I cover various topics on Substack, including how the Trump Administration is honoring a Catholic martyr while violating all he stood for. Also, co-host of Gay USA retires after thirty years.
I recently watched Once and Again on YouTube. I vaguely recall watching at least some of it. It was first on before this blog began (mid-2003). I found one passing reference on the blog.
The Order List had some notable content, including multiple grants and no grant in the E.J. Carroll case. Maybe, just maybe, Trump will have to pay up for his sexual assault.
Gorsuch (with Alito and Thomas) returns to his concern about health workers not being able to obtain an exemption from vaccine mandates. NY, among other things, argues it is a bad "vehicle" for review.
Thomas (with Gorsuch) wants to re-examine NYT v. Sullivan, citing original understanding (the case involves Alan Dershowitz suing CNN). If they want to quote original understanding, quite a few modern-day First Amendment cases should be decided the other way. A lot more limits were allowed back then.
Sotomayor, for the liberals, dissented in a qualified immunity case involving a prisoner alleging mistreatment. There is a good originalist argument, ignored by conservative justices, that juries should have wide discretion to find government officials liable for wrongdoing. The Founding generation thought juries were the "palladium of liberty," even more than judges, who were creatures of the state.
Each Trump nominee did not take part in a case without saying why.
There should be another "clean-up" order, with perhaps more recusals, later in the week.
Opinions
Barrett (with Roberts + the liberals) upholds a rule regarding mail-in ballots. Rick Hasen argues that "text, history, and longstanding practice going back to the Civil War" back her up. A somewhat unhinged Alito opinion, however, still received four votes.
Kagan continues the expansion of the reach of the Fourth Amendment to "geofence warrants," regarding the location of cellphone users. Alito, Thomas, and Barrett dissented. Gorsuch concurs but tosses in some cosplay about original understanding.
[Orin Kerr of Volokh Conspiracy is one resource for this topic.]
Roberts had the big two for the day involving agencies. The Federal Reserve, 5-4, can retain its "for cause" removal rules. The dissenters partially complain about the reach of the opinion, which broadly rules to bring clarity to the question.
(People are arguing that Roberts/Kavanaugh selectively exempt the Federal Reserve "to protect their stock portfolios." The special exemption is dubious. OTOH, various agencies regulate financial matters. They also affect stock portfolios.)
Not so for other agencies, overturning long practice (at least from the late 19th Century) and precedent (from the 1930s). The whole thing is bullshit, 6-3, Sotomayor (Kagan usually handles this issue) with the dissenting opinion for the liberals.
(Her dissent, which she read from the bench, is very good. We should have audio/video.)
The First Congress split various ways regarding the proper constitutional and policy rules for removal. It is a political question that should be left to congressional discretion. The dissent is correct that the majority forgets its "place." The voters need to secure a new Congress that reminds them.
The 6-3 majority puts its thumb on one side. Perhaps, it is an ironic move to honor the 250th Anniversary of the Declaration of Independence (tyrannical king).
Some more opinions tomorrow.
ETA: A discussion about them.
It's over. Yesterday was Stephen Colbert's last night.
It was also the last show of the CBS late-night show overall. There won't be repeats. They will immediately shift to a non-political comic show.
Multiple celebrities had cameos. There was some gimmick that supposedly six bananas were a retirement gift.
The final guest (who also sang "Hello Goodbye) was Paul McCarthy, who had that famous appearance over sixty years ago in the theater where Colbert had his show. Quite fitting, though he seemed a bit uncomfortable as the solo guest in a long-form way.
I DVR-ed it, and for whatever reason, it did not record the whole thing. It was about twenty minutes longer, and the DVR cut off at the normal end of the show. I saw what I missed online on YouTube.
The show was a tad indulgent, overdoing a metaphor of some wormhole who sucked that everything into it. They probably could have handled it with a normal length, especially since they included a "meanwhile" segment with at least one story that wasn't too topical.
Still, if it amused him, more power to him. I wish him well. I probably will check out Jimmy Kimmel a bit.
They had that short-lived comedy game show-like program after Stephen Colbert with a young woman comedian, who wanted to continue her stand-up full-time instead of continuing. It must have taken a lot of effort. They will now just have comedian stuff.
There are still two talk shows at 11:30 and one at 12:30, both with middle-aged white guys. Why can't they have some variety? John Oliver has a good show, but again, enough guys!
I'm sure you can find a lot of women in various contexts. But, unfortunately, none of these talk shows entrusted a woman for any length of time (Joan Rivers once had a short-lived show). The late-night talk show might be on the way out, but this is still a problem.
(We did have a black host once upon a time.)
I enjoyed Stephen Colbert, though I think he didn't take enough risks. The show was a bit bland. Also, watching was often a matter of liking the guests.
Basically, he seems like a nice guy with good values, with a wickedly funny side. We saw that more on his old show, but it showed up here, too.
He will have a small voice role on a Star Trek television show. He's co-writing a Lord of the Rings screenplay with his son. He will find something else to do, maybe after taking time off.
One possibility is a longer form conversation format like Conan O'Brien and others do. He can show his musical theater side. He might do some drama.
I think he will be fine. The overall annoying thing is that the network didn't find a way to end things on a nicer note. Colbert might still be angry because he didn't trust their reasons. But it seems gratuitous.
==
Their Finest tells the story of a British Ministry of Information film team making a morale-boosting film about the Dunkirk evacuation during the Battle of Britain and the London Blitz. It's based on a book.
Gemma Arterton is the lead, and she's great. I rewatched the DVD and enjoyed it. I will eventually see if I like re-reading the book.
I also rewatched Walking on Sunshine, which uses 1980s songs to tell a story. Arterton's sister plays one of the leads. Fun film.
Great songs, well choreographed.
I referenced this film about six years ago. The video I used is blocked. I summarized:
Up Channel has "new" films on Sunday nights at 7/11 that are actually not new but promoted as new. For a few weeks now, the picks have been overall pretty good.
This week, we had a city girl, not much into God, come to help her old mother-in-law (as in ex -- the hubby cheated on her) move after the father-in-law died. She falls for the new minister, whose deceased wife was her sister-in-law.
Thus, the punny title. Various familiar faces, including two people in current shows and two from old shows. It has light touches mixed with a lot of serious content.
Well-acted, with the story pretty well paced too. Sorta topical.
The King story did sort of peter out. Her anti-war work was important. The author's discussion about it did become repetitive at some point. And then, the war is over, and we basically skip to her dying.
The publication of Roots and the airing of the miniseries in the mid-1970s were major cultural moments. Alex Haley was also important for his work on the "Autobiography" of Malcolm X.
Good subject matter.
The book, which is shorter by over one hundred pages than the most recent one (putting aside many photographs), however, is harder to read. I also was left wanting, including regarding a short chapter summarizing the book as compared to a more detailed (up to a point) chapter of the miniseries.
The book got too into the weeds of Alex Haley blathering about how great the book would be. The book was okay, but the subject matter warrants a better presentation.
I never read either book or watched the miniseries.
ETA: I found Strikingly Familiar (plagiarism) interesting and written in a down-to-earth fashion.
The book there is an uplifting book about a gay couple who adopted a child. The book does not explain why it was published nearly 15 years after the end of the events covered. The baby was found in 2000, so he must be in his mid-20s by now.
Another version of the story was released in 2020. I suppose that makes some sense since it would be shortly after Kevin is an adult. That book is not referenced in this volume. I find it all a bit weird.
A retro channel shows "Blondie" films (1940s; there was also a couple of television series based on the comic strip, plus a radio show) each Saturday morning. I talked about this over the years.
The 28 films are of mixed quality. For whatever reason, one film is not shown in the rotation (about a "haunted" house). Blondie Plays Cupid is a good one.
The film is effectively a series of vignettes. It starts with the Fourth of July coming up. Blondie is not a fan of Dagwood and Baby Dumpling's fireworks.
She wants to go somewhere quiet. How about her relatives in the country? Some home and office scenes (where a plan to trick Dagwood backfires; the coworker involved is played by someone else in later films) take place.
Then, an amusing scene on the train, with a familiar face (the grumpy railroad executive on Petticoat Junction; the actor was in lots of character roles). Fans of old shows and films will see other familiar faces throughout the series.
The busy film then shifts to the country, where a young Glenn Ford offers them a ride. That's where the title drop comes in -- he has fallen in love with the neighbor's daughter, but the father opposes the match. The justice of the peace gives an amusing performance.
More hijinks and things end (as they always do) happily. The film is well-paced and well-written, with the interrelated scenes fitting together nicely.
One amusing bit of the "I see what they did there" variety involves Baby Dumpling winding up in a haystack after a joyride. Something is poking him. Turns out to be a needle. In a haystack.
There is also a cute final joke. The last bit involves something that would be rather serious (painful burns) if we took it seriously. The Wikipedia page at the moment somewhat misleadingly notes how things wound up. They don't simply enjoy the end of their vacation peacefully in the country.
The films have various expected components, including the postman getting hit by Dagwood (the film has a twist, including him having a chance to get Dagwood back) during an early scene involving the family having breakfast. The smart aleck neighborhood kid usually gets involved somehow.
Dagwood bumbles a lot, which at some point is a bit tedious. There is also some stereotypical Blondie stuff, including a bit too many scenes of her being jealous or upset (often arising from some misunderstanding) for some reason. She is not as sexy looking as in the comic strip.
Blondie started as a flapper-type character, while Dagwood was a rich man's son who gave up his money out of love. The films skip that backstory.
The strips, at least when I read them much later, also had them being close friends with their neighbors. This film has Blondie talking to the wife on the phone. Most of the films, however, skip them, and one late film has the neighbors annoyed at Dagwood.
The family grows over the decade or so of the films. "Baby Dumpling" becomes Alexander. And, they have a daughter named Cookie. The boss is "J.C" Dithers, though he is replaced later in the series except for the last film. That is, Julius Caesar Dithers.
Today is the Ides of March. It's all connected.
I have had mixed experiences with books recently. I have had better luck lately. A variety of books with different subject matters are worth noting.
Walter Isaacson’s new book, “The Greatest Sentence Ever Written,” takes as its focal point the document’s second line: “We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness.”
Ted Lasso began as a character in a witty advertisement campaign for airing British football in the United States. Ted Lasso and Beard (looking a bit different) are both in the segments. It became a beloved Apple TV series.
People love the empathy. Ted Lasso is signed as a sort of Major League (which gets named dropped -- dropping cultural references is a big Ted thing) revenge by an ex-wife to ruin her ex-husband's team.
This American coach seems to know nothing about the game (honestly, he couldn't get the job -- you need a license that shows your skills). That was a major part of the joke of the ad campaign.
Appearances can be deceiving. He's a great coach as a coach. And his right-hand man knows something about the game. Plus, the kitman (equipment guy), Nate, turns out to be a bit of a "wunderkind" and helps, too.
Ted Lasso, as a person, is what is essential here. He becomes beloved, including by the owner (as her goddaughter says, she is a "boss bitch," and that is a term of endearment), played by a tall cup of water who is best known for her stage work. And his goofy charm also (at first) hides a lot of pain.
Her ex, the one main character who is allowed simply to be bad (and not 100%), is Giles from Buffy. Well, the actor. There is a great cast, multiple people who also did well in other, rather different roles. Keeley plays a serious role on the Fargo (another show which gets a lot of kudos) television show, now with a Minnesota accent.
Various characters go through plot arcs. Nice guy Nate has a heel turn when he thinks he is not being given enough credit. It's an excellent cast, and each has a chance to shine. Multiple characters are also musically inclined, like the actors who play them.
But the show's niceness keeps it from wanting (nearly anyone) to be truly mean or hurt. They all get smoothed out, though no one gets a totally happy ending.
The show begins around thirty minutes, with some longer episodes. A couple of extra episodes were added to the second season that basically stood outside the normal plotline. A therapist, who is a good character, comes in Season Two. Season Three episodes were longer, over an hour.
The characters, writing, and humor continue into the third season. I don't think the longer episodes, especially later on, were a good thing. It probably eventually drew things out too much. A short episode in multiple cases would have been tighter.
Also, the show became bland, since everything just worked out. A player comes out to the team, and nothing happens except that one player was mad because he didn't trust him. He gets his dream of kissing his boyfriend after a major win, and there is no reaction shot from anyone.
There were multiple examples of this. It felt good because it was nice, and the characters we wanted to do well got nice things.
People did get hurt -- Keeley's girlfriend turns on her. But then she gets a soft landing when Rebecca gives her the money to run the business. She can afford it, especially after she sells nearly half the team and gets a LOT of money.
The season would have been better with ten shorter episodes. Or ten shorter episodes mixed with two special toss-ins. (I thought the S2 Beard episode was a bit too weird and drawn out. But it's okay to have a sort of WTAF episode.)
It is somewhat comparable to Gilmore Girls when the show didn't want Rory or Lorelei to move on. Rory becomes, well, she becomes a bitch, but she cannot truly be punished. She's Rory! And Lorelei continues to pine for her teenage boyfriend.
The show got tiresome, though the last season was okay. It didn't want to have the courage to break the characters a bit. Lorelei/Rory's boyfriends were also dubious. At least, it didn't become 75 minutes long.
Ted Lasso wasn't that bad. It retained many of its good qualities even in the last season. It was still ill-advised to expand the episodes.
I'm glad Nate got a girlfriend and all. But it was a bit weird just to have him return to the team to his old job. Wasn't there a way to have him remain a coach on his new team, but one who was a better person?
Overall, I enjoyed the first three seasons. The DVDs have no extras. That's weird. Could they not even obtain the rights to the Ted Lasso advertisements? Provide a behind-the-scenes segment? Have one or more people do at least one commentary track?
A fourth season, after a lag, has been announced. Wikipedia references that Ted Lasso will coach a women's team. It looks like the key cast (maybe not the teammates overall?) are coming back, including Roy FUCK! Kent.
Will I actually get the app to watch it, or wait until it comes out in DVD? Time will tell.
SCOTUS is on its mid-winter break.
It released its March argument schedule, which includes April 1 (birthright citizenship). See also, some of the anti-BC briefs.
==
Today's Groundhog's Day and this is Black History Month. I briefly talk about that here with further links with more info.
==
I watched Ted Lasso (first five episodes) on DVD around five years after most people. It does have charms, especially such a positive lead, which we need in these times.
The two primary women (owner and girlfriend of a player) characters are well played. There are so many shows these days on so many platforms of which I see nearly none.
Someone responded to a post about an anniversary of the 18th Amendment with a "what a bunch of morons" sentiment. That's a somewhat cheap shot.
I was watching Brief Encounter (the original, not the horrible 1970s t.v. remake) again.
[BTW, I also watched the first season of Night Court. The DVD provided a commentary track for the first episode from the show's creator, who also separately talked about the show along with Harry Anderson. It also has its charms on the nice people front.]
The film is wonderful on multiple levels, including its cinematography and use of sound.
One thing that is so enjoyable is that the characters are such pleasant people. Their normalness is a large part of the point.
They are just two normal married people who strikingly fall in love with other people. They know that it is crazy and that there is no future in it. That doesn't change the reality.
That is the basic tragedy.
The film is mostly shown through the eyes of the woman. She is the sort of woman who is upset at herself when being annoyed at someone who is an annoying pest. Yes, they are being annoying, but it's sort of mean to have mean thoughts about that.
It's nice to remember that people deep down often are like the leads in the film. That includes the woman's husband, a nice guy who she loves, and who would be the one person she would talk about her experiences, except that it would hurt him so much.
(Meanwhile, in Minnesota. My comments.)
Anyway, it's snowing.
Yes, it's winter, but NYC usually doesn't get this much snow. Also, it is colder than usual -- we don't usually have pre-20-degree weather. Of course, it is all variable, with forty-degree weather recently.
Sunday is a good day for it, since during the week it would cause a lot more people problems.
Friends had some very good Thanksgiving episodes, including one with Christiana Applegate. The friends were a family. The first season episode emphasized that -- they came together because they could not have dinner with their own families (Phoebe's grandmother celebrated another day).
Here is a history of Thanksgiving I wrote for another website. Harvest celebrations have ancient roots. The French and Spanish celebrated "thanksgiving" with Native Americans. Our modern Thanksgiving holiday was established in the 19th Century.
Presidential Thanksgiving proclamations also began early. Like Trump's, they had a religious flavor, giving thanks to God. This led President Jefferson to reject the practice, particularly a congressional instruction to provide one. He thought that was a violation of the First and Tenth Amendments.
Presidential proclamations are also cited to justify other governmental endorsements of religion. Jefferson's principled stance is appropriate. At least, in today's world, any proclamation should be comprehensive.
Justice Blackmun noted some Thanksgiving proclamations were blatantly sectarian. People can complain that some go too far regarding "Merry Christmas," which is a fake issue anyway. But recognizing the nation's diversity is appropriate.
Personal statements by governmental officials are also not the same thing as showy endorsement. A large cross or Ten Commandments monument is not akin to some words nearly no one reads.
Thanksgiving, as a basic concept, is fine. It has some baggage, including regarding Native Americans. Food can also be an issue, especially for vegans and vegetarians. There are plenty are options for an animal-friendly meal. Not all involve Tofurky.
Our troubling times also might lead people to be grumpy about giving thanks. For some people, holidays are especially stressful times. We can respect that. We should try to help those who need help. That includes those without much of a family.
At the end of the day, most of us have something to be thankful for. Giving thanks doesn't handwave all the problems. So, pessimists can be satisfied too.
I briefly touched upon these two books, but since I have had some problems lately finding books, it makes sense to say a bit more.
They were such easy reading. I read chunks of them at a time when I have repeatedly been unable to get into or complete both fiction and nonfiction.
A pleasure sometimes when you just don't want to think too much and get into a good book. They also had some "nutritional" value, too.
A Chinese-American showrunner and former actress (41) has a great Jewish-American assistant (27). Among other things, she "clicks" with her, and the assistant knows how to make her happy. So, she takes her to an awards show as a "buffer."
They have a personal moment that is taken by the tabloids as a sign that they are actually an item. It takes them the rest of the book to realize that deep down they are.
We get alternating points of view from each woman via an all-knowing narrator. I like those sorts of things -- like multiple perspectives.
The showrunner is a successful celebrity/professional with an "ice queen" persona with a softer side. The assistant is more likely to wear her heart on her sleeve and is more at the beginning of her (promising) career path. Good match.
The book takes its time (it spans most of a year), and the attraction develops slowly. The sex scene is at the very end. Overall, I thought it was well-paced.
It also throws in things such as sexual harassment (it was published in 2020), feminism, bestie/sister relationships, and more. And not "too much" either.
There is a bit of an "easter egg" in that the television show involved in this book is referenced in passing in the second book. Nice drop-in for fans.
So, there is an age difference, but smaller than you might think. The bestie is a frosh. At times, from Erin's comments, you'd think she was in her 40s at least. You are 38, Erin. That is still pretty young.
(The couple in the third book is closer in age.)
It is like someone said, "loved your first book but hoped for more sex." This book has sex from the first chapter, which is when both thought they were just having a one-time hook-up. They have a lot of sex after that. Cassie also spends a lot of time thinking about how MILF-y Erin is.
[ETA: Erin is in her late thirties at the beginning of the book. She had a college-age daughter, so she is obviously a "MILF," but she would technically be so in her twenties. But this underlines the relative nature of "older women" and the MILF term generally.]
The book, overall, was well-paced. I liked the characters. Cassie had more engagement with other people. Erin was often by herself when the two were not together. That was somewhat unfortunate. A bit unbalanced. We get more of a sense of Cassie's life.
Cassie had a bad childhood (father absent, trailer park/mom has issues), but found a way to create a family. That part of the book, including her dealing with some self-assurance issues, was nice.
The college crew drinking a lot got a bit old. And, hey, it's nice, but Cassie and Erin having sex got a bit old, too. Their relationship developed into more than hook-ups. The book covered that.
But the sex at some point got a tad repetitive. Again, it's not like I skipped over it. I think, however, the first book had more character development material. OTOH, two women enjoying sex has its place.
I'll add a bit of a spoiler since no one reads these things. At some point, the daughter obviously finds out about the romance. We then wait for the other shoe to drop. It takes a LONG time to do so.
And, it turns out that in effect the daughter works things out "off screen!" I think it might have been a good idea, at least for this portion, to have a section from the daughter's point of view. I know it might have required taking out a couple of sex scenes (both books are about the same length). Be worth it.
One theme is that Erin needs to give herself the chance to be happy doing things for herself, as compared to what others expect from her. The willingness to enjoy a relationship with her daughter's friend (they are both consenting adults!) is a sign of this. Nice moment when she tells her therapist, and the therapist just says, "Okay."
Erin expected judgment. Being a therapist is such a niche skillset. You have to handle people with serious issues and treat them correctly. You cannot judge them TOO much, but you also need to pick your spots. Of course, some mess things up.
A final question would be if there is anything wrong with their relationship. There really isn't.
It would be somewhat weird if your bestie turns out to be going out with your parent. But people do have relationships that overlap in comparable ways.
A 17-year age difference might be a problem, but there are couples with that sort of age difference. Often, the problem is that the older man/younger woman relationship has a power differential. It is often less evident in same sex relationships.
My biggest concern is that the cover photo doesn't do the characters justice. Cassie lusts after Erin regularly. I wanted a picture of her, even fully clothed! Cassie, too, but Erin sounds sexier!
One more thing added in her second book was a firm happy ending. There is an epilogue, taking place four years later, that has a marriage proposal.
The first book ends with them admitting to each other that they like each other, having sex, and then again going to an awards show, now firmly as a date. A blurb talks about "happily ever after," but that is not assured.
ETA: June Lockhart, well-known classic t.v. mom and doctor in Petticoat Junction, who replaced the mom when the actress died, has died at age 100.
We need a list of really old people (Dick Van Dyke, for instance) to keep track of people who are still alive. Then, we don't need to do the "still alive?" bit.
One article, in a curious place, referenced her "cougar" past when she was 47 and dated someone 21. The relationship lasted for over five years.
The NYT obit references her liberal beliefs, including a comment she made about the Hollywood Blacklist.
Her Wikipedia entry (which doesn't mention the cougar bit, but I found many hits via a search) notes she was a Roman Catholic and met the pope. OTOH, she was divorced twice. Seems a tad bit off.
But her off-screen life—bold, unapologetic, and full of joy—adds depth to a legacy that continues to inspire.
That is from the "cougar" article. Erin would agree.
Cleat Cute: I did not like her third book as much.
It also has the competing perspective approach, but for some reason, she no longer labels the chapters by the person involved. Makes the book seem one continuous novel instead of a parallel affair. It's a minor thing, but I liked it better the other way.
The characters are much closer in age (a few years apart), though different in personality and status (one is a long-term pro soccer player, the other a newbie). Again, though people of about the same age are fine enough, the age difference in the first two helped.
(Neither was that old, as noted, but they were at different times of their lives and careers.)
I could not get into the story as much here and got bored. I stopped reading about a third in. Oh well. We'll see how the fourth is. Two good books are fine.
More ETA: I re-read the first book in July 2026.
I hold to my comments. I read the darn thing in 12 hours! I need that sort of comfort food (with some nutritional content) these days.
I also glanced at the fourth book after writing my original entry. It didn't look promising.
If you like it, including (as I recall) the nonbinary content, that's great. Also, I'm getting some hits for this entry (not that many -- it's a relative thing). Hi!
The criticism of Kirk, however, has been met by an equally aggressive counteroffensive on the right: journalists and other citizens have lost jobs for refusing to endorse the sanitized narrative of his life, and even Jimmy Kimmel was fired after daring to mention Kirk and Republicans in anything other than a positive light.
Erin Reed reports on a House resolution about "a courageous American patriot" who is a "fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility." He did so with "honor, courage, and respect" and was a "model" for Americans. This is bullshit.
Erin Reed notes:
“Charlie Kirk was a fierce defender of the American founding and its timeless principles of life, liberty, limited government, and individual responsibility,” the resolution reads—conveniently eliding his relentless campaign against the liberties of LGBTQ+ people. It praises him for engaging in “respectful, civil discourse,” even though he once said Black pilots made him wonder if they were “qualified” and called transgender people an “abomination unto God.” And it claims he “worked tirelessly to promote unity,” despite his calls to execute President Biden for treason.
Ninety-five Democrats voted for this claptrap, while thirty-eight voted present, and twenty-two didn't vote. Only 58 simply voted "no."
215 Republicans voted "yea" with four not voting. It was clearly an important vote for them.
Many noted, in the aftermath of McBride’s vote, that Kirk had personally attacked her—calling her a “man” and claiming she wanted “to force all of society to change its laws to indulge [her] sexual fetish,” hardly the “respectful and civil discourse” the resolution insisted he embodied.
Pittman and his wife, Marie, were going through a divorce in May 1990, when Pittman went to the Polk County home of her parents, Clarence and Barbara Knowles, officials said. Pittman fatally stabbed the couple, as well as their younger [adult] daughter, Bonnie. He then set fire to the house and stole Bonnie Knowles’ car, which he also set on fire, investigators said.
Another Florida execution, another horrible set of facts. I can understand the death sentence. It was not just bare barbarism.
On Constitution Day [My Substack discussion], the day the Constitution was signed, we can still point to various constitutional problems.
Thirty-five years is too long to wait between arrest and execution. Justices no longer appear to care, but I do. Justice Breyer explains why:
First, a lengthy delay in and of itself is especially cruel because it “subjects death row inmates to decades of especially severe, dehumanizing conditions of confinement.” Second, lengthy delay undermines the death penalty’s penological rationale. [Citations removed.]
There is also clear evidence that Pittman is intellectually disabled. The Florida Supreme Court didn't honor precedent, so relief was procedurally blocked. That is another Eighth Amendment problem.
Contrary to Prof. Reasonable Conservative's assurances, the Supreme Court is still acting in the shadows, including on the death penalty docket. The final decision allowing his execution was unexplained. The liberals also did not explain themselves.
Florida, relatively speaking, is busy executing people on their death row for a long period of time. The net value to the public welfare is open to debate.
His dying words included a proclamation of innocence. That is absurd. He still shouldn't have been executed. The death penalty should end.
There will now be a push to execute the murderer of Charlie Kirk. That too is not how we will address the political violence that poisons our times.
Censorship won't do it either.
Duffy has had a long career, both on television and the stage, but is known for her role on Newhart. I love Stephanie. This is a charming and useful (for insiders) book about how to have a good audition. She teaches acting and has the experience. Good find.
The book is overall pretty good. He wrote it with someone a few years before his death.
I can do without chapters on golf and racing, but they are two of his passions. An "outtakes" section provides various stories from family, friends, and others. He talks about his childhood without talking much about his wife and daughters (very little, though they pop up in the outtakes section).
Garner (originally Bumgarner) references that his cousin once told him that his mother died from complications of an abortion. She was twenty-six and had three young boys in Depression Era Oklahoma.
(It was just referenced in a discussion about his childhood. He later says he supports abortion rights and is a strong Democrat.)
Julia Sweeney, in an otherwise light-hearted book on parenthood, talked about how her mother-in-law got an illegal abortion in the 1960s. Sweeney did some good long-form monologues, including her first, "God Said, Ha!" A later one was basically "God? Ha!"
You can hear Garner's telltale voice while reading the book. His characters often had much of him in them. He did not train to be an actor. He got work early on because he had a movie star look. Garner got married in around two weeks. It worked for him -- they stayed together for nearly sixty years.
I was not a big fan of his private eye television show, though I know people who liked it. I wanted to check out Maverick, his 1950s show, and saw it was on. It turns out to have been a late episode with Roger Moore, who replaced him!
I like James Garner overall as an actor, including in Murphy's Romance. I did not see that many of his movies. I checked out the first of his Western spoofs. Didn't much care for it. His one-season television show, Nichols, was playing on one of the retro stations. Think he would appreciate that.
(I agree with him that The Notebook is very good.)
I had difficulty finding a good book lately. The latest by Erik Loomis (Organizing America) with twenty thumbnail biographies was pretty interesting.
This one was a good, easy read, though again was not really interested in forty pages about golf and racing. And would have liked to read a bit more about his daughters. Overall, he had a good no-nonsense philosophy mixed with empathy. Good values.
He gives some opinions, good and bad, about some actors and other people he knew. Nothing too terrible, but he does criticize a few celebrities.
Garner also said that he was a long-term user of marijuana, finding it helpful for medicinal purposes. If anything, alcohol was more dangerous in his experience. He tried cocaine via Jim Belushi but didn't care for it. Not too many big reveals overall.
A Hallmark Hall of Fame film from 2012 with Julia Stiles and Camryn Manheim (supporting role). Stiles plays uptight well. Good cast. Overall, enjoyable, with a bit of a twist near the end.