NYC Schools Celebrate Diwali

Halloween is "All Hallows' Eve." November 1st is also known as All Saints Day, a holy day of obligation for Catholics. It is also my younger brother's birthday but he did not go to Catholic school. 

Also, for the first time, New York City’s public school students will have Friday off to observe Diwali, a holiday celebrated worldwide by Hindus, Buddhists, Sikhs, and Jains. 

Diwali, also known as Deepavali or the “Festival of Lights,” is a celebration of light over darkness.

The day is often celebrated on different days. Holidays provide a specific day to honor things. The school holiday is an additional way different groups have been honored over the years. 

For instance, the schools are off for Rosh Hashanah. We have had more days added in recent times, including Juneteenth, now a national holiday. In the process, what used to be more Christian and European-focused has become more diverse. 

We honor different groups, including religious traditions, partially through the secular holidays we celebrate. The Supreme Court has recognized this is appropriate if done in a properly secular way (e.g., Lynch v. Donnelly). 

Some of these opinions probably allow practices that are not truly religiously neutral. Nonetheless, the overall principle is appropriate. The more diverse we practice it, the less likely we will wrongly de facto establish certain religions or favor certain groups.  

Diverse respect for different cultures honors equal protection and religious liberty values. Vice President Harris symbolizes this:

Harris was born to a Hindu mother from India and an Anglican father from Jamaica, was influenced by strong Christian women around her, and later married a Jewish man from Brooklyn.

A final matter that comes to mind when someone flagged it in a comment online responding to my reference to this subject elsewhere is third-party effects from religious practices.

Jay Wexler wrote an interesting book on how religious practices often are not environmentally friendly:

Wexler studied a wide selection of religions on his trip. Throughout his book, he reveals the unnoticed ways that religion conflicts with the safety of the environment. Fireworks, for example, are widely used in festivities such as Chinese New Year celebrations, the Muslim holiday Eid-al-Adha and the Hindu festival Diwali, but they are more corrosive to the environment than many expect. Wexler uses humor to tackle these issues in his book.

He is generally supportive of a wide breadth because of the importance of religious liberty. His somewhat libertarian views (Wexler appears generally liberal) are also shown in a separate book where he discusses marijuana usage.  

I think he might have been a bit too indulgent. We should respect religious beliefs and practices. Third-party harms do warrant some limits. 

Schools honoring Diwali do not raise such concerns. It is a reminder of the diverse religious beliefs in this country. And, yes, to toss in another topical issue, one party is more supportive of that these days. 

We can also recognize Wiccan and related nature-based religions which might find Halloween a worthy day of respect for more than going door-to-door (trunk-to-trunk, per a practice I recently heard about) for candy and other goodies.  

Trump Is Among Other Things A Fascist

Steve Bannon refused to comply with a congressional subpoena related to the 1/6 investigation. Traditionally, this resulted in no real consequences. Sometimes, we had years of litigation. This happened here too. But, he eventually lost and served a few months in prison. He was released today.

I hope this will serve as a small deterrence to future stonewalling. It takes a lot. The whole branch of Congress has to agree to hold the person in contempt. The executive has to agree to prosecute. There is theoretically inherent contempt power for which Congress can act on its own. People talk about it. Good luck with it actually happening.   

We still have much to learn about and address regarding January 6th. The greatest unfinished business involves Donald Trump. We are in a crazy situation where the guy is running for president and has a reasonable chance of winning. I hope he does not. I think he will not But, we shall see. 

Multiple people, including academic experts and his former Chief of Staff, have labeled Trump as a fascist. The term fits even if it is one of those terms like "racist" which some only want to apply to other people. What more do we have to know about Trump before people are not wary about the usage? 

We can summarize the qualities of fascism:

• Extreme nationalism
• Cult of Personality
• Militarism 
• Ethnic Divisions 
• Use of Mass Movements (Negative Populism) 
• Denial Of Civil Liberties 

What part doesn't apply to Trump?  Yes. My mayor, currently indicted for federal crimes, Eric Adams associates "fascism" with Hitler. Adams is a Democrat and Kamala Harris supporter. 

However, he wants to downgrade how bad the guy is, including as Trump has a NYC rally that is so bad that Republicans running for office in close races are running for cover.  A rally that took place at the same location as a 1939 Nazi rally. A bit too on point. 

Trump isn't Hitler, however, so Eric Adams doesn't want to call him a "fascist." Okay, dude. 

"Fascist" is one of those words that are controversial. You can find people quite unpleasant without them being a fascist. But, at some point, we need to accept and remind people about how particularly bad some people are. Liz Cheney is not supporting Kamala Harris because Trump has a bad tax policy. 

Anyway, among other things, I'm tired of, I'm tired of Eric Adams. New York City deserves better. 

Duty To Vote

My blog on voting references voting as a civil responsibility and even a moral duty. The Duty to Vote by Julia Maskivker spells out the latter argument without a legal mandate, which some countries have with limited enforcement. 

I don't think a legal mandate is necessary though if it was in place, it seems to me likely to be an extremely mild burden. It is not likely to be enforced and the result would likely be a minor fine unless (maybe) the person is a constant scofflaw.  

What is the responsibility of a citizen? Non-citizens have to follow the law. Citizens might have to occasionally go to jury duty. 

Residents with some basic connection to the community can be liable for treason, which is largely academic in the current days anyway. Citizens traditionally had militia duties, which currently again is largely academic without a draft. 

We can consider moral duties to include some overall concern about the community. A citizen would have a duty to be aware of public events in some basic fashion. They should have some minimal education. They should engage with fellow citizens with minimal respect. Mandatory education laws exist. We do not fine people for simply being an asshole. 

We live in a republican democracy where the people select our leaders. Many people do not vote. The most notable result occurs in primary elections where there is more of a likelihood that highly motivated partisans will vote. This is likely to skewer the general election candidates. 

If we honor equality, we should also try to promote an equal role for citizens in who leads them. The ultimate choice here is elections.  

What is the concern? Does it violate libertarian values? The minimal requirement here is trivial compared to many other requirements, including daily use of seatbelts in cars or the inability to purchase various drugs. A blank vote would provide someone the ability to avoid supporting an ideological choice. 

A moral requirement to vote -- which again need not be legally mandated -- could be fulfilled by submitting a blank vote. If you do not like either candidate, there is a third option. The same applies if you are not sure about ballot measures. "Neither" can be an option. Write-ins can also be available.  

A blank ballot might register on the voting machine to ensure that it is not by mistake. A blank ballot was also a way to protest the Palestinian situation during the primary this year.  You can avoid that by making it a separate choice, which would keep things private.  

I do not see much of a libertarian burden here even philosophically. A blank vote is akin to a non-vote. A person can be sent a self-addressed, postage-paid postcard to send back if all you want to do is submit a blank ballot.  

We might be concerned about requiring the uninformed and apathetic voters to submit a ballot. First off, the two are not the same. People do not vote for a variety of reasons. Often they would vote if mildly pressed to do so, such as given a ballot at the post office. Second, the blank vote option provides such voters a path of least resistance. 

Finally, it is unclear to me what the net result would be if we have some additional pressure for such people to vote. Many people who vote are ill-informed. Are these people much different?  

Second, if we do more to pressure people to vote, we should also do more to educate them. Net, we might come out the same, or even improve the situation.  

We often hear PSAs and so forth encouraging us to vote. Overall, the assumption often is that voting will lean a certain way. It will in some areas. Having more people vote in heavily blue or red districts very well might not. It still can be a useful civic enterprise.

Citizenship is often seen as almost a sacred thing though it often doesn't truly mean much. Voting is one case of citizenship meaning something. For non-citizens or those too young or otherwise unable to vote, they too can get involved. For instance, they can be informed, discuss the issues, and petition. 

We should consider ourselves bound as citizens to have a duty to vote. Again, if you honestly think you are too uninformed to make an informed choice, there are options to not choose unwisely.  

I do not think the arguments against this are sound.

A Golden Life and The Christmas Charade

As a child, I did not read much fiction. I did not read the usual books children read. We were not given lots of books to read like some. For instance, my niece's child has a mini-library. I persisted anyhow.  

I still do not read much fiction. I do from time to time find some books to enjoy. Once, there was a Jane Austen period. I read each of her books, including Lady Susan and the two unfinished novels. Checked out multiple biographies and a collection of her letters. Did not read all of her Juvenalia, which is a collection of her works as a child and teen.  

Modern fiction also from time to time appeals. I enjoyed a few mystery writers, including the early works of Sue Grafton. The latest was a book I found by chance while looking for something to read at the library, after it looked like nothing caught my eye.

Frances is in her mid-20s and is starting as a secretary in 1930s Hollywood. She has a secret. Meanwhile, her boss, a big producer, is working on adapting the story of a famous 19th-century actress to the screen. 

The real deal opposes the idea, leading to a trip, and further complications, including the actress who is determined to play her to show she can do more than play innocents. Toss in such drama as his teenage daughter. It all blends together nicely.

The book might make a good film. One good aspect is some well-drawn supporting characters, which are essential in a good film. 

It isn't Halloween yet, but yes, the Christmas season is upon us. I saw Christmas decorations at the discount store. And, there are a bunch of Christmas films on multiple Hallmark Channels and Up TV. 

There are so many of these films. Sometimes, I like the feel of them with some of the stars a better bet. Corey Sevier is a familiar face, including on both channels. He was in an enjoyable film last night. He also directed it. Checking, he directed a few films.  

He plays a gruff FBI agent who accidentally has to work with a librarian. She too was in a few Hallmark films. She has less of a somewhat fake feeling flavor than some of these regulars.  

The film is well-paced and is focused more on mystery than romance. The necessary complication comes late and is disposed of painlessly. 

There have been one or more Halloween films on Hallmark, including one with a ghost. Do not know if they have any new films for Election Day though a few films have election-related plots.

A few familiar faces are in the cute Mayor Cupcake, which was made in 2011, but check it out if you can. 

Biden Visits Indian Country and Apologizes for Federal Indian Boarding Schools

Cheryl Rofer noted that President Biden did something important recently ("Biden Apologizes for Government Role in Residential Indian Schools"). Rofer is a good addition to the blog, including avoiding some of the macho bullshit of the veterans. You can read his remarks here.

President Biden made a historical appointment by making a tribal member his Interior Secretary (Deb Haaland is an enrolled member of the Laguna Pueblo tribe). Perhaps, that should be a constant.

Has it really been ten years since a sitting president came to Indian Country? What is up with that? The map shows how large the Indian country is with a few small pockets on the East Coast. Doing the map, President Obama stopped by but not Trump. That seems somewhat expected.

(Native Americans can be an important voting group in certain swing states. They tend to lean Democratic with some exceptions. A few Republican members of Congress are/were enrolled members.)  

Biden took the opportunity during his visit to apologize for the federal government's involvement in Native American bordering schools. He spelled out some of the horrors: 

Children abused — emotionally, physically, and sexually abused.  Forced into hard labor.  Some put up for adoption without the consent of their birth parents.  Some left for dead in unmarked graves. 

And for those who did return home, they were wounded in body and in spirit — trauma and shame passed down through generations. 

He made a formal apology:

I formally apologize — (applause) — as president of the United States of America, for what we did.  I formally apologize.  And it’s long overdue.

He bluntly said it was great wrong:

It’s horribly, horribly wrong.  It’s a sin on our soul.

News coverage reports the emotional reaction to his remarks. They matter. A recognition of what happened and an apology is not magic. But it matters. The proof is in the reactions of those involved. Their testimony means more than any other words.  

It also reported his argument that our great country -- he has repeatedly spoken of our greatness and potential -- must be honest about our past:

“It did take place,” the president continued. “Darkness can hide much. It erases nothing. Some injustices are heinous and horrific. They can’t be buried. We must know the good, the bad, the truth. We do not erase history. We make history. We learn from history, and we remember so we can heal as a nation.”

First Lady Jill Biden repeatedly came to Indian Country. The Vice President did as well. Native News Online reported:

In July 2023, the Vice President made history by visiting the Gila River Indian Community, becoming the first sitting President or Vice President to do so. During her visit, she emphasized the Biden-Harris Administration's commitment to Tribal Nations and Native communities. She also received an update on the Gila River Indian Community’s Reclaimed Water Pipeline Project, a water infrastructure initiative funded by the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law that aims to provide reliable access to clean water and reduce reliance on the Colorado River.

During Biden's remarks, a heckler shouted about Palestinians. It seems to be an inapt moment to do that. Disrespecting Native Americans. I suppose there are ways to defend it, including as another example of injustice.

The transcript tells his response:

THE PRESIDENT:  No, no.  Let — let her go.  There’s a lot of innocent people being killed. 

AUDIENCE MEMBER: (Inaudible.)

THE PRESIDENT:  There’s a lot of innocent people being killed, and it has to stop.

People have -- with some force -- criticized the Administration for being too supportive of Israel. But fair is fair, we should also remember the efforts they made -- in the face of opposition from Israeli leadership -- to provide support for the Palestinians. The United States aren't the ones fighting the war there. Our support helps but is far from essential. 

I keep on seeing reports about how close the election is. It is a sign of how this country is broken. It should not be close given the alternative.

For now, let us honor a great president and his fitting somber reminder.  

I Voted and You Should Too!

Voting 

The stakes are high this election. People can do various things to help. 

The most basic thing you can do is to vote. It is a civic responsibility. I am inclined to agree that it should be a civic duty.  Try it. It won't bite.  

New York has had early voting for the last five years. It was a bit of a trudge at first to walk to the early voting location. Now, it is only a few blocks away. It is near Rite Aid where I received my free shots.

Voters can also vote by mail. We do not have "drop boxes." The usual suspects challenged the ability of all voters to vote by mail. Republicans used to favor absentee voting.  It was upheld in court.  

Voting ID

New York does not require identification. You sign a little laptop "e-poll book." New York voters do receive a card that eases processing since it has a helpful bar code.  You get a pen with a rubber tip to sign in. 

Voting identification addresses a fake problem (Rick Hasen and others did the math) of voting fraud. A minimum burden, and it would be for some people, is a poor cost/benefit in that respect. 

A voting identification system can provide minimum problems. If the government does a good job, it can also provide helpful free identification. New York City, for instance, has a free ID with many perks. 

A sensible regime would provide a grace period (maybe 1-2 election cycles) and safeguards. For instance, Texas provides free election certificates upon request if you do not have various types of photo identification. Voters can have provisional ballots as an additional safeguard.  

I can contemplate an agreeable compromise though understand why people (1) don't think it worthwhile and (2) distrust the people who want ID laws.  The distrust is well-earned.  But, a middle path is possible and can have its own benefits.  

Ballot Measures 

I have already talked about the New York ballot measures. There is a statewide measure that expands equality. To repeat:

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

Multiple states specifically have ballot measures addressing abortion rights.  This measure is more open-ended. I am fine with that -- our rights are open-ended. Abortion rights fit into a wider whole.  Maybe, it would be best not to have the other equality provisions all at once. But, overall, it's okay.  

There are also city ballot measures. One involves sanitation issues and others address some technical matters. The city measures have baggage as restraints on the city council in a battle over control with the mayor. 

The first measure is a valid way for the public to express their will. The rest are of varying levels confusing and unnecessary. I agree direct democracy has its place. Sometimes, it is taken too far.  

Voting 

After a voter signs in, they obtain a ballot, along with their pen and sticker (or two, if you got a "future voter" sticker). At the early voting site, there was a guide for the ballot measures, but you had to give it back. They go to a small "privacy booth" (little table) and fill out the ballot. 

Then, they walk it up to the scanner and feed it in. There are no receipts. If they make a mistake on the ballot, they have two more shots. 

Early voting (nine days), voting by mail, and many ballot locations help lead to a quick process. You might have to wait a few minutes. But, that is basically all. It might be longer at some locations but generally long lines and such is not our problem. 

[ETA: Early voting has been busy in various locations, which has led to some wait time. 

But, it also still is not comparable to the specter of hours-long lines that arise in certain cases over the years elsewhere.]

We also have a ballot market machine with multiple means for disabled people to vote.  It is rarely used at my location though in one year the operator encouraged more people to use it. You do not have to be disabled and it helps to prevent mistakes. 

(The voter still has to check in at the e-poll book but can use an assistant if necessary.) 

Main Attraction 

The president, vice president, and members of Congress are the main attractions. Sen. Kirstin Gillibrand is running for re-election in New York. 

We don't have any additional presidential slots though you can vote Working Family (Harris) or Conservative (Trump). There are official write-ins, including Jill Stein and Cornell West. These are candidates for president on the ballot who will be counted. Other races do not have this rule. A curious quirk.  

New York City has instant run-off voting in the primaries. District attorneys are state offices so they are not part of that. Instant run-off voting is also not used for general or federal elections. 

It would make sense to do so, including for federal elections, because sometimes third parties lead to the other two having less than 50% of the vote.  This sometimes leads to unnecessary run-off elections.  

New York this year also votes for state senators and assembly members. There are third-party options for certain races, including a LaRouche slot. 

Election Day 

Is it Election Day yet? The waiting is stressful.  

No. It's only early voting.

The Media

The ultimate fear is that Trump will win. The media is helping him. Check out your local paper online. 

I was pissed off checking the New York Times. Where are all the articles underlining how horrible Trump is? You would not know anything special is going on.  

Various articles about Trump help. But, the level of horrible warrants a whole lot more.  

There is also the failure of major newspapers to endorse someone. I have seen people handwave that as not mattering much. It still is somewhat troubling. 

The minimum should be for newspapers to provide information about the candidates and ballot measures. There are some helpful online resources to provide local and state news for New York, including this helpful discussion of judicial elections.  

I find judicial elections troublesome with our (NY) particular variety basically a big joke. The candidates are pre-chosen and in most cases, the number of people you choose for slots is the same as the number available. I fill in a name for at least one of them.  

Endorsements

My views are apparent. Trump is a grave threat to our country. He is overall unfit for the office. He is constitutionally disqualified by taking part in an insurrection. Trump v. Anderson be damned.

Republicans aided and abetted him. Swing districts in 2022 helped them obtain a thin majority in the House of Representatives. New York districts played a major role. Hopefully, they help to swing things the other way.  Gillibrand is a fine Democrat.

I cited my opinions on the ballot measures. I do not have much to say about the state races. My state senator has good progressive positions. 

The assemblyman is newer to the office and seems more bland. For whatever reason, he is not on the Working Family line. Don't know if that means much.  I grant I do not pay much attention to him. 

(The two people are Sen. Gustavo Rivera and Assemblyman John Zaccaro Jr.  I probably should pay somewhat more attention to them. But, I think the thumbnail comments are overall satisfactory.) 

The judicial races are a joke. We should not have them under the current system. Seven more ovals to fill in for no real reason is just tedious. 

Happy voting!

More Line Drawing: Child Pornography

Constitutional analysis is often one big slippery slope exercise. 

Where do we draw lines? These days a "limiting principle" is as popular as talking about putting things in "buckets" (seriously; they started this in recent years for some reason). For instance, will same-sex marriage lead to incest and polygamy? 

Will protecting peyote in religious exercises mean marijuana too? And, maybe, that won't be so bad! The game is played for free speech too. There are various categories not covered including threats, libel, and perjury (not lying across the board). 

Obscenity is one unprotected category. For whatever reason, selling the idea Nazism is fine is okay, but certain types of patently offensive matters of prurient interest don't have enough protection for First Amendment purposes. It's sort of f-ed up.

The more logical approach is to protect minors and unwilling viewers. Yes, we have had various debates on line drawing, including involving George Carlin's dirty words on the radio. But,  as a general matter, that is a lot more narrow in scope than a total ban.

Likewise, certain types of sexual materials can be banned. For instance, the distribution of private nude photos and videos without permission, especially "revenge porn," in certain cases can be illegal.

A prime case of regulation is child pornography. Yet again, however, we have line drawing. Young adult fiction will deal with sexual topics. If we are drawing the line at eighteen, some portrayals of sexual acts do not seem outrageous. Especially in France. 

There is also the question of art and photography. A 1970s sex education book from Germany, Show Me!, received some controversy. 

Child pornography cases will sometimes raise the usual nude children at the beach hypos. BTW, nudism photography is allowed even if it has minors. If it is purposely lewd, you might get into trouble.  

The Supreme Court has held that fake (virtual) child pornography is also protected. OTOH, though the Supreme Court protected personal protection of obscenity in the home [not downloading it], they drew the line (6-3) at child pornography.  

The Supreme Court unanimously upheld a New York law banning the distribution of materials portraying minors involved in non-obscene sexual acts. The state court struck it down as not narrowly tailored enough. 

I'm inclined to agree with them though maybe not for the exact grounds provided. The text:

A person is guilty of promoting a sexual performance by a child when, knowing the character and content thereof, he produces, directs or promotes any performance which includes sexual conduct by a child less than seventeen years of age.

What is "sexual conduct"? For instance, is Pretty Baby by Brooke Shields a problem? I think you need a few more adjectives and details. The oral argument suggests there are additional things involved when applying the statute including "lewd" conduct. But, the text alone does not say that. 

It is one of those cases where the specific facts make you wonder why we are here. The case involved a video of teen boys masturbating. It should have been possible to prosecute it as obscenity.  

The defendant's lawyer basically provided a "how-to" on why they screwed up. After all, double jeopardy ensured Ferber was safe. Chief Justice Burger clearly expressed his distaste over the defense's argument.  

The main opinion held the possible legitimate applications (Show Me! was cited in the oral argument) were minor enough not to strike it down as overbroad. Four justices showed some additional concern that sometimes such works could have enough value to be worthy of protection.  

Note that the defense's position was not that any material was protected. He granted you could ban obscene works. He just did not want a looser rule for child pornography. It is unclear how much that will matter in practice. As noted, the material in question sounds like it could be targeted as obscenity.  

Basic rules of consent are legitimate reasons to limit certain behaviors to adults. We can expand that rule to the filming and distribution of those behaviors. So, child pornography rules in principle are acceptable.

The question then becomes where to draw the line. Just because minors are involved, there still will be stuff that should be protected. The easier calls are written and virtual works. Ditto, in the other direction,  material which is blatantly child porn. 

Such material in certain cases might be acceptable in limited instances. For instance, people learning about sexual abuse can view certain materials. Certain works otherwise not allowed might be legitimate in small amounts in documentary and news accounts.  

The rest are the judgment calls that is what law is all about. We should be careful about targeting such materials except in narrowly defined situations. 

For instance, teens spreading nude photos can be problematic, but it is also problematic to make people who willingly send such things into criminals. A single act of downloading child pornography can be a federal offense. But, zero-tolerance also is questionable.

Harmful to Minors, which I read some time back, provides a libertarian point of view about children's sexuality. We can recognize some limits here. Wherever we do, we should do so carefully. 

SCOTUS Watch: Order List

Today's Order List will be the last scheduled thing until November. It was brief but had a few notables. 

The Supreme Court took some more EPA cases (as I said last time, the conservatives have been concerned about them overreaching for a while) and another case with this fascinating subject:

Whether, even though Congress excluded 18 U.S.C. § 3553(a)(2)(A) from 18 U.S.C. § 3583(e)’s list of factors to consider when revoking supervised release, a district court may rely on the Section 3553(a)(2)(A) factors when revoking supervised release.

Alito isn't taking part in two of the EPA cases for whatever reason. We have the usual cert denials with a note (without comment) that "The petition for a writ of certiorari is denied. Justice Thomas, Justice Gorsuch, and Justice Kavanaugh would grant the petition for a writ of certiorari" in a takings case. 

(A consistent -- no joke -- libertarian argues here that the case would be a bad "vehicle" as they say to address the subject.) 

More from Amy Howe.  

Meanwhile, a good Supreme Court piece on how they have been against corruption laws (at times unanimously) for years. [Insert joke here.]

Sports Sunday

Long football day with another London game that was played in the morning. 

New York fans had games in the three football windows afterward. The Giants were overmatched (the backup QB came in for much of the fourth quarter), not scoring a TD. A star player that went to the Eagles shined in a 28-3 domination.

It was a close game in the first half of the Titans/Bills game. Then, the Bills scored 27 unanswered in the second half. Talk about one-sided adjustments.

Jets had the Sunday Night game with Russell Wilson coming back from injury for the Steelers. Somber moment mid-third quarter with a serious Jets injury that delayed things. Wilson eventually got going. The Jets kicker again missed an easy field goal (blocked). 

The Jets stopped scoring -- I think it was karma for a dubious earlier call that gave them two points. Well, fans could switch to watching the Mets. Maybe not. 

Aaron Rodgers had a couple good drives and also parts of drives (ending on turnovers or stops). They scored 15 points; none in the second half. They gave up 37. 

Not good, Bob. 

Maybe, Jets/Mets fans should have checked on the Mets. There was no magical ending. But, a four-game losing streak is pretty sad, and this one wasn't close.

Mr. M. didn't have it and had to be pulled out early. The bullpen gave up a few. The closer was in the game in the fourth inning. No shame to falter against the #1 seed in Game 6 of the NCLS. 

(The Guardians fell to the Yanks in 5.)

It still was a respectable 7-4 (with many people left on base) in the seventh inning. Dodgers had a bullpen game but they have a tough bullpen. The Mets went with Senga over Buttó. That worked for an inning.

Mets turned into a pumpkin. Oh well. 

Bonus: New York Liberty wins first WNBA championship. Don't watch, but congrats. 

Grand Inquests

I probably read Chief Justice Rehnquist's Grand Inquests (Samuel Chase and Andrew Johnson impeachments) back in the day. I recall reading his books on the Supreme Court and civil liberties during wartime. I suppose I read his book on the 1876 presidential election. I read his others after all.

He wrote this book before he presided over the Clinton impeachment. I grant the political background of each event is essential to understand the trials. Nonetheless, he probably spends too much time covering weakly connected material (a summary of the Civil War is not really necessary).

The book is an amateur historian's take on the events. It is geared toward the average reader. Rehnquist covers the basic ground well. I found some typos (including the wrong first names of William T. Sherman and Joseph Johnson). I took a while to get into it but then read it quickly.  

I question how BIG a deal the acquittals are. Chase's is likely more important since the Supreme Court's independence was at an early stage. Johnson just seems too special in a variety of ways. For instance, did the congressional reduction of the Supreme Court serve as a precedent? No.

Both impeachments were political. The charges were overly technical. It would be different if the situation was more blatant. Some might argue that the precedents "proved too much," restraining action when there were more grounds to impeach.

Rehnquist supports (as do I) acquittal in both cases though notes one author who supported the removal of Chase. You can find some support for the removal of Andrew Johnson out there though more on stuff not technically covered in the impeachment counts. 

The immediate reason for Chase's impeachment was a partisan grand jury charge (more of a thing then but he unwisely did it after Jefferson won). The other charges were a mixture of procedural decisions while he rode circuit, some more defensible than others. Overall, not really removal-worthy. 

Johnson's impeachment rested largely on a contested power of removal of a Cabinet officer. The true reason was Johnson's Reconstruction policy.  Multiple senior Republican senators felt the charges were weak, including one based on intemperate speeches. 

He tosses in some pictures and newspaper headlines from the second impeachment. Not bad overall.

Mets Update: They Are Still Alive

Alonso with this playoff pumpkin. After the Mets went down 3-1 in a best-of-7, it looked like they might have been ready to turn into one.

Nope. Peterson gave a gutsy 3.2 (he has been used repeatedly in relief), the Mets scored in bunches after getting a second shot at the Game One Dodgers started, and tacked on enough to win comfortably enough 12-6. This included a key out with the bases loaded, a reliever going further than he ever did, and the Mets closer yet again (when he rarely did in the past) pitching more than one inning (two yesterday).

This season started off looking like a middling one with short-term pieces and the major goal being giving minor leaguers and other youngsters time to grow. They fell into a hole and then mid-summer looked like they fell into a (smaller) hole. They beat the odds.

They have a tough test now (#6 seed vs. #1), the Dodgers having fewer flaws than the other playoff competition. The Mets bats coming alive in two games and the need for bullpen games shows that even the Dodgers have limitations.  

The Mets' pitching is being taxed, the Dodgers' bats are tough (the Yanks also have shown this recently and are one game from the World Series). The Mets' bats (and sometimes fielding) have been absent at key times in this series. This has led to online carping. 

Mets Twitter can be funny. The Mets have managed to beat expectations and are two games away from the World Series. OTOH, you would think from various comments that they stink. It's best to look at the whole picture. For instance, Phil Maton's playoff stats are not as bad as single outings make them appear. 

This team feels like it is playing beyond expectations especially some of the pitching. Nimmo's foot is hurt. Otherwise, the team does have a good line-up, especially with a new young star (Vientos) shining. 

I find watching the games stressful. Besides, watching Mets baseball when the usual announcers are not available loses a lot in my book. The announcers are for me an essential part of the whole process. It is nice the team is getting past stars, like Matt Harvey and Cespedes involved, throwing first pitches, etc.  

The Mets started the Dodgers series (after winning three of four vs. the Phils) well, splitting the two in L.A. The goal then was winning the Citifield series. Then, it was not to be eliminated.  They managed the last part, winning the final game. 

It's hard to be too disappointed when the Mets got this far. Multiple times, I hoped the Mets would get to a Game 6 (including in the 2015 World Series). They are now. The Mets beat the Dodgers bullpen game last time and that is what is due to happen Sunday.

OTOH, the Mets will likely have to get something from one or more questionable relievers. Maton will surely have some key outs. Fingernails, watch out. 

One more thing: I figure that with the bullpen taxed and the starters regularly thinking five is a lot Senga will have one more shot. He did okay as the opener in a Phils game. He walked the ballpark versus the Dodgers. Might be the best shot for an inning or two sometime in Game 6 or 7. We shall see.  

We shall see. It is not like the NY/NJ Jets and Giants provide much excitement these days. I commend those who are fans of other local sports. I am not.  

Film and Book

After re-watching The Lovers, the Louis Malle film that led to a Supreme Court decision on obscenity, I checked two other Malle films.

Both films had some charms but I did not find them interesting enough to watch the whole thing. They had a "feel" as much or more than plot. Miles Davis provided the soundtrack for this film. Talked about Viva Maria! (also SCOTUS material) here. 

Elevator to the Gallows is the first Malle/Jeanne Moreau film (released in the same year as The Lovers). A guy gets trapped in an elevator after murdering his lover's husband. While he is trapped, his lover wanders around the city, trying to find him. 

He stupidly leaves the keys in his car when going to deal with the evidence he left behind. This allows a young couple to steal the car.

The first hour or so involves the guy in the elevator, the woman wandering, and the couple at a motel. All have some European charm, the young guy a punk who later murders an older couple. The young couple registered under Moreau's lover's name, leading to additional problems. 

The second murder(s) and problems occur in the second half of the film but by then I was tired of the slow pace of the whole thing. It was well put together but the whole thing could have been done in an hour.  

The film reeks of French new wave or whatever atmosphere for those who like that sort of thing. 

Richard Brookhiser is a National Review editor so I probably would not like some of his politics (looks like his wife does not share them). But, he does tell a good tale, especially when he gives talks about his books.  

Actually, his talks repeatedly are a good way to go, since I have repeatedly had mixed feelings about the books. For instance, over twenty years ago (I know), his book talks about Gouverneur Morris - The Rake Who Wrote the Constitution made the book sound quite interesting.  I didn't like the book.  

This book was overall a good read. He dealt with thirteen subjects in quick chapters, making them easy to read. I am familiar with most of them but the protest involving Quakers from Flushing New York was new to me. The rest had good insights too.

SCOTUS Watch

After the holiday, the Supreme Court dropped a nothingburger Order List. As usual, only liberals explained why they did not participate in certain cases.

EPA Cases 

The two argument days were nothing too hot-button, though one was yet another EPA case that might cause some problems. EPA cases seem to get five or six justices going, all concerned about overreach. 

They also finally got around to a stay request (after 2.5 months according to Steve Vladeck) in a set of EPA cases. Thomas (without comment) would grant. Kavanaugh (with Gorsuch) felt they had a good case to some degree but there was no immediate burden. 

So, they joined the rest to deny the stay. Alito did not take part for whatever reason.  Five votes would have to agree to the stay. Hard to see them counting to five there. Not sure what the delay was regarding announcing the result. 

More Oral Arguments 

There was also an oral argument involving an immigrant -- SCOTUS over the years taken many cases involving various questions involving them -- which has a human interest story. 

Gorsuch is regularly a possible "get" when the federal government is involved. I don't know how the technicals will fall out though the under fifty-minute argument time is notable. 

We had a procedural case involving pet food last week. This week it was medicinal marijuana. Neither involves the merits of the issues though the subject matter is likely to catch some eyeballs. 

It is also notable that the oral argument involved two women advocates because there is still an imbalance between men and women advocates. Lisa Blatt, a veteran SCOTUS advocate, went against Easha Anand, an up-and-comer with progressive bona fides.

Justice Follies 

More on that report on how the FBI screwed up the Kavanaugh investigation with links to a lot more about what is wrong and otherwise doubtful about his nomination. I might not think all of them are compelling but there is way too much smoke for there not to be some fire. 

Trump = a conservative justice. It in no way had to be him. And, the overall thing was a slipshod usage of the Senate confirmation process. The Republicans should have some agency and have to answer for it. Again, the Supreme Court is on the ballot. 

Kavanaugh reminds us of how the Thomas hearings were a mess. Thomas then became -- I don't know of any hint of what was to come -- ethically compromised with all his financial dealings, including some that might violate multiple criminal laws. A special prosecutor would be warranted. If Kamala Harris won in November, would that be a possibility?

[A good ethics process would have a procedure that requires such an appointment when a certain quantum of evidence -- which appears to have been reached in spades -- has been met.]  

We referenced Gorsuch's FOX News-type anti-regulation book here in the past. Another article shows how it is a slanted (where are all the cases where liberals are hurt?) hack job.  

Upcoming 

There is an order list scheduled for Monday after a conference this Friday. 

SCOTUS then goes on a mini-break from scheduled conferences, order lists, and oral arguments until November. Miscellaneous orders and other behind-the-scenes stuff is possible.   

Meanwhile, we now know the cases scheduled for December, including a major trans rights case. 

Two Scheduled Executions / One Held Up So Far

Robert Leslie Roberson III

Texas Set Robert Roberson’s execution for Oct. 17, despite new evidence that he is an innocent man wrongly convicted under the now-debunked shaken baby syndrome hypothesis.

Roberson's death sentence is allegedly a case of "junk science" with his autism also making him seem more heartless. After all, the death of a young child allegedly because of child abuse is horrible. 

But, the death penalty? Texas's sentencing of Robertson led to many people from both parties (along with some big names like John Grisham) flagging his case. The bipartisan lawmakers were able to convince a judge on the day of the execution to grant a stay. 

Meanwhile, a separate attempt to get a stay from the Supreme Court failed via the usual no-comment order. Sotomayor released a statement granting there was no adequate federal jurisdictional hook. No one else joined her statement. 

In her view, the actual innocence claim was compelling enough that an executive reprieve to allow the Texas Board of Pardons and Paroles to reconsider the evidence is necessary to avoid a miscarriage of justice. She answered claims that the evidence of innocence was refuted by the state and a state judge.

The basics:

On 01/31/2002, Roberson took his two-year-old daughter to Palestine Regional Medical Center with severe trauma to her head. The victim died from her injuries the next day and Roberson was subsequently charged in her death.

An execution over twenty years later is constitutionally problematic because of delays (Breyer's dissent). 

The doubt that it was a murder at all (including pre-existing health problems) is the biggest issue here. Multiple appeals to stop the execution have been rejected. It is hard to show "actual innocence" once you are convicted. And, there was some evidence of guilt here, even if it is greatly disputed. 

Nonetheless, even if there is not a compelling legal reason to stop it after he was sentenced to death, there appears to be enough doubt not to meet the level of assurance warrant to execute someone. 

Plus, he has been in prison for over twenty years. He has not "gotten off" by any means.  How long the most recent (somewhat absurd time-wise) reprieve will last remains to be seen. 

For now, with the final decision dropping after 8PM local time, the Texas Supreme Court upheld the trial court (after another appellate court overturned). The whole process is a tad absurd at this point. 

Derrick Ryan Dearman

Dearman's lawyers have raised various appeals alleging he was mentally ill and concerning competency of counsel. But, this is another matter. 

Dearman murdered five people, one pregnant. He had a problem with his girlfriend, who rejected him after a violent relationship. Good choice on her part.

Dearman in 2016 went into the house where Laneta  Lester was living and murdered multiple residents by an axe and gun. By some sick bit of irony, Lester herself was not killed. She was kidnapped along with a nephew and later escaped (or maybe he let her go?). 

(Alabama counted the unborn so "six" persons were murdered by their lights.)

An article earlier this year lists him as thirty-six years old. Alabama executing him now is relatively quick as these things go but he decided to end his appeals, rejecting advice from his father and lawyers.  

“I’ve decided to drop my appeals and have my sentence carried out… I was fairly tried and convicted. I agreed with the court’s decision.”

He had hoped that the execution would occur next year. Dearman did not want people to think it was "suicide by execution." His reasoning sounds sane to me and I guess you can give him a smidgen of respect for saying it. 

“No, in one sense. But in my heart, that is the right thing and the only punishment… I know that me being executed, it’s not going to fix things for the victims’ family. It’s not going to bring their loved ones back. It’s the only thing that I could ever do or give to show that... I don’t want to use the words I’m sorry… It’s the only way for not only them, but my family and anybody else witnessing that, that this person is truly remorseful and regrets actions, crimes he’s committed.”

People kill in moments of insanity (colloquially speaking) and his acts were especially unhinged.  

After all, the one person you would think he would kill, he did not. Who knows what he planned to do with her. Either way, it was a horrible waste of life to kill all those people who he had little or no reason to murder. I do not ignore the crimes in these accounts:

The victims were [Joseph] Turner, 26; Robert Lee Brown, 26; Chelsea Marie Reed, 22; Justin Kaleb Reed, 23; and Shannon Melissa Randall, 35. Chelsea Reed was pregnant with her and Justin Reed’s first child. Turner and Randall had a 3-month-old son in the bed with them when they were attacked, but he was unharmed.

I will not label the execution "barbaric" except to the extent the death penalty overall is an act of barbarism. 

This sort of crime will not be deterred because of the death penalty. As to just desserts, I do not think the state killing people via a system filled with problems is an appropriate use of public policy.   

And, yes, even here, we can focus on problems. He had significant mental problems:

Court filings show that, at just four years old, Derrick Dearman displayed symptoms of severe depression and spoke to his mother “about wanting to die.” He was prescribed antidepressants at age 12 and began self-medicating with crack cocaine at 14. That year, Derrick barely survived a car accident that left him feeling that he “should have died.” At 16, he started using methamphetamines, and at 19, he drove his car off the road in an attempt to kill himself. In his early 20s, he was hospitalized in a psychiatric unit. 

His horrible crimes show Dearman as a grave danger to society. Confining him in prison for a long time was quite justified. Execution is another matter.  

Two Films From the 1980s

Married to the Mob is a fun Jonathan Demme film with many familiar faces including the person who played the doctor's mom in Loving Leah. Al Lewis (Grandpa Munster) has a small role late. A surprise is a young Nancy Travis (a familiar face, including on such shows as Becker) in a nude scene!

Michelle Pfeiffer plays a young mob wife and mother (her husband is played by a young Alec Baldwin) with a son. She's unhappy with her life and her marriage. His murder by a mob boss (Dean Stockwell is made his mistress—Nancy Travis—is double dipping) is somewhat serendipitous. 

She decides to leave town and start fresh in Manhattan. Unfortunately, Dean Stockwell has the hots for her, which interests the FBI. 

And, Stockwell's wife is pissed off at her since she thinks Pfeiffer is cheating on her husband. To top it all off, the FBI agent watching her (Matthew Modine, a familiar face around then) falls for her.  

The whole thing is comfortably paced and overall fun though some mob violence and the aforementioned nudity make it somewhat risque for the kiddies. There are also a few "f" bombs. 

BTW, TV Tropes says that the NY apartment complex was also used in Child's Play (the original). I will also recommend that film and most of its sequels. The television show also has received kudos. Did not see the film remake which received mixed reviews.  

Good music soundtrack. The interestingly put-together end credits appear to be a collection of scenes cut from the film. Either way, it's a nice touch.

Hello Mary Lou: Prom Night II is the sequel to one of Jamie Lee Curtis' less well-known horror films. It is not a direct sequel. She is not in this movie. 

The movie starts in the 1950s but the song "Hello Mary Lou" came out a few years later. A bitchy prom queen gets her comeuppance though her boyfriend didn't mean to kill her. She comes back in the 1980s.

The Canadian cast is not too familiar though some faces might be, including Michael Ironside, who was in a bunch of "B" films. The possessed innocent was in an Anne of Green Gables adaptation. Here? Well, she eventually walks around nude in a locker room. 

(The two actresses who play the prom queens have an interesting look. The innocent one -- well before she's possessed -- particularly does not look like a run-of-the-mill horror queen. Watch it and see what I mean.)

The whole film is rather intentionally weird. The 1980s also seem a bit off. They hang out in a 1950s-style diner and the boyfriend drives a motorcycle that might come out of the 1950s. They dress more up-to-date (being the 1980s, they don't look it to us) but other than an old-fashioned computer used to select the prom queen, doesn't look too much different. 

After the opening scenes, the movie takes a bit of time to get going, but the whole thing is well-acted and put together. You cannot really ask for more since it is after all a sequel to a not that good film. 

I found it mentioned in my Leonard Maltin movie guide and there was one copy in the Westchester Library system. I even would be able to download it on my computer but wanted to see it on my TV.

I saw both films back-to-back. Enjoyable. 

Ruth: A Migrant's Tale

The Book of Ruth is a four-chapter account in the Hebrew Scriptures (Old Testament) of the great-grandmother of David. This book summarizes the story and provides insights into its application over the years regarding converts, Jewish spiritual beliefs, art, and other contexts. 

The book starts with a summary of Ruth's story. The biblical account briefly explains why a Jewish family was in pagan territory:

In the days when the judges ruled, there was famine in the land, and a certain man of Bethlehem in Judah went to live in the country of Moab, with his wife and two sons. The name of the man was Elimelech and the name of his wife Naomi, and the names of his two sons were Mahlon and Chilion; they were Ephrathites from Bethlehem in Judah. They went into the country of Moab and remained there. 

The family spends about ten years in Moab. The sons married Moabite wives. Ruth tells this without comment even though Jewish scriptures have a strong opposition to intermarriage, especially with Moabities. There is some suggestion from biblical texts that Israel and Moab had a peaceful relationship from time to time. But, there were also red flags. 

Genesis tells us Lot's daughters (after the family escaped Sodom and Gomorrah, the mother looking back and turning into a pillar of salt) got their father drunk to continue their line. From this arose the people of Moab. A people who did not follow the Jewish god with that sort of origin would not be ideal marriage material.  

Many would be interested in the details left out of the brief introduction before we were told the women were on the way back to Judah after the men had died. But, the Bible has many of these "lacunae." 

Fried Green Tomatoes shows the closeness of two women by having one named Ruth. She sends a letter to her future companion's family:

It's an obituary... oh no, honey, Ruth's mother died. And this is from the Bible, it's from the Book of Ruth. And Ruth said: "Whither thou goest, I will go. Where thou lodgest, I will lodge. Thy people shall be my people."

Ruth says this to Naomi, her Jewish mother-in-law after Naomi suggests her daughter-in-laws return to their people. Ruth adopted Naomi's people.  One does. Ruth sticks with Naomi. Her kindness and loyalty make her a "woman of valor" (Proverbs 31). 

Ruth's adoption of Naomi's ways later made her a symbol of converts to Judaism.  Her travels helped make her a symbol of the spirit of God found among the Jews in exile. She left her homeland to a foreign country like the Jews of the diaspora. 

A film version and some Jewish commentaries add more backstory. But, we do not know about Ruth's earlier life. Did she worship Moabite gods before this moment? Was Naomi and her husband upset that their children married foreign wives?  Was there something notable about Ruth's family?

The book explains how Ruth "gleaned" the remnants of the harvest. The poor and migrants had a right to the remainder of the harvest. This provides further symbolism, in poetry and art, with a pastoral theme. 

The symbolism found in names is shown by them being in Bethlehem ("house of bread"). It was Boaz's field, a well-off kinsman of Naomi.

Boaz is impressed with Ruth and treats her kindly. Naomi arranges for Ruth to meet up with Boaz on the threshing room floor, which has some erotic implications. Boaz was able to "redeem" the family line, first arranging with a closer relative to agree to give up their rights. Thus, things end happily, and we learn she is ultimately the ancestor of King David. 

The story of Ruth might explain why David has Moabite relations. If David did have some Moabite heritage, it would be suspicious given the problems between the two peoples. If his great-grandmother was a woman of valor and all, it might be okay!  

We are later told (working off the final version of the Bible) that he sent his parents to Moab for protection. The link provides more information about how Moab and Israel had a complicated relationship.  

Matthew later includes Ruth as one of the women referenced in his genealogy of Jesus.  Luke's genealogy leaves out the women. 

A Migrant's Tale could have provided more backstory regarding Ruth's Moabite origins. Otherwise, the summary of the biblical book was interesting. I was not as interested in reading the other discussions though did read the chapter on how Ruth later symbolized converts to Judaism.  

Ruth is a touching story with many intriguing parts. It is particularly a story about women, including women who show agency in their lives. When Matthew does not even mention Solomon's mother by name, the very fact he uses her name is notable. 

It also shows how Jewish beliefs honor the needs of migrants (for they were once strangers in Israel!)  and how outsiders can become insiders.  

Ruth also provides further insights into a different time, including a form of a ritual involving a sandal referenced in Loving Leah. I agree that the film is excellent (I watched it over three times) and I'm not even Jewish (though my name is Jewish-friendly!). 

Poltergeist

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

And, no, the house was not clean!  

New York City Ballot Measures

Federal Races 

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

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

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

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

State/Local Races 

State and local races also matter. 

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

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

New York State Proposal

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New York City Proposals

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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