part of it) could be a useful addition.  The Jewish scriptures covered a long history.  Why not include more second and third generation type Christian works?  The Thecla story, which is included in the New New Testament, also might be useful.  

I personally think Didache, which very well might have been written before 100 CE, would have made a good addition.  It provides an easy to read look at church practices and beliefs at the time with even a "do the best you can" lesson tossed in.  It is partially a sort of liturgical guide as compared to a gospel, epistle, or "revelation," but that doesn't really merit not including it.  After all, the Torah includes a book that is mostly legal rules and instructions.**  

The Bible has a lot, but there is a lot left unsaid.  Just read the stories of Abraham or Moses.  You will be asking various questions.  There is a lot to be said about the background and how we obtained the final versions.  It is one thing that I'm pretty interested in.   

---

* At times, such reasoning is challenged, and my general understanding is hard to prove specifically.  This can be annoying -- I think of it "you need to show footnotes" test that often is not evenhandedly applied. 

Like (without the unfair aspect an issue here) someone argued that rarely did #1 quarterbacks suit up while the back-ups started.  I think the opening to do that would be fairly rare anyway -- we are talking the cases where the starters are somewhat marginally healthy, the games are important enough that just trusting some weak #3 if necessary is rejected as an option, the somewhat slight risk of using the not 100% QB is deemed worth it etc.  But, it seems like it would happen now and then.

A sportswriter said it was rare.  The one case I recall is a playoff game, where an injured starter came into the game.  Not a normal case.  But, again, it is not your typical scenario.  Maybe, I was wrong.  Hard for me to check though -- you would have to search the statistics for starts in recent years.  

I think there is some place that organizes that -- see how baseball statistics can be called up quickly by some when necessary -- but it takes some knowledge of where to look.  

Anyway, it worked okay for Miami on Thursday -- the injured starter (finger) came in after the back-up (who did okay -- with a bit more time, he could have scored at the end of the half, and the offense of both would have been the same), and they beat the Ravens (the defense was fantastic, but the offense was good enough too).  

** Some time back, as I noted on this blog, the New New Testament collected some other writings that were left out of the original.  A diverse group voted on what to include, drawing a line at stuff written before 175 CE or so to limit themselves to the general New Testament time period.

Didache was a near miss.  A major problem, apparently, turned on a reference banning abortion.  If you are going to focus on some flaw like that, it is going to cause you problems.  The Gospel of Thomas ends with Jesus (using philosophical understandings of the age) saying Mary Magdalene would have to become male in her path to enlightenment.  

What exactly was "abortion" considered?  A range of things (such as forms of magic) was also rejected.  Was the ban absolute?  Recall there is a general rule about doing the best you can, if you could not completely follow the good path.  And, in general, the sayings of Thomas wasn't the only time some sexist theme was present.  

The lesson about bathwater, though the phrasing is a bit uncomfortable in this context, comes to mind. 

How the U.S. Hid an Airstrike That Killed Dozens of Civilians in Syria

This blog entry provides a sarcastic gloss while citing a NYT report that shows how good journalism should work. The article is subtitled "The military never conducted an independent investigation into a 2019 bombing on the last bastion of the Islamic State, despite concerns about a secretive commando force." It covers a lot of ground.

My basic take is that it shows the cloudness of armed conflict, especially in today's battles against insurgent forces. So at one point: "As for the other 60 people killed, the statement said it was not clear that they were civilians, in part because women and children in the Islamic State sometimes took up arms." We need clarity here to help judge our policies. Hiding details in part leads to "Trump is more peaceful" framing as the blog suggests.

One reply to me flagging that talked about some of them having skittles. Uh huh. Women and even children (who can be in their mid-teens) very well do "take up arms" and so on. Sometimes, even when strong criticism is warranted, there is a bit too much knee-jerk. It sort of triggers me a bit, though I'm careful not to take things too far. If pressed, many will admit their comments are partially lacking in nuance. Others? Oh well.

Captain Midnight Leaves the Building

This is a 2001 HBO film that portrays the Wannsee Conference, which ironed out the terms of the "Final Solution." Many familiar faces. Well acted and straightforward with Stanley Tucci as Adolf Eichmann (though he comes off more like a "Stanley Tucci character"). Lot of food and smoking.

And I thank you. https://t.co/eZpycs339y

— Steve Somers (@stevesomerswfan) November 12, 2021

I have not regularly listened to WFAN for a while, but was a fan of Steve Somers (how can one not) when I did. After almost thirty-five years, he is being forced out, the last of the originals. He might be "Captain Midnight," but he's a bit old to be required (as was the offer) to go back to nights. Guess the financials pan out here, but still seems wrong. Days would seem to be where the money is anyway. Can't leave him in his spot? Oh well.

Stephen K. Bannon Indicted for Contempt of Congress

Accountability and justice is a limited thing. When it comes to Trump and all the wrongs connected to him, many are rightly angry and impatient. Many will not be satisfied enough will happen or happen quickly enough. Have we not been down this road before with things like torture during the Bush Administration?

A small step was taken today. Stephen Bannon was "charged with one contempt count involving his refusal to appear for a deposition and another involving his refusal to produce documents, despite a subpoena from the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6 Attack on the U.S. Capitol."

People wondered why this took so long. Why did it take over three weeks from Congress holding him in contempt for not testifying to the 1/6 Committee? People used this as yet another reason (some re-litigating his nomination to the Supreme Court, which still can very well be defended given all that is involved) to bad mouth Merrick Garland. Garland put forth a statement:

“Since my first day in office, I have promised Justice Department employees that together we would show the American people by word and deed that the department adheres to the rule of law, follows the facts and the law and pursues equal justice under the law,” said Attorney General Merrick B. Garland. “Today’s charges reflect the department’s steadfast commitment to these principles.”

The process to hold people in contempt of Congress accountable is not known for its speed. It simply has not been a major concern -- with some exceptions (such as during the Red Scare) -- when people interfere with Congress. This is especially the case when it is some government official or previous official claiming some sort of privilege. It is bad, but it's old news.  And, no, this is not meant to handwave.  It is well time that a streamline process is used.  Trump running out the clock was outrageous. 

Great change -- this was the case for the Obama Administration airing out but not prosecuting (some "bad apples" were prosecuted) those involving in torture and mistreatment of detainees or closing GITMO -- requires multiple institutions to join together.  It's fucking hard.  I'm not going to pretend to know how best to do it.  Maybe, angry reactions can help.

It still is true that factors were involved here.  Lawfare explained the privilege issues that the Justice Department had to navigate.  Also, the person who signed the indictment -- the U.S. attorney for D.C. -- was sworn in a week ago.  The "what is taking so long?!" brigade might keep such things in mind.  And, after multiple people very well seemed to get too soft treatment, we are now starting to get real punishment for 1/6 too.

One liberal voice who also is a regular guest on MSNBC complained that if he didn't show up to testify, you wouldn't wait three weeks.  In this case, that is far from clear, especially if he asserted some sort of press privilege.  Contempt of Congress involves a process. It isn't just some witness not showing up for court in a criminal trial. Some new (as a matter of normal practice) "inherent contempt" process (enforced how?) sounds nice, but Congress is working with the tools readily available. 

Someone else spoke about how people of color who attacked government buildings will get quickly arrested.  Nice red meat.  But, the issue here is not Stephen Bannon's guilt for some sort of conspiracy (he didn't directly invade the U.S. Capitol ... it being hard to get the "big boys" is not news). It is for criminal contempt.  THREE similar cases were filed since 1990.  

I know some will say "sure white boy" when I say that I am guardedly supportive of Merrick Garland.  It's hard not to at least respect his public service.  And, as I have noted in the past, if you don't like his style, targeting him is somewhat misplaced.  It blame goes to the institution and ultimately to President Biden.  And, the people who voted him in.

We are a long way from accountability and justice.  But, in November 2021, it is a bit too soon to argue nothing is there.  This is an important step, one that can be a message for others who choose not to work with Congress.  We also have Republicans still defending stonewalling, past bipartisan blockages compared to the stakes here.  Can we PLEASE continuously remind people the stakes when noting the possibility of party control changing in November 2022?  Not blithely speak of it as horse racing?

Meanwhile, the battle continues, including the court of appeals for now declaring release of Trump documents.  We are told this is all to the good. It's a careful appellate process involving a non-favorable panel.  Who will hear oral arguments the end of the month (let's say).  And, what?  Will we can a decision by the end of the year?  Again, I understand the anger.  This is all bullshit on a basic level.  Run out the clock.  Republicans 2023.

We still have to fully respect what is going on.  The Stephen Bannon indictment here was a good thing.  You push and criticize, but also give credit when credit is due.  And, realize the complications.  That all is involved in the long fight.  

Again, what do I know?  

And, right after I published this, there is one more "see?" for those who want to Eeyore -- the case was assigned to a conservative judge.  But, one comment notes the judge ruled against Trumpies before.  And, if we are concerned the judge will hold Bannon not guilty on legal grounds, that would be appealed as much as a judge who held the other way.  We can't nay-say to death here.  And, the precedent of contempt still matters.  Onward. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day etc.

The next meeting of the Presidential Commission on SCOTUS will be on 11/19. Following the link to the public notice:

The purpose of this meeting is for the Commissioners to vote on amended by-laws and deliberate on revised discussion materials that will inform the report the Commission is charged with preparing pursuant to Executive Order 14023.

I'm not sure what changes in the by-laws is involved here. Will that be notable? There was a report that the final report will be delayed until mid-December. I guess, along with the infrastructure package (finally passed on Friday night) and bigger "Build Back Better" package (delayed for yet another reason, now some selective concern about a CBO score for financial reasons ... who the hell cares? everyone is in debt somewhow, it's how you use the money), there are delays everywhere.

As regularly now the case, the Supreme Court released substantive results of a Friday conference (basically grants) Friday afternoon separately from the Monday order list. The most notable grant might be taking a "Bivens" case, which is a federal damage remedy that SCOTUS back in 1971 said was based in constitutional principles. But, since then, there was a continual practice of restricting the reach of such claims. Without taking the offer of just burying Bivens, this case might block even more claims. 

There are various constitutional based cases being heard this week (breadth of the right to have religious ministers in the death chamber also arises from a federal statute, RFRA). Strict Scrutiny Podcast flagged an important one that might be lost in the shuffle involving unequal benefits given to people who reside in Puerto Rico.  The equity involved has a hidden danger too of expanding the power of conservative judges. 

I think you can draw a line here pretty easily regarding powerless -- equality of states?  heck Puerto Rico has no votes in Congress -- suspect classes, especially ones with racial and wealth inequities.  The Biden Administration says they oppose this on policy grounds, but are defending it on legal grounds. Fine line there.  He asks for Congress to change the policy, but doesn't sound like they have yet. 

Anyway, perhaps we will see at least Sotomayor attack the Insular Cases though perhaps you do not really need them to uphold this policy.  As noted in the  podcast and briefs, the Supreme Court in a pair of per curiams upheld the policy while still saying that equal protection principles do apply to Puerto Rico.  There just are rational grounds (at least) for the policy, allegedly.  Without delving into it, they seem rather weak, but when dealing with economic policy, the Supreme Court doesn't need much.

Order List day was boring today.  State secrets, or a possible opt out, had two hours of argument time.  Not sure why.  We already had a secrets related case involving torture.  This one was somewhat less horrible, so maybe it offers a mild way to limit it.  We shall see.  Also a copyright case.

Next, Stop Christmas (and 2011)

The Sven movie was a silly Munsters t.v. movie, but the Hallmark option was pleasant enough. Hallmark already had a movie where a white woman (noted since there are a notable number of POC films now) goes back a relatively short period of time (less than twenty years). And, both were pleasant enough, this one a bit more rough around the edges.

The "in" joke, and one many younger viewers might miss, is that Christopher Lloyd and Lea Thompson (again as a mom, but just one now) had supporting roles. Yes, the Back to the Future duo. There was a Terminator joke, but it would have been amusing if there was another reference. And, this is a "2011" version of 2021, since no one is wearing masks. Well, except while she is in surgery. Apt for Daylight Savings night though.

Anyway, some time travel confusions (she switches to "2011" mode down to her phone, but will she remember all that changed in 10 years? Not right away). And, like the other film, the time traveler helped her parents' marriage some. With a time traveling train and a love interest racing to catch it (he does not, but sees it disappear, so guess he knows for sure), a call back to the third movie where he did catch it would have been cute.

Election Day

I continued my recent habit of being a poll worker at my local polling place. Long day -- you start at 5AM to set up, the polls close at 9PM, and then you close shop and it's over at around 10. You get two, two hour breaks. There is a lump sum payment along with a training voucher. It doesn't really work out to be much more than the current minimum net. But, like giving blood, it does make me feel good to give a bit back.

The election this year in New York was for local elections (including the usual stupid judicial race, where you pick five of six [one labeled Republican this time] people you have no idea about. We had a few competitive races (my own city council race, parts of the area somewhat conservative, was semi-competitive with the losing Republican getting over 40% last I checked). 

The "Dems in disarray" theme doesn't really apply to NYC, where the big news is maybe the Republicans will have around five people in the City Council instead of three or four (back in the day, there was one). As shown in that article, the Dems did lose some local races in other parts of the state, helped by low turnout. Dems are probably tired after 2020. You aren't going to win them all. 

There is a notice here that an "April" 2020 rule required masks at all polling places along with a suggestion for an isolated place for those without masks.  I don't recall the first part for that primary, but there were masks available by the general.  Poll workers had to wear them.  I am vaccinated but continue to wear masks on public transportation (required) and supermarkets (advised with the Delta variant rising earlier).  I wear a cloth mask (one study cited they are less useful, but we were given them in the summer of 2020 for census work) and my glasses kept on fogging.  

My area again is somewhat conservative, so there are more registered Republicans. This led to a problem because the presence of several third party mayoral candidates (Eric Adams was not on the Working Family line, but it qualified to be on the ballot; the blank slot being filled by another third party could have dealt with the confusion) aligned one candidate in the row of Republicans.  So, if you voted all the way down, you overvoted.  This happened a few times -- even when someone was told to not do it -- but they just had to re-do their ballot.  A person had the right to two voids.  The scanner rejects overvotes.  One minor way the old lever machines could have been better. 

The other basic issue was the ballot measures.  They were on the back of the ballot in English and Spanish.  Some (one count had city voters especially doing this -- around 20%) simply skipped voting for them at all. You can undervote after all.  This is where the Republicans had a good time in New York -- rather surprisingly, every single voting related (including the redistricting measure) ballot measure failed.  The no-excuse absentee voting measure did a bit better, losing 56/44 [83% reported, but doesn't look like there is enough to compensate] over 58/42.  

The redistricting measure had various components, including setting in place the number of state senators, that I even thought iffy.  But, the two voting measures seemed to me rather benign -- the state could allow same day voting and no-excuse absentee voting.  The Republicans strongly promoted voting "no" and there is recriminations the Democrats didn't do enough to promote "yes."  It didn't even do that well in New York City.  

(The clean environment and civil court measures passed easily by around 2:1 margins. I still don't know what a right to a clean environment will exactly give me. Sounds nice though. And, yes, I think we probably do have such a right in some sense as an obligation of government.) 

There was a reference in one article that the ballot measures were simply confusing.  I think that was a bit exaggerated though I can see some confusion.  For instance, a clear explanation on why there was a need for a vote on absentee ballots -- which people have now enjoyed without limits given COVID since mid-2020 -- given constitutional requirements could have been helpful.  That one at the very least should have passed, even with Republican bullshit about voter fraud. 

The polling places actually were given some ballot measure explanation booklets (and people should have received some voting guides in the mail), but there was a notice only to give them on request.  This wasn't given much thought by my fellow poll workers, from what I can tell, but in hindsight is rather outrageous.  Why not simply put them on a table for those who wish to read them?  I actually gave one to some voter who was confused and she seemed to be quite happy with it.  

This is a civics fail.  I noted earlier that I'm not a big fan of ballot measures since I think they can be confusing and that it would be better for our representatives to have the power to do these things.  I can understand giving the people the power to make big decisions regarding changes to the state constitution.  But tweaking absentee ballot rules and the like?  At the very least, if they have the power, there should be a good education campaign to help voters to make their decision.  There was not.  

===

The big news is that the Trumpy (if with a nice gloss) Republican for governor won by a few points.  He promoted the usual things, fears of critical race theory, stop the steal curious, sympathy for parents who struggled through COVID (as if a Republican would have done better), and so forth.  It was a surprise, since it looked like the incumbent would at least eke it out.  

But, after the usual drama, some pointed out that it actually matches normal off-election trends.  In fact, the early fears that the New Jersey Democratic governor would lose too had a historical pedigree.  It turned out the Dems escaped there, if close enough for a big scare.  Still, especially if the Republicans manage to control (or get a tie) in the assembly in Virginia, it's hard.  Stephen Colbert did toss in some perspective -- we survived Trump and I'm supposed to be terrified of this guy?

True enough, but it's still rather depressing that voters still can be convinced to elect people with the usual scare lines and bullshit.  We are also seeing some people wishing the winner well and all. It's a rinse/repeat affair.  You should not be able to spread lies and bullshit about basic things like race and voting, win, and at least not have to EARN some good graces. It just encourages more of the same.  Can we please stop it?  

[ETA:  The specific person and the stuff he ran on is bothersome, but if you look closer -- which headlines and excited reactions do not -- the results in Virginia are simply not shocking.  Party control fluctuated regularly in recent times.  Youngkin won by about 2%.  This might sound like hindsight bias, but people were colored by some in the moment assumptions during the race as well. 

And, this is something that I missed and I shouldn't have really, the incumbent isn't running.  There is a particular reason -- Virginia doesn't allow the incumbent to run for re-election.  There needs to be at least one person in between (Northam here).  This shows the state encourages turnover and eight years of one party controlling is how it worked since 1994 with Terry McAuliffe breaking the back and forth there in 2013 to stop the semi-expected second Republican, especially given party control in the White House.

So, historically, a TM win would be an uphill battle.  One can argue maybe given the times a "insider" type like TM was not the best bet.  But, the guy lost by two percent.  Who knows?  If the "Democrats are in trouble," is it really because of this?]

There is the usual "Dems in disarray" stuff, of course.  I am tired of that sort of thing, though clearly Democrats need to continue to fight and carefully get through a tough environment.  I do wish some recognize they are doing things with a bare majority in Congress.  Perhaps, Manchin and Sinema etc. can also see the stakes.  This can help motivate. Or, they can just use the results (selectively) to continue their path, including wanting to uphold "bipartisanship" by not ending the filibuster while Republicans show nearly no good faith at all (one Republican senator voted for one of the voting bills ... that is to DEBATE IT).  

Anyway, though it is not completely over with some lingering races, we have gotten through another election.  Next up in 2022 is the race for New York governor, two women the leading hopefuls in the Democratic primary.  One last thing -- the long time incumbent mayor "Democrat" won a write-in candidacy in Buffalo versus the Democratic Socialist.  Basically "doing a Lieberman."  An Asian woman did win as mayor of Boston, the first time a woman and woman of color (one is now acting mayor, with the mayor now in Biden's cabinet) was so elected in that city.