Kevin Phillips Strikes

And Also: Putting side those losses to Korea, it is not too surprising that Japan won the WBC. Their pitching overall was quite good, they lost a few low scoring games, and they had some good hitting. A bit surprised Cuba had so much trouble with them right out of the gate, but Viva la Japan!

Kevin Phillips was on Democracy Now* talking about his new book, another one by Republicans upset at the path their party have taken with barely a decade of complete power under their belts. The book was also reviewed in the NYT Book Review, so we again have liberal/progressive leaning outlets using the other side, so to speak, to underline how bad things are going. His arguments seem relatively standard, with a bit more emphasis on their mixture of church and state, and you keep on hoping some tipping point would eventually be reached. After all, these people just KNOW how bad things are going ... but, the "reasonable" Republican/conservative is not in power now.**

KP has additional cache as a old guard commentator who spoke of a "new Republican majority" back in the late 1960s. But, on some level, he surely seems fairly mainstream. This is where the contrast comes in. Reagan, for instance, seemed pretty bad to many in the 1980s. But, in hindsight (though Bush II has cherry-picked some true believers, including perhaps Alito) there was some rationality there. Insiders spoke of this fact -- they were able to do their job without ideology interfering too much. I think this was less so in certain legal offices, but even there, there was some level-headness. And, fiscally, Reagan was less bad as his rhetoric implied. I guess we can say that he knew his limitations.

KP also basically called Bush a moron -- his disdain for the man is clear. (I shared the sentiment in 2000 and figured he would not win ... a thought that seemed right down to c. 9 P.M. on Election Day.) But, though this really is a serious problem -- akin to David Letterman's dumb guy being POTUS -- laying it on too thick probably turns some people off. He also went into the religious angle ... noting that in effect his base sees him as not only the leader of the Republican Party, but also of their religious leader. Now, this subject at times turns me off. For instance, much is sometimes made of the idea that Bush feels God speaks through him, telling him that he should be President or go to war with Afghanistan etc.

But, a felt religious mission is not necessarily a horrible thing. Some progressive sorts also are guided by something comparable. When people say something just felt "right" or they just "had" to do it, what does this mean, really? The problem really turns out to be his lack of humility, ignoring the imperfections of man, who over the years wrongly interpreted their own will to be God's own. Also, many note that certain sorts hope for Armageddon, and support Israel and the war for that reason. I really don't know if this is a significant factor -- though Left Behind books have a big enough readership to be a concern.

And, we support Israel for any number of reasons -- cultural (it is more "European" than other Middle Eastern countries, partly since many of its citizens came from Europe and even the U.S.), religious, balance of power concerns, and so forth. Rationally so too. The country truly is more democratic than others in the region, though the exceptions are surely worthy of note. For instance, it is by nature a Jewish state -- thus non-Jews are by design second class citizens. Putting aside the settlements and territory issues, this is a major problem. It is one that defenders of the country simply have a hard job confronting -- a true democracy pursuant to our understanding is one with equal citizenship. This simply is not possible there.

Anyway, when a chunk of your base is a certain religious group, one that wants to mix church with state, you have a problem. As KP notes, Republicans were helped in the past by a felt belief that the country was becoming too secular. Given the importance of religious leadership in the '60s and the beliefs of Jimmy Carter, I'm not sure exactly how this managed to occur. But, given the changes of the '60s, a period of re-entrenchment was fairly unsurprising. And, the modern age did have a secularist flavor in various respects. Anyway, now things are gone too far the other way.

[I'm a secularist myself, but don't find it too hard to respect religious belief in a way that some of my fellow travelers seem to find hard to do. Thus, I referenced a talk I had with a person who is morally against abortion, but deeply feels it should be a woman's choice. I respect such people a lot, even though her moral views on some things simply appalls me. Sneering at her, especially since deep down she is a moral person I surely can live with, is sort of what drives people to support some of the assholes in power today. Quid pro quo: respect my right to practice my moral beliefs too -- but ultimately, even many who are quite religious understand this basic American principle.]

I'm not sure how deep this whole thing is -- studies have shown, for instance, Bush really only received a relatively small (but given the closeness of the election, essential) push from religious believers in '04. But, forceful and energetic small groups -- just look at Christianity itself -- have been shown to be quite remarkable in forcing their views on society. And, with the rest of the party failing at its role as a restraining force -- bunch of bootlickers -- the religious faithful is able to have unbalanced power akin to Southern members of Congress in the past. The true believer nature of this class only makes it more dangerous.

Ultimately, KP argues for another shift of party control. He views impeachment as a no go, since it is deemed a sort of tit for tat matter (again, one abusive impeachment in between two presidents who well deserved it ruins it for everyone), but actually voiced a more radical approach: a sort of coalition government akin to the intra-war ones in Great Britain after WWI. I'm not sure how exactly we are to reach this point or where Bush would fit (is he forced to resign? maybe one has to read the book), but it does sound possible. At some point, perhaps if the Democrats win control back, parts of the Republican Party will discover the radical wing is just not for them ... or likely to lead to office in some areas.

And, perhaps, this would lead to a sort of 1850s situation, you know, when the modern Republican Party actually began. This is when the Whig Party truly fell apart, and the RP managed to rise from its ashes with various strands joining together, including anti-slavery Democrats. The Democratic Party itself ran into problems in the late 1960s, and in a sense, the resulting Republican majority was probably not the true end of the process. We did see, for instance, the Carter/Clinton Southern DLC wing of the party moving into the forefront ... and various Republicans are likely to be able to join with such individuals, if some major push is given.

Clinton is said to be the best Republican President we had in recent years. I think KP might be sympathetic to this sentiment and hopes for another such national leader to come to the forefront. With our population approaching the 300M mark, surely there are enough people to fill such roles -- and others of a more progressive flavor -- so that in '06 and '08 sanity can be regained. After all, even the Republicans often don't like their current leadership. Sheesh.

--

* I really should watch more of this show, but have barely watched any sort of television news or news commentary for some time. I used to watch David Brinkley religiously (fittingly given its time slot), but perhaps the tenor of his replacements turned me off from that show some time ago. 60 Minutes never caught my fancy, nor did local news, which btw has an overly tacky three year anniversary segment on the war. I did used to watch some 20/20. Anyway, the show of course is shunted off to the 9400s educational block (Free Speech TV to be exact), while people like Media Matters have shown that Sunday talk shows are ridiculously biased against even a moderate left point of view.

C-SPAN does remain a good place to go for different viewpoints in three major ways, outside of its usual political reporting: the morning call-in shows, panel discussions/speeches, and book discussions on weekends. I have seen a bit too much of conservative leaning Stuart Taylor moderating legal panels, but even there some have addressed abuses of executive power and so forth.

Reference should also be made to last Saturday's America and the Courts segment [court of appeals oral argument segment -- again, the Supreme Court should allow this on a regular basis too] concerning keeping a torture victim repeatedly found worthy of asylum in custody for four years via evidence he could not confront. Two of the appellate judges (the other silent) were clearly on the side of the defendant, at times annoyed at the arguments of the government. I touch upon the case here.

** And, even the rational brigade is at times loathe to vote against their party, even though they know the current leadership is horrible. In 2002, I asked one such person why it would be so horror if merely the U.S. Senate would be in the control of Democrats, especially since the swing voters would be rather conservative. He referenced abortion as if total Republican control really changed that much on that front. [It has clear effect, though often negative for the life side of the mix, but much less than one might think.]

Later, in 2004, he -- to the rightful disgust/disappointment of some -- spoke of party loyalty. I really lost respect for him at that point. How many others basically sold their souls? Oh, McCain was his guy -- McCain has shown himself to be a Bush partisan, a fake maverick. The sort that you hope for, since he actually sounds like he knows reality, but deep down is (1) too conservative and (2) not really willing to risk too much to force the PTB to actually do anything special. This is why the whining about Feingold is annoying -- what exactly is the Democratic leadership doing that warrants care? Put up or shut up.

False Compulsion

And Also: The almost expected happened, not making it any less troubling. Korea finally lost a game, their third against Japan, ending the WBC at 6-1. The first two rounds were basically best of three, but the semifinals were sudden death. This was acceptable for Cuba/DR, who both were not perfect beforehand. But, a 3-3 team being able to get to the finals by beating a 6-0 team once ... a team that beat them twice already, seems unfair. They did win big, but that only tempers things a bit. Cuba getting to the finals btw is not surprising -- their season is ongoing at this point (so they are in game shape), and their ability is well known.

Billy Budd, perhaps the second most well known work by Herman Melville, is ultimately a parable. Budd is an innocent, impressed from a the Rights of Man (ship) by the British to serve on the Bellipotent during the war with France. Clearly instigated, he serves a single but deadly blow on a hated member of the crew. The captain, appealing to the rule of law -- especially in wartime -- called for an immediate on board hearing during which he reminded the doubtful men that they did not serve under the interests of moral/natural law, but the Royal Navy. He bluntly referenced the very buttons on their uniform. The hearing not warranting an appeal, he was executed the next day, honoring -- like Socrates -- his executioners. For was not the law upheld?

The captain protested, accepting the uncomfortable nature of the events, that his acts were compelled. The alternative (the stakes) was basically anarchy (and were they not fighting the products of the French Revolution?). And, the law they were obligated to follow -- though Budd's own impressment suggests at best a Hobbesian reason for such obligation -- also justified their actions. It was an honorable choice -- ultimately, the responsibility was not their own, they mere servants of a higher power. A power of some greatness, surely, again underlining the need to make some uncomfortable choices among the non-utopian options available. At the end of the day, Melville suggests the captain does not feel guilty about the execution of Budd, even though the Captain Vere (as in "severe") was heard muttering his name on his deathbed.

Helped by the fact that it was a device in Melville's earlier works, the general sentiment also is that the book is in effect a thinly disguised metaphor for slavery. The impressment angle underlines this, perhaps a not too far step from the rendition of fugitive slaves back to slavery. Also, the Captain himself is seen as a stand-in for Melville's own father-in-law, the great Massachusetts jurist, Lemuel Shaw. Chief Justice Shaw (himself against slavery) was denounced for his claimed "compulsion" to follow the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850. He was compelled to do so ... the central decisions were constitutional and legislative ... and there was a basic security need. The very union was at stake.

Justice Accused: Antislavery and the Judicial Process by Robert Cover concerns this appeal to "formalism," prefacing things with the story of Budd. Though referencing the play between the joints in some aspects of slavery jurisprudence, Cover only briefly notes the questionable "compulsion" in various fugitive slave cases, cases that turn out to not be as (sorry) black and white as claimed. [I think it would have been helped if he did a bit more in this regard, to underline the clear choices being made by the judges involved. The book ends on a weaker note than it needed to do so ... the opening chapters the best.] Don Fehrenbacher (best known for his great work on the Dred Scott Case) in his final work on the slavery question underlines the point.

For instance, surely, the Constitution obligates rendition of fugitive slaves. Nonetheless, it did not obligate states be forced to allow slave catchers to enter free states, seize without process ("self-help," a common law method of returning "property," I believe) persons (as they are so-labeled, no matter how many times they are deemed "property" in court opinions even by the likes of anti-slavery sorts like Justice Story) deemed in those states to be free and carry them back to slavery. Or, not even allow the slave to speak up at the stacked hearings set up, while they could be returned with hearsay evidence. If whites were so treated (and the "one drop rule" alone suggests how color is not fungible here), especially when the federal government was involved, the Bill of Rights alone would guard against it.

But, such fundamental freedoms (ratified btw after the Fugitive Slave Clause, and clearly limiting such open-ended provisions by design) are shunted away largely in throwaway lines. Anyway, the hearings were mostly pro forma and preliminary. If necessary, they could retain relief in the states where they were remanded. Not that such "non-persons" (surely after Dred Scott) had any presumptive "right" to court process etc. One more honest jurist basically admitted the fact, but deemed it a necessary evil under our constitutional order. The idea the largely afterthought Fugitive Slave Clause (one vaguely written and placed in Art. IV in such a way that it is even questionable that the federal government was meant to get involved at all) was a sort of deal breaker also was a legal fiction. And, as Shaw's biographer noted, various other problems of the 1850 law made his "compulsion" to uphold it rather questionable.

The claims of compulsion -- putting aside the judge's putative personal views (I find this public hand-wringing somewhat distasteful -- doth protest too much) -- therefore turn out to be somewhat flimsy. If anything, the compulsion is not of the clear legal sort, but a higher one -- a basic belief that the alternative is too dangerous to imagine. And, often rising from current events, or the tenor of the judge's times as s/he sees them. Thus, when CJ Taney injected his own views into the minds of the Framers -- many of whom did foresee slavery ending or tempered, if only by means such as liberal manumission laws that would allow blacks some form of freedom with the rights that brings -- the fears are clearly at times their own, even if their are pushed on to the Framers themselves.

The necessity argument might in various cases actually be true. But, it is a much closer call than suggested, and the severity "mandated" turns out not to be the case. Again, this is shown in the case of Budd ... per a recent analysis of the work. The "drumhead court" was in no way compelled by the events -- in fact, it appears that the measure was generally disfavored. And, the court itself seems to have been stacked -- the members somewhat unsuitable for that role, except perhaps as better able to be controlled by the captain's will. Melville has I believe the ship's doctor -- on Star Trek, Mister Roberts and other works often the most philosophical/learned individual on board -- reference some doubt to the whole proceedings. This too would be of a piece with the slavery/Shaw metaphor.

I first learned of the book from a reference of a strong anti-abortion opinion in What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said ... and abortion opponents do raise the slavery precedent as a compelling warning. The comparison does not quite work to the degree desired, perhaps, because Roe v. Wade took much "play" out of the joints, while decades of slavery jurisprudence gave judges much more discretion. The Supreme Court itself did not firmly speak of the earlier federal Fugitive Slave Act until the early 1840s, the later one in the late 1850s -- both in dubious, conclusionary decisions. Even then, not only did a few state judges want to resist, but there was no need for the force of rhetoric even respecting appeals to juries. After all, juror flexibility (with shades of nullification) was only firmly restrained in the late 1800s.

The "compulsion" of all actors in our government system shows up in any number of cases, some fundamental enough that comparisons to the slave crisis are apt. Abortion is a suitable reference point here, though the author (a big fan of Cover) of the aforementioned citation was not aware of Cover's view on abortion. [I tried a Google search to determine Cover's views and unfortunately was also unable find out. The balance of the evidence suggests he is pro-choice, surely respecting legal abortion* ... taking his general liberal views.]

But, so is the death penalty and questions of war/peace. Surely, on the third anniversary of a needless and criminal war. A war "compelled" by assumed weapons of which many at the time voiced clear doubt. No matter the lie angrily and/or self-righteously insisted by enablers. A war carried forth by a President** who acts like a tyrant, and a fairly incompetent one, which helps to explain his unpopularity. No matter how many try to cloud it ... making the DEMOCRATS the party that needs to defend themselves.

This does not make my line overall correct. It just makes the other side's claims of obviousness so much dross, useful means to defend the status quo as if there is no other way -- even for those quite uncomfortable with the situation. We need not like Captain Vere commands us "sign sad assent." All too many, even those with good hearts do just that.

---

* On this point, I had a discussion that led to mixed feelings. She is personally against abortion, but deeply feels that abortion should be up to the woman. In fact, she was shocked that the state can selectively fund childbirth, even in cases of rape and special circumstance. [NY by court analysis of its state constitution is an exception.] But, she is the sort to vote for the people who put such laws on the books. The overall effect of such a vote is blocked out because of other concerns, including a felt belief Democrats care too much about certain groups etc. In other words, the heart and head silently debate, the less rational winning out. The results are sadly apparent.

** I surely know that "We the People" ultimately are to blame here -- we have popular sovereignty in this country. But, two provisos. First, in actuality, we delegate a lot of that power, so some real blame really needs to apply to our leaders. After all, we live in a republic -- we have agents and their responsibility is also clear. Two, ultimately, in certain spheres in particular the buck stops somewhere. And, in foreign policy and war, the President is said stop at this point in our history.

Oh, we also have the Declaration of Independence. This is surely a rhetorical device, not to be taken totally literally (or seriously), but I do not find it too troubling to pattern myself after that writer. And, George III, not the Parliament, was the tyrant. The President in our system is also the "head of state," the representative of the nation as a whole. So, blame on his personally comes with the territory.

Big Love ... the road to polygamy?

And Also: First heard about John Barrow, the winner of the Templeton Prize (outstanding work bridging science and religion) yesterday. Cheers to those groups that bridge gaps that in practice are not as deep as stereotypes sometimes imply. As Dr. Barrow noted: "The concept of a lawful universe with order that can be understood and relied upon emerged largely out of religious beliefs about the nature of God." Bridging gaps btw might be one of the most compelling goals/needs of today's society.

A free HBO weekend allowed me to watch Big Love, the new polygamy drama. Has potential. Of course, with polygamy comes those who must compare it to same sex marriage. Charles Krauthammer, apparently thinking one HBO drama is a clear tipping point (as you know, the Mafia is also legitimate -- everyone just loves the Sopranos), knows too many gay people to buy the conservative line hook, line, and sinker. He just thinks now we just cannot ignore that slippery slope.

I cannot take the concern too seriously. There are simply too many differences -- the problem with an illegitimate classification is that it is invidious and/or differentiates between two classes of people without good reason. The two are connected since the bad reason tends to be related to bias and disfavor more than rational reasoning. Nonetheless, one can attack discrimination often by comparing the two groups involved, and pointing out the similarities are just too many to warrant treating them differently. Such is the case with same sex marriage.

Polygamy has any number of differences -- other than discrimination of sex and sexual orientation, which is enough -- from monogamy to warrant treating it differently. Now, the particular laws might be too broad -- surely, the old time laws that made mere promotion of polygamy a crime would be an issue as might even be those that broadly ban "cohabitation" in all its forms or "purporting" to be married. Purely religious ceremonies seem different than full fledged marriage, the state kind. And, even if the practice is clearly attached to religious beliefs, free exercise is not absolute.

As a libertarian move, it is not totally irrational to talk about a right to polygamy. But, I feel the same thing about drug use, but I can differentiate it (especially the hard stuff) from other aspects of a right to privacy and so forth. For instance, religious belief (culture is on a somewhat weaker plane) is on some level a basic part of one's being. It, at least in our tradition, is not quite a "choice," but something that comes from inside and/or above. So, religious activities have a special place. Also, overall, privacy rights include determining who you marry, even if some state involvement enters the mix. I surely do not think the state should stop married couples from having "open marriages" to some extent, banning swapping and so forth. One can even point to the usual problems with criminalization.

But, if a wife allows her husband to have a mistress ... or even still have sex with someone he once married (and divorced, but on some level, they agree some "marriage" state remains) ... this is not the same thing as polygamy. Still, many people have open relationships which are in some sense not totally incomparable. I think they have every right to have such relationships. This would be a form of informal polygamy, one that -- to be honest -- is far from new. The establishment, however, of a formalized state structure of polygamy would be quite different. It is why legal parlor games and facial comparisons break down on closer scrutiny.

So, yes, polygamy is not a total irrational result of liberal marriage norms. One might note however that from ancient times the "slippery slope" of heterosexual monogamy was polygamy -- including in the Bible -- more than same sex relationships. All the same, it is quite different from monogamy -- of any type -- and the line drawing is far from arbitrary or even hard. And, people like me who are willing to consider polygamy as not horrible are quite in the minority. Law is not a game of "well being totally principled, this sort of necessarily follows." We do not have unisex bathrooms ...

even though they had one in Ally McBeal.

---

PS The move a few years ago by the Massachusetts Supreme Court to declare bans on same sex marriages to be a violation of its state constitution brings to mind their moves against slavery two hundred and twenty years before. They alone strictly interpreted provisions in its state constitution respecting the "free and equal" status of all citizens to mean slavery was invalid. This reflected special state practice and understandings respecting liberty. Other states interpreted the terms in context of their own experiences. They, unlike some people, have perspective.

St. Patrick's Day

And Also: George Wythe, revolutionary and early opponent of slavery (though a Virginian, he put his principles to work, both in his personal and professional life) is one of those people who should be better known. I also was not aware until today his sad end.

Today's St. Patrick's Day, and we always had corned beef and cabbage (with potatoes) to honor it, though my mom was sure to remind us that her family was not Irish (surname notwithstanding), but American. 'Tis true that other than a love for Italian food and a last name ending with a vowel, my Italian side (my paternal grandparents were born in Italy, so my father was surely more ethnic in this respect) does not seem to show through. Anyway, though my name makes Sunday (St. Joseph's Day ... patron saint of children's medicine) somewhat more personal on some level, it was today that was honored if only in this small way while I grew up. The meal, by the way, is pretty good. Other than beer, I'm not sure if too many other Irish foods truly are.

The usual blarney dealt with year after the year today is the problem of including gays in the St. Patrick Day's parade. It should be underline that gays per se can go there -- there is no loyalty oath even as to Irish heritage to my knowledge. The difficulty is when certain groups want to fly a banner. This in effect honors something the Catholic Church still finds immoral. This is a step too far for the groups, since it is after all St. Patrick’s Day. And, they have a point, if a closed minded one. Nonetheless, the comments by a local parade official comparing forcing them to include the banner with that of the Irish Prostitute League or the KKK was just a tad crude.

I honored the day, since I would not cook that sort of thing even if I still ate it, by having Chinese food -- it had green things in it and I bought it with greenbacks. A better move is in the works for tomorrow, which is JP Day. This is the day to honor Irish/Italian mutts like myself, coming between the two saint days for those countries. I'm thinking of fries (potatoes) with tomato sauce -- bit of both cultures. I note that my niece is truly a mutt -- she of three nationalities. Mutts by the way, as shown by her cuteness and so forth, are the best sort of animals.

U.S.A. Out: Meanwhile, in yet another "last game" of Roger Clemens -- who retires more than some musicians have farewell tours, the U.S. was eliminated from the World Baseball Classic. Korea won 2-1 last night, so all the red white and blue brigade needed to do was to beat Mexico. They lost 2-1, which barely eliminated them based on runs allowed in innings played. If it was a home game, for example, they would have had an extra half inning and squeezed in. Ditto if they lost 1-0.

Also, Korea is 6-0 with two wins over Japan (3-3). But, they have another game (the two are like the Yanks and the Red Sox ... Japan liking to lose about as much), and if Japan wins, they go to the finals. So, Korea -- who did not have to win last night to get to the semifinals -- really has not gotten too much for their perfection.

Parton and Etheridge

And Also: Carla Martin, the former flight attendant, is just the administration's latest designated scapegoat. The prosecution, as Dahlia Lithwick at Slate has repeatedly noted, has been problem filled for some time. Prosecutorial overreaching being a dominant theme. But, hey, the system isn't broken. Noooo. Only a few bad apples. Incompetence ... the one saving grace of this administration. Imagine if it was this corrupt and nefarious in a more efficient matter!

Melissa Etheridge and Dolly Parton were on Crossroads (a country music show, not the Britney movie) last night, switching songs and talking about their music etc. This is a nifty idea -- a sort of role reversal that probably would work in many contexts. Consider politics. What if we had two people from different sides on, and they had to switch concerns. Thus, the liberal would discuss matters of religion and ways to limit abortion, while the conservative would worry about criminal justice and the rights of women. Note how they both, well care about these issues, but generally have a different focus/frame of things. More neutrally, we can have actresses of different styles switching roles, thus a serious one does comedy/farce, and vice versa. Hey, it works on that mommy swap show.

I personally have diverse music tastes, though I generally just listen to whatever is on a few select radio stations. There is a local college radio station that I generally enjoy -- a nod in particular, given the upcoming holiday, to their playing of Irish music on weekends. The jazz station also is enjoyable, but so is the usual Top 40 sort of things. Do not really enjoy rap, though some forms of hip hop and such can be good. I enjoyed the "Poetry Jam" performance that is in effect hip hop through poetry, which I saw a couple years back. Also, country music is good as well. This grew from my mom, whose teen years were in the 1950s, but for some reason (I asked -- she was not really too clear about it) prefers country. Note that NYC does not have a country music station.

Etheridge and Parton are both very good performers and interesting personages. Good contrast on stage. Parton's stage persona can be best described as drag queen, just a bit bustier and more artificial. She wears a big wig, lots of makeup, and has that kewie doll thing down. Comes off as very nice and chipper. Great legs for someone sixty. Etheridge has a more butch Indian look. On the stage yesterday, she had no makeup, and the sort of get-up familiar to those Clint Eastwood "Man With No Name" movies, just without the shawl (my sister-in-law had one of those things on Christmas Eve ... she wore it well). Comes off a bit more reserved, but about as blunt when she wants to be.

Parton has the "background" -- poor backhills gal, reflected by some of her songs, and inspired by the religious song tradition that so influenced country music. Johnny Cash also had some of that influence. She married young, but her husband stays behind the scenes to the degree that actually finding a picture of the guy might take a bit of doing without the Internet. Etheridge (who seems to blend country with rock a bit more, a blend that works out pretty well, though both have a lot of "ballad" sort of songs that tell stories) did not have such a music background and don't think she came from poverty either. She also likes to keep her personal life private, but has a harder time of it.

You know, the lesbian part and all. Some story there -- her long term partner left a certain minor movie actor to be with ME, they had two kids via David Crosby (Crosby, Stills, and Nash ... given his up/down life, not particularly great sperm material, but who knows?), but eventually the partner felt the lesbianism didn't "take." We find out all the time that relationships are not working out how we hoped, but when sexuality (especially bisexuality) enters the picture, suddenly more drama arises. Anyway, in time, a younger actress on a dare asked ME out on a date, they clicked, and a few years back they obtained a domestic partnership in California. ME survived cancer. Such the drama.

When her split was raised, ME mentioned that she is not out to be some lesbian role model, just someone who wants to do her thing and be happy. Good for her -- that is a sound philosophy, though of course you are forced into being something of a role model when you choose to be a public figure. Sometimes, it is forced upon you to some degree, and various stars do not really like that part of their careers. One can respect that up to a point, especially outside of the entertainment star realm. A musician or actor's private life is on some level part of their career -- their "public" likes to learn about it to some extent, and thus it comes up in interviews and gossip pages.

It is a bit different in respect to sports stars and the like though if they act like asses in some public fashion, they sometimes only get what they deserve. Still, a public figure is just that -- their privacy is somewhat restrained, and it comes with the territory. These two seem to handle it fairly well.

The Law Stands: Even During War and Outside Our Borders

In England amidst the clash of arms the laws are not silent. They may be changed, but they speak the same language in war as in peace. It has always been one of the pillars of freedom, one of the principles of liberty for which we are now fighting, that the judges... stand between the subject and any attempted encroachments on his liberty by the executive, alert to see that any coercive action is justified in law.

-- Liversidge v. Anderson, 3 All E.R. 338 (1941) (Atkin, L.J., minority opinion).

I first read of this quote, which supplies a useful counterpoint to the old dictum that holds laws are silent during wartime, in Lawless World by Phillipe Sands. After the Civil War, the Supreme Court basically underlined that Lord Atkin voiced the sentiment that applied here as well: the Constitution applies both in war and peace. And, even before Sandra Day O'Connor (she's retired, thus the plebian reference) voiced her displeasure of current overreaching by her putative political allies (the tone has the hurtful disappointed tone suggested by other conservative criticism), her "war is not a blank check" line in Hamdi soon made the great quote list soon enough.

But, the minority opinion was particularly telling respecting recent events since it concerned an application of a WWII British detainee law, one at least put in place with some aforethought and parliamentary input (as was military trials in our country at the time -- this is why cases like Ex parte Quirin are simply not on point as means to defend the panels set up by President Bush). Particularly ironic, the defendant was a Jewish businessman. At any rate, the majority -- in a ruling later deemed wrong -- allowed broad executive discretion. This lead to the minority opinion to remind the other law lords that even in wartime judges have a role to check the executive, not serve as their enablers.* Clearly, I need to learn more about this guy.

Laws are not silent during wartime, even if they are (to summarize the sentiment on Chief Justice Rehnquist's book on the subject -- interesting read) more quiet. And, judges -- especially those on the front lines, so to speak (the f-up concerning the only person prosecuted related to 9/11 -- however weakly -- underlines the point) -- continue to serve as an important restraint. Others dissent ala Justice Jackson in Korematsu, dissent when the judiciary are asked to ratify overreaching:

[A] judicial construction of the due process clause that will sustain this order is a far more subtle blow to liberty.... A military order, however unconstitutional, is not apt to last longer than the military emergency.... But once a judicial opinion rationalizes such an order to show that it conforms to the Constitution, or rather rationalizes the Constitution to show that the Constitution sanctions such an order, the Court for all time has validated the principle of racial discrimination in criminal procedure and of transplanting American citizens. The principle then lies about like a loaded weapon ready for the hand of any authority that can bring forward a plausible claim of an urgent need. . . . A military commander may overstep the bounds of constitutionality, and it is an incident. But if we review and approve, that passing incident becomes the doctrine of the Constitution. There it has a generative power of its own, and all that it creates will be in its own image.

Such sentiments -- on both sides -- were discussed by those from Israel and Great Britain, both who have took them to heart (again, surely somewhat selectively), even though they have had more direct and long lasting problems with terrorist groups than we have in recent years. One person (snottily) pointed out the Britain was somewhat selective in the past concerning treatment of the IRA. I assume then that CJ Warren should be ignored in Brown v. Bd. of Ed., since he earlier supported Japanese internment, which hit closer to home -- he being governor of California, which did not have a large black population. Or, to ignore that over time, Western Europe learnt from their missteps, their human rights laws developing in the last few decades in part in response to such wrongful steps.

Sands also argues that the WWII era is quite relevant here since FDR and Churchill went out of their way to promote international law, especially in the Atlantic Charter. Human rights, a principle against aggression, and respect for free trade all were expressed there. It also led, greatly through our own efforts with a special assist from Eleanor Roosevelt, to the creation of the United Nations. But, like the proverbial Jewish scholars who outgrew their creator -- rejecting direct advice from Yahweh, since He gave them the right to interpret His laws -- now others are more concerned with international law. Great Britain, including respecting the International Criminal Court (within bounds) and environmental concerns, have retained some concerns -- though Blair's allying with Bush suggests they too are not quite as gung ho as they once were.

[Thus, I read today: "With the United States in virtually lone opposition, the United Nations overwhelmingly approved a new Human Rights Council today to replace the widely discredited Human Rights Commission. The vote in the 191-nation General Assembly was 170 to 4, with three abstentions. Joining the United States in opposing the resolution were Israel, the Marshall Islands and Palau. Abstaining were Belarus, Iran and Venezuela." The last country is interesting. Overall, this is sad.]

This is done at our peril. On Air America yesterday, a Slate writer (Daniel Gross, sounding quite serious) noted that even if we were totally independent respecting oil, many of our trading partners would remain dependent. Thus, we would be quite concerned when major sources of oil were somehow threatened. No nation is an island. And, reality dictates this, of course -- for instance, international rules respecting economic rules tend to be honored much more by the current leadership (though somewhat selectively per steel tariffs etc.). Likewise, even with all our rhetoric and dangerous moves, we do need other nations for other reasons too. And, this in some respect will require honoring international law. In fact, Sands notes that even free trade policies raise social matters (as suggested by those who are wary about the concept) that might come back and bite us too. Maybe, then, we will not even be gung ho in this area.

As with laws during wartime, international law is tempered in practice. But, on some level, it always exists. [The book quotes Bolton -- the unconfirmed U.N. representative -- noting treaties really are provisional. They aren't really "law" in any concrete sense when international relations are involved.] And, in the end, as with law generally, it benefits us. We ignore this at our peril. The current leadership, however, is surely quite perilous.

---

* The supposed "compulsion" judges are under to further unjust laws again and again has been shown to be something of a legal fiction. This was shown in the slavery context -- the Constitution clearly speaks of slaves as "persons," who as a class have rights. Fifth Amendment. Also, the document goes out of its way to barely speak of the matter, especially in respect to the federal government. Compare this to the Constitution of the Confederate States of America which directly spoke of slavery. [It also directly noted the federal government should have limited control over commerce.]

This led anti-slavery sorts like Justice McLean even to suggest the Commerce Clause did not really cover slavery at all, since slaves are people, not commerce. [Justice Douglas later took up this theme, arguing the Fourteenth Amendment is a better means to secure equality in the business sphere.] Others, however, felt the Constitution and/or the times required some denial of such basic principles. Not always -- even Southern courts did things like free slaves who resided in free areas for set amounts of time. But, enough to underline the ultimate flexibility of judging. See also, Justice Accused by Robert M. Cover.

Zoo in Budapest

And Also: Katherine Harris (yeah, that one) has a book out about principled leadership. Not making it up. Reports are that Democrats are reading it. I referenced this as a rolled up newspaper following by a "bad bad dog," a few months ago. Or whatever. Clearly, I misspoke to some extent, since clearly it is now some serious move that (per Sen. Frist) helps our enemies. Oy.

I am a fan of Loretta Young and an early movie of hers that sounded pretty good was finally on television when this writer knew about it, namely Zoo in Budapest (1933). [A nod to another deceased movie star, Maureen Stapleton, not related to my knowledge to Edith Bunker.] Good little movie. An innocent -- parents died when he was young, grew up in the zoo's walls -- falls in love with a runaway orphan (she's 18, thus due to serve five years apprenticeship in a tannery or something). Young does look, well young, especially in pigtails ala that red freckled kid from Switzerland. Overall, charming movie with a good (especially for the time) animals going wild climax. Did look like it was filmed on location, at least at some zoo.

The last scene was a bit striking though. After saving a young boy, the lovebirds manage to end up together, the young zookeeper caring for the animals on the estate of the boy's parents. A bit restrained for someone who basically had gone native with the animals at the zoo (and got in trouble for stealing furs from patrons -- nifty that I just edited my chapter on animal rights and welfare before watching it; furs is really where I truly draw the lines ... it is in a sense worse than hunting on the frivolous harm to animals meter), but so it goes. More ironic is that -- after we grew to like them partly because they seemed a bit different from everyone else -- Eve said that "now we can be like everyone else."

I'm not sure if that is quite a good thing. It is true though that for an orphan, normality is not exactly the worse thing in the world. Nonetheless, it does highlight the tendency of various movies to be rather conservative, though some points are added to show that being overly so is a problem. For instance, Talk of the Town is a rare movie dealing with the Supreme Court. It is a Cary Grant/Jean Arthur vehicle (another two I enjoy, especially the latter) though the justice to be is played by someone else. Grant is a self-proclaimed anarchist wrongly accused for burning down a factory, but in the end, he leaves the judging to the professionals. I think there is a lot of potential in court cases for some good movies, and some actually have been made.

Anyway, a couple more comments about the movie. I guess the quick shot of Eve in her underclothes while changing into a dress sown for her benefit (to escape, since they always wore bland uniforms that lost nothing in the B&W) might have been a tad risqué at the time, huh? Compare this to one of the sisters on Related last night in her black bra ... it does seem sometimes, a bit of skin or the suggestion thereof is on some level more revealing. Also, the scene where the moronic cage cleaner starts attacking Eve is also pretty rough -- nothing much happens, of course, but the suggestion of rape is clear.

A word also about Mrs. Henderson Presents. I briefly commented about this last time and commented that it was not quite that good. It should be noted that it had its moments. One also gets to see Bob Hoskins nude, though this is not exactly a grand recommendation. [When the performers first disrobe, they want the men to as well, so we have a rare example of full frontal male nudity in a mainstream film.] The supporting cast, including the woman performers, is good -- other than the two leads, they do not have much to do, but this is sort of a pity.

And, though a scene that bothered me still does, it can be taken to give a shot of reality to the proceedings. It just is that it seemed a cheap way of going about it. Don't quite recommend it, but it might be a good rental.

Sunday Night

Sometimes, the Big City has its benefits. Dinner and a movie on Sunday Night? Plenty of options, though the choice was a bit lackluster. Still, other choices could have been made, and will next time. Anyway, following apparently in the spirit of movie concession stands, another restaurant had the expensive dessert option. The entree, Moroccan btw, was $15 -- reasonable portion and so forth (vegetarian, which has the added value of being a bit cheaper) -- while a slice of cake is around $6 or more. In fact, my cocktail (another place to gouge ya) was cheaper than my dessert. This is not quite as bad as the "give them coffee and wait five/ten minutes to give them dessert" move (even though they were fairly busy, service was quick there ... so the coffee first was not too bad). I had my usual tirasmu (Mediterranean region standard) and it was decent enough. Still ...

The movie was Mrs. Henderson Presents, which concerns Judi Dench (nominated for an Oscar) as a widow opening up theater in the late 1930s, and deciding to include nudity. It first appears to be a way to get business, after it was going slow, but we eventually learn (during WWII) there is some emotional reason behind it as well. Eh ... didn't quite work for me. It was a bit too predictable and thin for me with a couple "more serious than the movie deserves" moments, one in particularly almost seemed a bit crude to me.

Oh, I did see a preview of a 9/11 movie (actually, I think it was the A&E movie, unless I missed the mention of it being an Oliver Stone film ... don't trust him with it, btw). And, right afterwards, we lead to a silly concession stand commercial. Better to put the movie earlier in the previews, perhaps? I also refer to a serious Related episode where they insisted to put previews of some stupid reality show in the crawl near the end ... while serious stuff is going on with the music and everything. Grrr. The A&E film received good reviews. I did not see it yet. Meanwhile, there continues to be great debate over construction of a memorial -- of course actually doing anything else four years after is too much to ask for -- which is due to begin soon. Those meetings are bound to be totally depressing. Kind of when I used to pass funerals on a daily basis.

The movie was over about 10, but surely this does not mean everything is closed. No ... we could have gone out to eat at the same place after the movie. Duane Reade was open 24 hours. Foodtown, with plenty of goodies, was open for me to pick up some odds and ends -- microwavable potatoes, good selection of soups, etc. But, things weren't only like that in the CITY ... when I came back to the boondocks (aka the home of the NY Yankees), I passed two corner stores still open (could have got a coffee, but they usually aren't a great idea at midnight) and Dunkin Donuts (they are spreading like Starbucks in these parts) as well (ditto).

I taped West Wing. Like in '04, it would be nice when the election is over. I was thinking back and realized that except for vice presidents, twelve years of the same party (especially eight years plus a new guy) is a rarity in this country. The last time it happened was in the '20s, and that was sort of a special case (Harding died, so we did not have eight years of the same guy) as was McKinley/Roosevelt/Taft (same situation). The other two times was after the Civil War (Grant/Hayes) and the early 1800s (but there was that secretary of state connection). So, I'm thinking Vinick is going to win. But, now there is this invasion, so the whole thing is cheapened since the winner will be stuck with the muck. Still, Donna and Josh kissed and all ... okay episode. It is a good time for the show to finish its run.

Before going to bed, I caught the end of the re-broadcast of the Korea/Mexico World Baseball Championship game. Korea is a bit of a surprise -- beating favored Japan (Ichiro had some trash talking ... sorry loser ... U.S. also beat them in the Ninth on Sunday -- A-Rod had the clutch hit the Yanks needed last October) and now Mexico 2-1. Netherlands, of all people, earlier had a no-hitter (helped by the mercy rule, but impressive for a 19 year old). I think it is turning out to be a pretty good idea. Now, if that ass Bonds would retire...

New Party, No Reform (Some Shame)

And Also: Another panel this weekend concerned Catholics in public life, which Republicans seem to suggest cannot really include Democrats. The presence of James "the human puppet" Carville on the panel suggests otherwise. Peggy Noonan was on the panel -- yuck. Also, it was mentioned that abortion was on its way to be legalized when Roe was handed down. This is at best misleading -- Gov. Nelson Rockefeller in fact had to overturn a veto attempt in NY, meaning only California and a couple other states had truly liberal laws. A chunk of the country probably still would not have had Roe type abortion freedoms even a decade later.

Norman Mailer was on Book TV this week with his youngest son (nine children ... who knew?) promoting their new book which apparently involves them discussing various issues. NM made a sound point respecting why invading Iraq even to "promote democracy" was a bad idea, one that basically reflects my bottom lime position. [The war was a mess for any number of reasons, but I was against it on principle as well as pragmatics.] Iraq had to find democracy on its own ... after years of "shame" ... not be given it by "some rich uncle they see twice a year."

I compare it to our own situation, and have not really heard a sound rebuttal (or even many willing to face the idea ... the underlining sentiment seems to be that they are somehow "different" from us), before the Civil War. If Britian invaded us to end slavery, which a majority of the country thought was on some level an evil, and clearly violated the rights of millions ... would we have agreed to it? In fact, look at the Reconstruction: a half-ass attempt to protect the civil rights of blacks that we grew tired of in less than a decade, and resulted in lots of trouble in the long run.

Surely, on some level, it was a good thing. But, freedom alone was not enough. Anyway, we had to fight our own civil war, and our own demons. Others did not come in and do it for us.

Meanwhile, though NO pops up on the Al Franken Show weekly, he is no liberal. Still, he knows -- along with others of his sort -- that the system is broken. And, the Republicans only made things worse:

While I am familiar with the prior work of Mann and Ornstein, which is always distinguished by its excellence, all that I know about their new book, to be published in June 2006, is the pre-publication description. According to the publisher (Oxford Press), this latest work reveals that after forty years of Democratic control, the House of Representatives was in need of reform. But that did not happen.

Republicans promised reform in 1994, when they won control of the House for the first time in four decades. But rather than deliver it, GOP leadership has - according to Mann and Ornstein - undermined the institution through "the demise of regular order, the decline of deliberation and the weakening of our system of checks and balances."

Speaker Dennis Hastert is described in the pre-publication material, based on his own words, as more of "a lieutenant of the president than a steward of the House." Accordingly, Mann and Ornstein's book suggests, "the legislative process has been bent to serve immediate presidential interests and have often resulted in poorly crafted and stealthily passed laws."

I truly think we need a change of party control of at least one part of our national government for real change to occur. Nonetheless, it is not impossible for there to be respectable Republicans out there that realize party is not all that matters. Unfortunately, and damn the principled loyalists who stick with Bush anyway as if the alternative is hell on Earth, they have not stood up to be heard when it counted. Sen. McCain, for instance, does not deserve to win in '08, even if you respect his conservative views (principle only goes so far -- I would not have voted for him in '00, but would have been less distressed if he actually won). He has shown his lapdog side too often by this point.

But, if change does come, perhaps the principled sorts can come out of their holes. Who knows? Many claim that many of them are "ashamed" too, but just do not have the guts to risk their positions. For now, the system is broken -- it is not just progressive Joe (fill in appropriate label) talking here -- and new blood is needed. I don't see any compelling evidence that this will include too many with "Rs" next to their names, so this means voting Democratic ... though they leave something to be desired at times too (I must give props to Sen. Reid -- at various times he has shown a good bulldog tendency).

Anyway, that book sounds good. I also managed to pick up the anti-Wal-Mart documentary at the library (Wal-Mart: The High Cost of Low Price) -- pretty good with the added benefit of having a quickie twenty minute version on the DVD as well. Also, some amusing takeoffs of their advertising. I love the use of the term "associate" -- it's like Zonker being the "vice president" at his theme restaurant in Doonesbury.

Port Deal Update

And Also: I again enjoyed Mostly Martha, a well done German addition to the food movie genre, this time involving a chef thawing after she takes in her niece after tragedy strikes. Not great art, but just well done, all around. Meanwhile, I'm reading Lawless World by Philippe Sands, a defense of global rules and international law with proper realistic touches tossed in. This is not just a matter of the ICC and should be a fundamental plank of a sane foreign policy. In fact, the U.S. used to actually agree. They used to have a "decent respect to the opinions of mankind." Ah, decency.

Small victories are what one hangs their hat on sometimes.

I was trying to obtain information the last few days about something from my county clerk. There was only one number given in the phone book, one that matched the one given by the "411" information line. The number given rang off the hook. These people apparently never heard of automated messages. Two days in a row. Called the "311" city information number -- first time I used this service -- and was given an alternate number. Same result.

I called again. I was given the NY State number. The number went through but at 11:45 the actual humans all go on a break for around an hour or so. I got through at 11:47. I called 311 a third time later in the day ... this time I got through to an actual person. At first, the person said she could not really help me -- call the county clerk. She talks to someone else, and I hear the person say "not our problem" (how nice), but eventually the other person does tell me the information I needed to know. I made it sure it was damn clear, annoying the person, but this is like the second time in a week I had to deal with shit like this, so I was in less polite mode.*

This is the sort of thing you laugh at (1) when it happens to someone else (2) after it is over or (3) you don't want to cry. I think I'm somewhat only the lines of the last two. Anyway, this should not have happened, but small victory. The ports deal is one as well since it forced Republicans to actually disagree with the President in a substantive way. How much is unclear -- (1) you get the idea this was planned, so they could have something to say for the '06 elections (2) who knows if shifting the operations to a U.S. company really means it is truly independent.

But, still, it shows that checks and balances, separation of powers, and public pressure all have some sign of life yet. I do wonder ... who designated Sen. Warner as the spokesman of Dubai? Again, he was out there serving as their press secretary, reading the release discussing the move, after the House committee voted 62-2 to reject the deal as current designed.

This is a bit more damning, by the House yet, than the recent Senate Intel agreement respecting the criminal eavesdropping program, for which they gave the President more power. In return, they will be "advised" about things, though perhaps it would be more helpful to actually investigate beforehand. Sen. Specter got annoyed at the NYT for calling the "kabuki" theater, but tellingly noted in his letter that the administration didn't tell him what he wanted to know. If you actually gave a shit Arlen, you would have demanded them to do so before delegating the problem to the usually subservient FISA Court. Crime does pay.

To emphasize my main concern with this whole deal: it was not really the actual deal. It was the sloppy way a surely not surprisingly controversial move was handled. Let's say that it was not really a threat to security and even was somewhat tinged with racism. For the sake of argument. So what? That is how things will be in reality sometimes, especially in these times, helped by fear mongering by you know who. So, the idea is to play it right, handle it with some finesse. This underlines the fundamental problem with these jokers -- they do not handle that very well. If they were in that Little House in the Prairie episode where Charles has to deliver the nitro, they would have blown things up early in the episode. This as much as their basic policy views is the problem, though some clueless sorts seem to miss the point. Surely, this is underlined in any number of cases, though the ass covering was much less successful in this case.

Anyway, I talked about this to a loyal reader, but I want to end by underlining my position on the impeachment deal. John Dean, who has been doing yeoman work on this in his writings (including Findlaw columns and a book) and media appearances, is right to say that impeachment is not a great '06 campaign message. Oversight is. And, I think that should be a major theme, along with a basic message of what the Democratic Party stands for. Oversight is what Congress stands for. It should be non-partisan, but sadly is not these days. But, the other half -- the Democratic part -- has to be joined with it this Fall.

But, my concern is not just with members of Congress -- in fact, a few are demanding more investigation on the relevant subjects here. The problem I have is that there is nearly no mention at all of the idea that impeachment might be a quite credible result (you know, in ideal world, where lying into war will not get you re-elected), especially if real investigation and changes are not put in place. A "third party" movement came to mind as a credible metaphor here -- not barn burners like Nader, but real ones, including the likes of Perot (and more sane ones, like the progressives).

They rarely win, though the likes of the Greens should do more to target local races, but they do influence the debate. The same applies to editorials and others in the media. They help to move the goalposts. So, I was a bit pissed at an editorial sent to me that did more than say politically impeachment is a no go. Sure ... that's true, surely now. It went one step further and suggested really Bush did not really do anything impeachable. This is ridiculous. Prosecutorial discretion is not the same thing as no crime ... and we are not just talking about Britain not targeting certain protestors as possible violators of their new (dubious) hate/promotion of violence laws. Lying us into war is not impeachable? If you look at the debates, this is THE impeachable offense.

But, even the likes of Molly Ivins do more than say impeachment is not a good idea as a Democratic strategy. She goes to the next level and suggests even discussion of it by certain activists is a bad idea. Clinton is raised. Oh shut up. Oversight and independent counsels were abused there too -- millions were wasted to investigate one aide because he gave some hush money to his mistress. Does this mean Patrick Fitzgerald is Javert? I see nothing wrong with some activists making the case for impeachment and some -- you know, other than the Nation -- editorialists talking a bit about it too (even a wee bit). Keep things in perspective, but sure. Medicinal marijuana is not a great issue for '06, but at times it seems less taboo.

Anyway, that's really where I'm coming from, inartfully put or not. I'd add that there should be a place for "alternate universes," a discussion point of what should be done, even if it cannot be right now. This too is where some sort of impeachment talk makes sense. If South Africa can have truth commissions that serve as an alternative to prosecutions for rank deprivations of human rights, surely impeachment proceedings are not the only way to go. But, such commissions underline the rights were violated. That too is part of my point -- "concern" and other play acting is not quite what is satisfying at this point.

---

* Partly since I was there, so to speak, I respect the position of the low level sorts involved in this situation. After all, I remain in the support business. So, I did note that I was trying to be crystal clear (especially on a not perfect line) because I was given the run around. But, quid pro quo is warranted -- some minimum level of respect is a bit too often not shown by both sides. Thus, to take a trivial example, I choose take out places in part based on customer service skills.

Intellectual Exercises

The issue of abortion has interested me for some time because of its aspects, which touch upon so many fundamental issues. It is in other words partly an "intellectual exercise," but it is surely not only that. This is the case because fundamental issues tend to affect people personally as well. For instance, I do not have children, but those close to me do. Thus, the matter is far from abstract. The loved one of a homosexual might not be gay, but anti-homosexual activity hits close to home. Putting aside closely related issues -- like the general right to choose whom to date, form a relationship with and marry -- that are but a few inches away and overlap, the matter is personal for them. And, it suggests why the issue does not only touch the few percentage of people who are homosexual/bi-sexual.

Such is it for me and millions others on this issue. This is a rather mundane thing to say, but it bears mentioning, since certain people [see this thread] consider their own experiences somehow unique ... they "know" something we do not, since they "get it" in a personal way. Of course, millions others who have children (or even lost them) take different lessons from their life experiences. Just as some who have similar experiences as me have different beliefs. But, abortion is not totally a rationale issue -- it is deeply personal. So, some degree of blindness is understandable.

Still, it is a bit annoying, which is why the discussing the subject with others tends to get somewhat tiring. Such is the perils of moral questions as well as political ones. Still, I really do want to understand, as best I can, the mind-set of others. For instance, are they serious when they claim that newborns and six month fetuses are morally the same? Do they really think the pro-choice community as a whole (to the degree simple judgments can be made for such a diverse group) do not respect in some way the moral importance of a six month fetus, thinking it simply a "bundle of fluff?" On the other hand, do people who try (in a heavy-handed fashion) to make it all about "GOVERNMENT" vs. personal rights really think it is THAT simple?

I wish not to dwell to deeply on my private experience and so forth, partly because I respect my privacy. They also only are somewhat relevant in issues like these, since they can equally warrant respect and suspicion. It strikes me when people on message boards and so forth forthrightly speak about their private experiences ... it really opens them up to some hardship, since message boards are not always the most humane of areas. Also, you somewhat raise risks of concerns of bias. We all are biased, of course, so this might just make things more honest and upfront. Still, again, spelling out my personal experiences will also raise that problem.

But, on some level, we again reach the conclusion that we are all interconnected in major ways. For instance, a relative is a very religious sort, but is not totally stereotypical -- she's divorced, doesn't think pre-marital sex will damn you to hell, is generally a nice person, and so forth. Yes, she did vote for Bush, but she's sorry about it now. Repentance is important in the Christian faith. Anyway, this doesn't make me that special, does it? Who is not in some way close to people with different religious or moral views? It is why we can and must respect them. And, it helps the average American to have nuanced views on most important issues of the day. Message boards tend to bring out knee jerks, but even there, you sort of see this shine thru.

So, one still can be optimistic, even with all the b.s. out there. Going back to that Adams vs. Jefferson book, one thing that struck people about Jefferson was his optimism in the people.* The Jeffersonian ideal was his ultimate legacy, the idea the people will rule, not hated elites. It was striking when the book provided some campaign literature, which at some point summarized the Republican position as compared to the Federalist ... things like religious freedom vs. mixing church and state ... since it sounded like a denunciation of the current Republican Party. We need another standard bearer, an imperfect sort who can voice the ideals of this nation. Make us believe in ourselves again. John Edwards wants to be that person, but whomever it is, the people are desperate to find him or her. No, not her.

---

* Jefferson is surely an imperfect sort ... he also, somewhat despite himself, was a great politician. TJ had the ability to voice basic ideals, seeing things in black and white, while not being comfortable with shades of gray. He hated conflict, so avoided such difficulties, including in his later letters to Adams. This also led to hypocrisy. One other thing. It is ironic that Madison perhaps was the first "party leader" in Congress, he of the anti-party sentiments. But, really, they are fighting a special menace. Yeah, we buy that Jimmy.

Religion and Humanity

And also: Evangelists are not an impossible resource for the Democrats. Amazing how little is widely known about the Bush Family. For instance, it is hard to believe how so few know about Laura accidentally killing someone while a teenager! Also, putting aside black sheep Neil, who knows the names of Bush Sr.'s other two children -- Marvin and Dorothy, the latter divorced and married to a former aide to Richard Gephardt! Finally, how about the fact that the second oldest child died at about age four of leukemia? A small telling point about how they control information.

In response to a Slate article that takes a doubtful look at those who connection religious belief with our very natures, I offer some rambling comments. ....

Is it really true that no non-human, even higher primates, have some sort of "religious" component to their existence, including things like respecting the dead or the like? I'm not sure if that's true, but that's not my field, so maybe others know.

To the degree it is true, it seems connected to our higher brain capacity, our ability to understand (and need to understand) more abstract questions and concerns. A greater knowledge surely factors into concerns over such things as suffering and its reasons or such. And, rituals would form to deal with such questions, rituals tied to most religions.

For instance, Catholicism centers on sacraments growing from various stages of our life. They stages give rise to rituals and ceremonies honoring them. Thus, things like birth, marriage, and death have a "sacred" character. Again, does this not arise from our greater brain development and so forth?

And also, does no other animal have some primitive "proto-rituals?" I think so, since some primates clearly have broad emotional lives and understandings. This might not raise to the level of a "God," of course, unless for those "masters" who have heightened opinion of themselves vis-a-vis their pets. But, Catholics surely think God in some way touches the lives of animals. Again, it is their lack of knowledge that leads them to fail to fully be aware of it.

For those who do not accept the traditional concept of God, this "understanding" is reached in some other way. Such individuals see some sort of natural laws and moral policies arising from them, and in some fashion create a "religion" to better practice things. The problems with definitions shouldn't let us ignore such a reality.

A reality that again is an imperative in some fashion for everyday man and woman to pursue happiness and contentment. It is clearly somehow tied into our beings, our natures, by evolution and so forth.

South Dakota Acts Stupid

Rumsfeld v. FAIR: Avoiding more divisive issues in dubious ways, the SC upheld the requirement of law schools to accept military recruiters in return for funding. Some want to throw the baby out with the bath water (let's only protect associations that are "good"), but yes there are some speech and associational interests here. But, the funding, minimal harm, desire to actually limit speech (another way of life and all that entails), and the military's interest in recruiting in places wherein we need them to do so suggests the policy was not unconstitutional.

Meanwhile, South Dakota's Orwellian "Women's Health and Human Life Protection Act" was signed into law. Following in the footsteps of a slanted and dubious panel, they only will now allow abortions to be performed by doctors (or medicines that do the job) if the woman's life is at stake or the pregnancy itself cannot be determined.

Thus, yes, even if the women's health was significantly at risk (even at a few percentage points, this would affect thousands of women), no abortion. Well, okay, if it was self-induced. This rule of not applying restrictive laws to women themselves is traditional and arguably legitimate to the degree it is hard to target women alone without having proof problems and probably Fourth Amendment issues. It does look bad, doesn't it?

The law also alters the state constitution's due process clause to allow this move. Of course, this leaves the federal Constitution, which even Chief Justice Roberts might think does not allow disallowing abortions to protect a woman's health. Thus, this seems a step too far. If these people were serious, they would have used some old law that had an exception for the woman's health (more limited than the current acception), or (you know, if they wanted to be really crazy) in cases of rape/incest, or severe fetal deformity. Well, yeah, that would be not even worth mentioning since it would only bar something like 90% or so of abortions. Who knew South Dakota, who used to have two Democratic senators not too long ago, was this backward?

The law refers to these findings:

based upon written materials, scientific studies, and testimony of witnesses presented to the task force, that life begins at the time of conception, a conclusion confirmed by scientific advances since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, including the fact that each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization. Moreover, the Legislature finds, based upon the conclusions of the South Dakota Task Force to Study Abortion, and in recognition of the technological advances and medical experience and body of knowledge about abortions produced and made available since the 1973 decision of Roe v. Wade, that to fully protect the rights, interests, and health of the pregnant mother, the rights, interest, and life of her unborn child, and the mother's fundamental natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child, abortions in South Dakota should be prohibited

The fact that some sort of "life" begins at conception was known when Roe v. Wade was handed down. The rub was what one would do with this fact, namely, if the rights of personhood was also supplied along with all that suggests. Also, I am not aware that "each human being is totally unique immediately at fertilization" is really news either. Actually, in many cases, this "human being" is naturally disposed of by the human body by miscarriage. Or, is split into two or more "unique" multiple pregnancies. The word "unique" does imply "unique individual," which is simply not in place this early.

Some have referred to in vitro fertilization, but besides the fact that this was probably known about in theory in 1973, what does this change? All that did was apply the already used artificial conception method (in animal husbandry) to humans, changing the locale of fertilization. The bottom line in Roe was that a woman had a right to privacy and there was no way simply to remove theembryoo ... the fetus not being able to survive until viability, which has changed by a few weeks since '73.

Some studies have suggested ... while others did not ... that pain and so forth might be felt by the unborn earlier than we thought. But, at two weeks? Also, an absolute ban would not be necessarily required, especially given we do not force good samaritanship in other contexts. And, some sort of use of pain relievers to I guess knock out the embryo before performing the abortion. Surely, this is possible, if the alternative is no abortion.

The "health" part is particularly outrageous, since there is no health exception in the law. Some point tocertainn emotional problems some women have after an abortion (the breast cancer tie has been shown to be dubious). This proves too much, since the same applies for forced childbirth. The compelling need to secure a woman's "natural intrinsic right to a relationship with her child" also does not seem to require forcing them to bring said "child" to term, even if said "relationship" would cause her health and other problems, or be severely problematic if it happened at a particular point in time.

Again, the best way to protect the alleged state interests would be a reasonable family planning regime plus an improved social welfare system. This is a lot easier, I guess. OTOH, some more realistic pro-life sorts also aren't so glad about this law.

Meanwhile, more Saletan bashing. Always fun.

2006 and 1800

And Also: Understanding the problem with moderates raising the issue and the fact it will not happen even if Democrats win in '06, I do wonder if impeachment is obsolete. People like Tom Daschle and Molly Ivins both oppose it, even given all the facts supplied. It is not just a matter of success; it is that it seems verboten to bring it up. Bush is like sooo rude and nasty, but hey, we can't go too far, can we? If not, stop calling him a criminal who lied us into war. There is something for people like that and it is not lame ass FISA reforms or even loss of his party in the next election cycle.

Academy Awards: Partly since I don't like Jon Stewart, I did not watch them this year, but apparently this was no great loss. As to the awards themselves, the only real surprise was that Crash won over Brokeback Mountain for Best Picture. Crash was a racial message movie with a lot of emoting by various stars, including Matt Dillon and Sandra Bullock, who it's always nice to know can get real work. It was Paul Haggis' baby, he of Million Dollar Baby fame, and sounds like a perfect Hollywood choice: right message, lots of acting. He also won Best Original Screenplay. It sounds like tiring tripe to me and received mixed reviews on that level as well, though there was some talk that it had a shot.

One movie that lost out was Good Night, and Good Luck, though George Clooney won for Syriana. Not surprisingly, but somewhat disappointedly, the cute man and dog couple from England won over The Corpse Bride for Best Animated Film, especially since Wallace and Gromit already won in the past. Memoirs of a Geisha and King Kong won three techs a piece (art/editing/makeup and sound/visual). "It's Hard Out Here For a Pimp" won Best Song, while Tsotsi, an African redemption story (apparently with a great soundtrack) won Best Foreign. Overall, standard fare, with various tiring filler and music even during the acceptance speeches -- that is, usually the best part of the ceremony (there is always a couple nice remarks, sometimes among the lesser known awards). Jon Stewart received mixed reviews.

Adams vs. Jefferson: I am listing to this book on CD. It is sort of force advertising, since it at first glance is about the disputed election of 1800, but is really about the first twenty or so years of our nation's history. It does focus on these two guys, but it basically supplies a rather straightforward (boring) summary of events from c. 1780 on. Thus, I am on Disc 7 of 10 and we have yet to reach the actual election of 1800! It is acceptable as a basic summary of events and read well, but one expects more. There also is not enough context at times -- we hear what certain people thought, but the author does not comment if they were right to do so.

One thing that it does underline is that we should not idolize our fathers THAT much. These people have serious faults and problems as much as the rest of us. The fact that things were basically started from scratch suggests they had more places to shine, but really, look at these guys. First, there is the whole slavery and class inequality deal ... it is not ahistorical to note this, even if it is just to remind ourselves these are not demi-gods (as Franklin notes in 1776). Second, there was more than enough of the usual graft and chicanery, including a crooked Georgia land deal that basically affected the whole legislature (the people kicked them out, so maybe we should honor them too).

Third, Hamilton, Madison, Jefferson, and the rest all had their less than prime moments, down to the infamous duel. But, what about Madison counseling Jefferson not to send a conciliatory letter to Adams after the election of 1796, since it might cause problems come the next election cycle? TJ definitely is an imperfect character. And, Adams let Hamilton's lackeys walk all over him for over half his term, while distrusting democratic republicanism a bit too much at times. He does at times come off as the most likeable of the bunch, if someone who spent more time at home than Bush does.

[One amusing tidbit: while the capital was in Pennsylvania, the President had to pay rent.]

Interesting Gun Case

And Also: BTC News has second thoughts on John Dickerson respecting a particular issue; but overall, it's a limited retraction. Still wanker material. More on the Texas re-districting case. A bit on the below case from a local.

In this case, Mr. Posey was arrested [The amount of marijuana in his and his friend's possession was less than 1/2 ounce.] in his own home. When asked, after his arrest, if he had any weapons, he told the officers there was a pistol in the back room. From his record, it appears Mr. Posey is an addict. Thus, he was sentenced to four years in the penitentiary, probated, however, on the condition that he serve six-months in the Jefferson County Jail with work release and otherwise comply with other conditions established by the court to keep him clean from drugs and law abiding. Background information indicated he had served his country well in the military, receiving an honorable discharge. He was a high school graduate and had had steady employment throughout the years. Yet, because he had a weapon in his house - though in another room - he was charged with another felony crime.

The state ruling cited here is an interesting discussion of the right to keep and bear arms. The ruling makes an exception for convicted felons, which the dissent (who makes his pro-gun beliefs well known) opposes as too broad. And, he has a point given the term "felony" these days amounts to any number of non-violent crimes often of a trivial nature, putting aside your views on its use when marijuana is involved.

Also, the ruling references Supreme Court precedent that makes it harder to enter a home without a warrant, even to prevent the destruction of evidence ... but criminal activity would often make a difference, esp. felonies.* Felonies also can lead to loss of voting rights, right to own a gun, obtain a license to various occupations, etc. Perils of the drug war, overcriminalized, and so forth.

As Justice White once noted, in reference to discussion of an Indian Rights law:

She complained that "[t]he people get governors and sometimes they get power hungry and then the people have no rights at all," to which Senator Ervin responded: " 'Power hungry' is a pretty good shorthand statement to show why the people of the United States drew up a Constitution. They wanted to compel their rulers to stay within the bounds of that Constitution and not let that hunger for power carry them outside it."

State or federal Constitution, that is.
---

* The original rule, and the defendant tried to rely on it, suggested that felonies would be required before warrantless invasions of the home would be allowed in most cases. But, a later case weakened the rule, and now ever misdemeanor drug offenses might be enough. Cf. Justice Stevens' comments here.

We Deserve More Than This, If We So Demand

China v. Korea: China, after being one-hit, escapes mercy rule by hitting home run, making it 9-1 (Korea scored in 8th to make it 10-1, but the rule kicks in when a team is ahead by 10 after 7 ... or 15 after 5 ... China lost 18-2 the day before). Moral victory!

Zooming around the television dial, since nothing was on again (whine whine), I caught a bit of a media discussion at some Barnes and Nobles, two of the participants were Paul Krugman and Chris Hedges, the latter sometimes has the flavor of an Old Testament prophet bewailing the falsity of our coverage of war.

An audience member hit hard the anger some of have about what is going on. He referenced one of Cheney's "no doubt" claims before the war, followed up by his claims that he never actually said that. [This is akin to the repeated claims that things ... like the levees breaching, Hamas winning, planes flying into towers etc. ... was nothing ANYONE would have expected, though darn if many did.] Why, the member angrily noted, did the media not just put the two remarks side by side? Apparently, they simply did not want to risk their jobs ... or worse, one might add, their prestige and connections. After all, as referenced in War Made Easy by Norman Solomon, at least the mouthpiece of Saddam could rightly claim that his life was in danger. What is the bloody excuse here?

I am quite happy for the committees of correspondence (Revolutionary War reference), often known as blogs, who do yeoman battles -- usually while having other jobs unlike the media -- putting forth the facts. Consider this, in which when a few Republican senators -- not members of the House, where slavish conformity is apparently required from the campaign days -- show some sign of wanting merely to investigate the President's NSA follies. Traitorous fools! They are helping the Democrats politicize the Intelligence Committe, unlike Sen. Roberts, who just wants to make it an non-entity. The media accounts are somewhat underwhelming. One audience member noted that pre-war, many media accounts could have just tuned into WBAI (or Democracy Now!). They also would be advised to tune into the blogosphere.

Before this crime against humanity in Iraq ("we are taking the war to those who attacked us!!!" liar liar ... asshole), I wrote a decent amount trying to show why I think going to war was wrong, including unconstitutional as being carried forth. As with Gulf War I, it seemed so standard -- we go an avoidable path (we did not warn Saddam respecting Kuwait, but if anything sent mixed signals suggesting we did not really care about it), and now are stuck with a no win solution. One in which people who know it is f-ed warily tell us that we need to continue a problem filled course, since there is no easy way. It's like tossing a child into a highway ... saving him/her will probably result in tragedy somehow ... but hey, we have to save the child! And, you know, just everyone thought he had WMDs. Well, like I said with reluctant war hawk Tim Noah so argued, NO WE DIDN'T.

Thus, I simply cannot focus too much on the exact details. I try to keep up to date, but it's the same old thing, with some signs of hope that makes total hopelessness of some a bit hard to accept. But, that wasn't the low bar that had to be met for war not to have been a good idea. The PTB make it so easy since they are so lousy. Thank you BTC News and others who have the stomach for it. BTC btw has arrived. It has been honored by Daily Kos and Atrios, who linked up to underline its wanker of the day as well as mentioning it on Air America. The wanker btw is the new political commentator at Slate, who leaves a bit to be desired ... his promotion of a lie because of an alleged journalistic duty to protect sources was probably the last straw even before his latest bit on how it was surprising -- since you know insiders told him differently -- that Bush really is not too engaged and such. Slate ... liberal establishment media.

These times seem akin to a Greek Tragedy. The end, like a Colombo episode, was foreordained. It was how you got there that mattered. The repeated accomplishments, so to speak, of the PTB advancing their anti-American agenda must continually be matched by those who in whatever way possible can uphold the values this country and its citizens should follow. And, eventually, we will reach the light at the end of the tunnel ... or see it more clearly than the darkness that overwhelms us too much nowadays. We must not ala Plato's cave, consider the shadows reality.

Or, almost as bad, expect nothing much more.

---

PS: Respecting the title, Norman Mailer was on Air America with his son recently and noted that the Democrats didn't deserve to win in '04 given how badly the campaign was run. He referenced in particular the stupid hunting photo-op and Kerry's failure to challenge Bush to criticize attacks on his military record during the debates. I also recall that human rights really was not made an issue. Doesn't sell well, right? The Democrats might not have deserved to win, but we really deserved it. Maybe not. But, we needed it.

South Africa v. Italy Baseball?

And Also:Wal-Mart has changed its mind on Plan B. This thread concerns some thoughts on the "ridiculous" (Scalia's words) lawsuit respecting the Texas re-districting case.

The World Baseball Classic has been the talk of Talk Radio over here, perhaps because the Knicks suck, and no one really cares about the Olympics or hockey. Anyway, the idea seems to me kind of fun -- players are grouped by country and play in a tournament of sixteen games or so. The fear is that someone will get hurt, and it does seem an irregular time to have it ... pitchers in particular are not in "game" shape in early March. And, also will not this interfere with Spring Training, especially those back-ups that will not play that much? It would seem that November or so might be a better time for this, especially since football is basically only a one day a week deal (putting aside MNF and I guess maybe Thursday by some reports).

There does seem to be a sense of unreality, which arose during the Olympics during hockey (Why do we let professionals play in the Olympics anyway? I thought it was for amateurs.), in which the "competitors" are really teammates in the U.S. artificially split up by nationality. Thus, even though the U.S. hockey team sorta of bombed -- perhaps because some of their best players are not Americans -- hockey fans could in effect still be happy with the winners. After all, they root for these players outside of the Olympics context. Thus, Pedro Martinez -- who seems not to be playing given his foot and such -- would be the "enemy" so to speak, while Derek Jeter would not, even if you are a "Mets" fan.

Now, surely, this will not be taken too seriously. Some cynically see it as merely a money making scheme. Well, sure, why not? The problem does arise that the players might get hurt. Also, it has the feel of a pick-up game in that they really do not have time to practice together as a team. This was suggested as a problem during the Olympics ... compare this to the days of the Miracle, in which the team played together for some time.

Finally, looking at the way the four groups (sixteen countries/teams) are split, it seems a bit strange. The problem appears to be the inclusion of those "baseball" countries of the Netherlands, Italy, South Africa, and Australia. There are Italian players and the Netherlands has connections to Latin America, so their inclusion makes some degree of sense. South Africa and Australia, less so. Also, other than perhaps travel concerns, why are Australia, Italy, the Dominican Republic, and Venezuela grouped together? Putting South Africa with the three countries of North America might just be an "odd country out" deal.

Anyway, I saw part of a South Korea/Taiwan game last night. Not bad. There are various rules, such as a sixty-five pitch count limit (not used mid-batter), which should result in many three or so inning starts. Also, a mercy rule, but it's something like 10 or 15 runs, so if it actually kicks in, it will be a bit sad. And, we also have pre-season baseball. Any port in a storm, huh?

Reading Is Fundamental

And Also: Julie Hilden supplies some more trenchant remarks on the cartoon controversy. And, here's a good example of double standards as currently practiced by the Bush Administration ... and our government as a whole, to give blame where blame is due.

Russ: Sen. Russ Feingold is doing truly yeoman efforts to reign in the U.S. Patriot Act. Now, he is quoting children books on the government to underline the basic themes of separation of powers, on some level something an elementary civics book can explain fairly easily. Unfortunately, too many people in the government find it harder.

On the level, the ports deal, as touched upon here, is being handled better than one might think -- even if you think it's much ado about nothing. It serves as a check, dealing with our concerns (warranted or not -- but vetting helps a lot here; how about that fact that UAE boycotted Israel ...), and maybe even will encourage more port security overall. Or even more. Small matters, even politically tinged ones, do sometimes work that way. Anyway, is Feingold presidential timber? Well, I don't know, but he's doing good work.

Books: "Samantha," that is, Kim Cattrell, ran with her role in Sex and the City and went into the documentary business ... namely, examining her reason for being, sex. One companion book, Sexual Intelligence, was at the local library. Good coffee table book, I guess, with some nice pictures. Not too much ahem "meat", but a few interesting factoids on sexual science, historical practices, and so forth. As with Jennifer Aniston (though her career continued to shine afterwards, unlike half or perhaps two thirds, of the cast), Cattrell also is one of those stars who just plain got lucky. She was not exactly a major name before her big break, mostly in some minor films and such. Such is life though.

Well, since I brought it up ... Jennifer Aniston has shown herself to be a very good actor in both comedic and dramatic films, The Good Girl showing her chops in the latter. Lisa Kudow also has had some success, especially in the indie market, though the third Friend with some success (Chandler) has been less successful. Nonetheless, a couple guest spots on West Wing and a few amusing moves (including The Whole Nine Yards) suggests some possibility of success. The rest of the cast has been less successful, including the sitcom Joey (I have yet to seen this thing ... no great loss).

As to Sex and the City, Carrie has been on stage and screen, but special note should be supplied to Miranda. Her guest shots on House and ER were both excellent and she currently starring in a play. She has a promising future.

Baseball is back!