McCarthy ... with Lessons for Today

And Also: Though I am a strong opponent of capital punishment (though I respect the other side, up to a point), this is basically also my take. Overall, though, just what is this guy guilty of that actually even warrants life imprisonment? It was not just a waste of time and partly based on an argument that the government later admitted was wrong, but it is unclear what he was really guilty of in the first place. Oh, and the jury didn't think prison was worse than death. Some claim to. We really need to kill those lifers in for a life of felony theft. It's cruel not to, you see.

After reading a small volume by a reporter on Edward R. Murrow, it is fitting that I also picked up a small volume on his nemesis, Joe McCarthy, written by a reporter (Tom Wicker) as well. Just started to read it, but Wicker references a probable source of the famous "I hold in my hand" number. Also, he recalls a chance meeting with McCarthy in the Capitol, after his downfall. The man still had signs of charisma and the need/ability to connect with the average voter. Wicker suggests this was a major draw, which reminds me of reports of the ability of a man like Tom DeLay -- equally unpleasant overall -- who could connect to voters in his special way.

This is why on some level it is annoyingly counterproductive just to focus on money connections or whatever when talking about the current bunch. Yes, that matters on who is chosen. But, put aside the ideology and such -- the people still can connect. Sometimes, this is done fraudulently, but there still remains an important charisma factor, helped by hard work taking advantage of the connection achieved. [It helps when imperfect and/or downright dangerous choices are given a pass or even helped along by the media* and fellow politicians etc. This was done in the age of McCarthy, and it is done today -- the golden age of the press, that is, was not just BB (Before Bush).]

This is why Kerry was such a lousy choice and why some -- even though he was so green etc. -- wanted Edwards. Or, even Dean (people felt he honestly voiced their concerns ... and damn, he mostly did). The book itself has an aim to understand this "Shooting Star," the man and why he managed to be so successful for those few years. An important lesson that should be taken to heart regarding those in power today. Maybe, we can actually win the next couple times around in the process.

Anyway, back to McCarthy ... His famous speech had him holding in his hand a list of 205 names of communists in the State Department. This smoking gun was never shown, but a biographer suggested it referred to a letter to Congress from former secretary of state James F. Byrnes. Four years before he reported that screening of three thousand employees being transferred to the State Department had led to 285 recommendations against such employment. 71 had been discharged in 1946, leaving 206. I guess maybe one more retired afterwards.

McCarthy was not totally consistent as to his charges anyway. The next day he spoke of 205 "bad risks" (putting aside the possible haziness of those recommendations lodged against) and 57 "card-carrying communists." It is unclear how he obtained this number though others did raise various claims somewhat in that ballpark. Likewise, "card-carrying" in this respect did not mean having a laminated CP membership card (sometime in your life), but also supporting any number of causes somewhat in the "fellow traveler" category. And, he was known for inexactitude.

The author with help of later "Venona Project" Russian files ... does note that there were some problems with communists in government and elsewhere. But, they mostly were all dealt with by the time JM was in his heyday, so he in effect closed the barn door (doing so badly) after others rounded up the cattle. Also, the exaggeration and patently unfair tactics not only harmed thousands of lives, but it was downright counterproductive. Thus, even as some later had to a bit sheepishly admit that there was some "there" there, they could still underline the injustice of it all.

Anyway, putting aside the conspiracists and so forth, just supporting various communist causes in the 1930s etc. (which included racial equality and union activity) did not make one a traitor. See also, the book Many The Crimes.

---

* The Stephen Colbert thing is just a relatively petty -- if telling (Randy Rhodes is right to say sometimes the best commentary comes from satirists like him) -- example. This is so even if, yes, some of the reality community blogosphere are bowing down to him a wee bit much because his wicked (via his t.v. show character) commentary was just too on the money not to be gleeful.

Still, Richard Cohen's piece calling him a "bully" today is simply over the top on the moron meter -- I used to think this guy was pretty sane, though his anti-French piece in early 2003 suggested the depths he had gone. (Cohen -- after most of the known world other than the loyal 1/3 -- recently finally admitted he was wrong to support Bush's argument for war.) Cohen adds to his stupidity by attacking blogs as closeminded partisans who basically just tell each other what they already "know" (in context, it did seem likely sarcastic).

In reality, blogs often add useful commentary and fact material that many (you know, me) do not know as well as a place (and not just among comments ... these days blogs often have various bloggers with somewhat different points of view) for discussion. Finally, aside from the inability to always agree given all the areas covered, many make it an issue (see again the comments) to go to blogs with points of view with which they don't agree. Or, at worst, commentary -- with links -- on such content.

Atrios is right -- superwanker!

The Station Agent

Mets: The weather might have gave him an excuse, and the team did win in the end, but the third blown save (another was helped by an error and Barry Bonds ... they won that one too, but not the third) by Wagner suggests this year will have its tiresome moments as well. Too soon for three, Billy. They are fun to watch again, though, even if (especially given a crowded race) it will be tricky. Lot of weapons, even with some not doing as well as they should.

I recall watching the previews for the indie movie The Station Agent about three disparate people (a woman whose son died a couple years before, a solitary dwarf who inherits a train depot, and talkative food truck guy) who become friends. It also was on IFC or something a week or so ago, but I only caught a few minutes. But, I did see it in the library, and noticed the DVD had a commentary track. Liking those things, I borrowed and enjoyed it, listening to the commentary first.

An interesting (or weird, ok) way of going about it perhaps, especially since unlike let us say Finding Neverland (good movie, good commentary), I never saw the movie. But, it does supply an interesting perspective, and suggests that people could watch movies without sound (not that they ever did that ... that would be lame!). The commentary was nifty in that it had the (first time) director and the three stars, and they interacted well. The three did well in the movie as well, it working on its own, putting aside the "hook" of the dwarf -- let's not be politically correct and say that he was of no note.

The movie also had some good small roles, which tend to make the movie, so to speak. For instance, Michelle Williams (now best known as the spurned wife in Brokeback Mountain, previous for Dawson's Creek ... a teen actress that has shown some success on the big screen after she got a bit older) played a cute local librarian. Another actor that I have seen over the years (including in a Lifetime comedy/drama some time ago that I wished last longer) had a bit part as Patricia Clarkson's (who, I'm sorry, had this titilicious thing going -- was it cold on location?) ex-husband, and was very good in his scene.

Clarkson btw is one of those actresses usually seen in these indie movies (Pieces of April is another one ... Dawson Creek co-star continuing to shine ... and having Tom Cruise's baby) that is great. She also has an understated sexiness (showed in an almost throwaway fashion here). Peter Dinklage (who had a bit in Elf -- not as an elf) was very good as well and has great reaction shots, including when dealing with the food truck guy who uses mindless chatter as a way to cover up insecurities as much as the other two use silence. He comes up third in the film, but as with the locales (and even his truck ... as the commentary notes, it too is an important background prop), serves an important function ... largely, I guess, as a sort of catalyst.

It was good sans commentary too. I'd add that various choices, including framing of shots and so forth, were just perfect. The craft required in good moviemaking (for all sorts of purposes) is amazing.

Personhood

Bard v. Jahnke: "Further, he was 'familiar with working in and around cows,' which would 'come up, drool on you, lick on you and everything else,' and that he 'didn't usually pay much attention to them.'" The ruling (concerning Fred the bull) is interesting too ... its a 4-3 deal, and if the dissent is right, somewhat notable. But, I'm not quite an expert on animal torts. Here's a link for Law Day (May 1).

We start from the premise that illegitimate children are not "nonpersons." They are humans, live, and have their being. They are clearly "persons" within the meaning of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

-- Levy v. Louisiana

Suggesting that by nature the effort will be incomplete (putting aside my inability to pick up all the grammatical errors), I discovered this particular quote after the recent version of my constitutional opus went to press. But, I can be forgiven, since this useful (if meager -- it was not discussed, the opinion as a whole rather thin*) definition of sorts was not referenced in later opinions to my knowledge. And, some -- not just in the abortion context -- would merit such references to personhood. Not even the anti-abortion "opinion" in What Roe v. Wade Should Have Said that dealt with the matter.

The children in Levy were clearly "persons," even if they traditionally were treated in an inequitable fashion. This belies the sentiment of the minority in the case referenced in the note, which hyperbolically noted:

The Court ... resorts to the startling measure of simply excluding such illegitimate children from the protection of the [Equal Protection] Clause, in order to uphold the untenable and discredited moral prejudice of bygone centuries which vindictively punished not only the illegitimates' parents, but also the hapless, and innocent, children.

Some do argue that the Court does wrongly exclude the unborn from the Clause, even though they are (surely in some sense) human, alive, and have "being." The author of Levy (Justice Douglas) suggested why in his concurrence in Doe v. Bolton, the companion case to Roe v. Wade:

The unfertilized egg has life, and if fertilized, it takes on human proportions. But the law deals in reality, not obscurity -- the known, rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation. The phenomenon of life takes time to develop, and, until it is actually present, it cannot be destroyed.

This is not his own words, but a quote from a well quoted (among the lower courts in abortion cases) law review article by retired Justice Clark, one I have yet to find in its entirety (Lexis does not seem to have it, nor does the web). And, again, he really does not discuss it in detail. Still, it suggests "human" and "live" has to be taken in context, meaning in a constitutional sense some advanced point in development. "Being" also seems telling ... think "brain death" (end of being) and maybe "brain life" too (this hooks it to consciousness, but some other aspect of development might be used for "being" too).

It is a bit amazing that among the debates of abortion, euthanasia, and related issues, the courts do not dwell more into questions of "personhood," even the dissenters generally focusing on questions of state power and limited visions of what constitutional liberty means. I think a firmer discussion would be useful, if not downright necessary. Clearly, the area is sensitive, and judges (who do dwell into such questions somewhat, if often in lower courts fewer people read) rather not touch them. Tough luck.

Anyway, interesting stuff.

---

* The ruling along with its equally conclusionary companion case was important all the same because it was a foundational case respecting the rights of illegitimate children. A later case protected a related "intimate, familial relationship," traditional inequality or narrow definitions in the area notwithstanding, involving an illegitimate father.

Adding the theme that the child is in effect being harmed because of the "sins of the mother," the conclusion is telling and remarkably broad (with implications, e.g., for same sex couples):

Legitimacy or illegitimacy of birth has no relation to the nature of the wrong allegedly inflicted on the mother. These children, though illegitimate, were dependent on her; she cared for them and nurtured them; they were indeed hers in the biological and in the spiritual sense; in her death they suffered wrong in the sense that any dependent would.

The dissent in case a few years later rejecting an inheritance (as compared to a tort) claim spelled out the themes in more detail (if not exactly completely convincingly, see the concurrence by Justice Harlan), after pointedly taking a potshot at the author of the majority. It is notable that besides often talking past each other, justices vent their spleen at each other as well in many opinions. This is so even when they generally claim to respect each other, as the current bunch say they do.

May Day Without The "!"

SC Watch: Anna Nicole won with the extent of the victory to be determined. Justice Alito’s also wrote his first opinion, a defendant rights case. [Conservatives: See! He is not just for the state! The libs were full of it!] It was unanimous, plus the second time the guy’s death sentence (heinous crime, problematic trial) was reversed ... the case already in its second decade. [Conservatives: Damn, even Justice Thomas is soft on crime now! ... and/or ... See, we can have the death penalty -- the courts will stop mistakes (not that this was one!) when they are made!]

Labor has a long tradition of fighting for social legislation which affects the lives of many who have never belonged to a union and never will. In areas like aid to education, medical care, social security, and anti-poverty measures, the political power of the organized workers has been a crucial element in achieving democratic reforms.

-- Michael Harrington [The Price of Liberty essay]

May 1 traditionally had been a pagan festival celebrating the oncoming of spring, but it survived into the Christian Era just as Easter celebrations now combine similar themes with other concerns as well. The holiday retained a popular, anti-elite flavor, also seen by those same elites to give the masses a means to blow off steam. One way this was done was dancing around a "maypole," which was sometimes given a patriotic flavor during the protests against the English monarch by re-labeling it a "liberty pole."

Such flexibility and flavor made it not too surprising that it ultimately was made into a worker holiday. Some might not like to know that it was officially done at the Second International (Lenin and Trotsky was present at the meeting), but then workers' rights movements have long been tainted as socialist/communistic conspiracies. Thus, things now generally accepted as legitimate, if not ideal, such as strikes were once deemed "conspiracies." Boycotts also were deemed restraints of trade and still seem a bit irregular ... Scott M. (is he still around?) noted in response to questions about yesterday's immigrant action that the President is against boycotts. [Likewise, some are wary about boycotts as a whole, such as against certain ideological groups, like boycotting companies with conservative ownership.]

This was done in the 1880s, the beginning of fifty hard years of pushing to legitimate workers rights in this country with the next fifty plus used to try to cement and equally apply the legitimacy gained in the New Deal years. Democracy Now!, for instance, yesterday had an author on discussing the infamous Haymarket Affair, where eight anarchists were sentenced to death (four executed, one committed suicide, three later pardoned) largely for their radical politics -- the actual bomber was never found.

The author noted that the city (Chicago) was an armed camp -- owners having private militias, workers arguing they too need to be armed and prepared. Haymarket itself was somehow connected to protests arising from deaths of workers. And, a somewhat important 2A case (Presser v. Illinois) was handed down about this time as well ... it dealt with a state law against parading of unofficial militia groups.

Those deemed radical often have certain basic messages that later become the official line, though a truly complete honoring of the principles still is deemed quite radical all the same. As suggested by the opening quote, this was the case with groups deemed illegal conspiracies at the turn of the 20th Century. For instance, many workers do not really have an eight hour day, but the push for one in effect did come to pass. Eight hours is deemed the basic workday (travel alone might make it at least ten, but that is another issue) and those who work more by law generally get time and a half. There are plenty of loopholes -- and the Wal-Mart situation alone suggests the need to fill them -- but as with child labor and unsafe working conditions (ditto) -- the change is remarkable.

But, such moves were once -- and in some parts still are -- deemed "socialist" or worse in character. A violation of our basic ethos of individual based capitalism. Such is the fiction of self-image. One notes that inherently a society is in some fashion "socialist," the base of the word alone tells you that. It surely is the case since the New Deal, even among those who are still not a big fan of the era (and even they generally do not wish to totally turn back the clock).

The President saw this all too well with his attempt to "reform" Social Security. This is not deemed "socialist" by many since they see it as some sort of pension plan. As it is, but a special sort of one that kicks in even if the funds you put in it does not completely cover the payments given. The idea, however, is that it is a nation-wide pension/insurance plan. The nation as a whole pays and is paid. Yes, Virginia, this is a form of socialism.

Ike made May 1 "Law Day," some say as a way to remove its more socialist tendencies. Honoring law (including as applied to workers) is a good thing as well, of course, especially given the lawless now in power. It is somewhat ironic though when -- in the spirit of past mass efforts similarly put in place as signs of power -- undocumented workers ("illegals") chose this May Day to make a statement. The protest seems to have been pretty successful ... a nationwide signal of just how important these workers are to our economy and nation as a whole.

As an article in Slate notes, put upon and marginal groups also traditionally tend to reaffirm our faith in basic ideals like fairness and equality: "the crucial struggles that began more than a century ago, today's marches have forged a link among working-class aspiration, celebrations of ethnic identity, and insistence on full American citizenship. It's an explosive combination. And it could revive and reshape liberal politics in our time." Rights are promised to all, but it is the disfavored who always tend to find them so much more important. They move to obtain them -- showing themselves quite like the rest of us in the process -- relivens our belief in them overall. [And, we need it! The fallow period of recent years must end!]

Also, the use of "illegal" is amusing really. Suddenly, after allowing them in for so long (and not targeting their employers as a general rule), people are sticklers for the law. You know as they speed along the Bronx River Pkwy at 65-75mph in a 55mph zone. As they fudge their taxes and send their kids to school with verboten cell phones. As their leaders ignore basic constitutional and statutory rules or favored radio hosts are said not to be "arrested" because it was all so voluntary and all [when a member of the Weather Underground "voluntarily" surrendered, was she not "arrested" as well?]. Or, smoke pot -- oh, yeah, only when "they" illegally do drugs is it appropriate for police action to occur. And so on.

Yes, many are illegally here, and this is of some concern. But, as with any number of issues, the edge of legality must be put into perspective. Underenforcement (a term in some cases rather generous) sends a certain message, a certain quasi-legality at worse. Sometimes, this is unfair -- one of the better lessons re-enforced on the Al Franken Show is the tendency of the federal government to selectively enforce tax laws against the poor (the useful Earned Income Tax Credit* was accepted by Republicans in part because of an agreement to particularly enforce "abuse" of such measures -- leading to many false positives and less resources for truly serious money tax frauds). All the same, even though warning flags in some sense arise, this does not necessarily mean the underlining acts are totally legitimate.

Still, let's cut the bullshit,** ok? Just pointing out that some of these workers (some who have children who are citizens by birth) are here illegally is not an easy answer to critics. Such sanctity of the law concerns turns out to be mighty selective and in practice quite arbitrary. The ultimate value of yesterday's protests hopefully will be to put a human face on the "problem," not only show how important they are to our economy, but to remind us of the human lives at stake. This is not a total trump -- in some fashion, some rules need to be in place. Now, I think demand based rules often would be the way to go, but it still will not be an "anything goes" move for the workers.

But, there are two sides to the debate (at least), and the generally disenfranchised side made themselves known yesterday. This fits into our tradition, especially our May Day tradition, even if (yet again) many deem there to be a taint of illegitimacy to the whole affair.

---

* This sometimes benefits more than the poor since it is based on general income. Someone, therefore, can simply make a relatively small sum one year, and get the credit. Thus, a rich person might work a month one year, and benefit. Nonetheless, and this affected someone I know recently, there is a guard against the rich kid deal -- those under 25 do not get the credit (I'm not sure about if they are married or have dependants overall.) Appears overinclusive since many young people by that age are on their own and might need the money.

** A suitable edited quote from the Daily News by Paul Lo Duca, concerning his winning (per an error) "fielder's choice" (it should have been an inning ending double play -- time for extras -- but one cannot guarantee a double play) in the Mets final at bat:

I thought it was going to go up the middle at first anyway ... but then he turned and threw it into the (toilet). It's all about placement. I guess I hit it in the right spot.

Did you say "crapper," Paul? Such a potty mouth.

Mandates

And Also: I guessed Vinick would be V.P. -- not too far off, since he was made Secretary of State. Gov. Baker (who had designs of being the nominee during the brokered convention) is the V.P. choice [will there be any problems in the Electoral College?], which is amusing since he is played by Ed O'Neil (Al Bundy). The current V.P. is played by the movie version of Mike Brady (became V.P. and later P. in a t.v. movie sequel), while the first one played the faux first hubby of Carol Brady (the ultimate V.P. in the t.v. movie) in the second movie. In Mafia!, Christiana Applegate (Kelly Bundy) became President of the U.S.

[I notice problems with the blog download; sorry for any annoyance.]

Hitler comparisons should generally be verboten, but a line in Downfall* struck me -- Goebbels said in response to a plea for sympathy of young target practice for the Russians that he had none -- the German people gave them the mandate, and now they were paying the price. I said it when he was re-elected and I will say it again -- in some sense, unless we truly want to make elections meaningless (and darn if some do try, arguing they are totally corrupted), the American people gave George Bush a mandate in '04. Such is the importance of the upcoming election.

Now, this "mandate" is somewhat limited. It might not be for the extent of his claims to be above the law ... a mandate by the way that we would not have the right to supply under our current constitutional system. But, yes, the people who elected him -- people who often knew his problems (what does this say about Kerry?), but voted for him anyway -- had an inkling by November 2004 what sort of leader they were voting in. Others say Ohio was rigged ... the national popular vote is even harder to explain (many who agree '00 was a fraud supply good evidence that Bush did win Ohio).

And, we are told that it was damn close (anyway, so many do not vote). This is not trivial -- the closeness of the election, though it was a bit less close the second time around, especially in Congress, suggests the division of the country. It suggests that the President really should keep in mind that his "mandate" to govern in a certain way is not as clear-cut as he claims. The attempt to "reform" Social Security (an issue simply not raised in any real sense during the election) underlined the problems with overreaching in this area.

This is true even though some would point out that he won, so he has the right to lead the way he believes appropriate. I only take that so far. The will of the people, including the strength of victory and respect for the 48% not on your side (many more on certain issues), needs to be taken into consideration. It is not all or nothing, except for greedy bastards. Still, elections do matter. A majority voting for the guy cannot be shunted aside without in some real sense cheapening our republican system of government. In some real sense, Bush by being re-elected received a "mandate" to govern in a certain fashion.

This is why those who f-ing knew he was a lousy choice but cheapened their role as voters by voting against Kerry because they did not like the guy personally (lying to themselves that he was some danger to the commonwealth even with a Republican Congress) truly angers me. You want to think that Kerry won in Ohio, or should have if things were done fairly (100k votes is a bit harder to explain than 537), fine. Why was it even close? The closeness suggests that even those wary are willing to take the risk. They too gave him a mandate for not seeing the choice as crystal clear. Some might have been "concerned," but concern is not enough. Many a despot thrived while others looked on very "concerned."

A mandate comes in various guises. These people got one, in some fashion at least. Damn us for giving it him. How many will look back -- are already looking back ala sorrowful Nader [the spell checker suggests "nadir," which is not too wrong] voters in 2004 -- and wish they acted differently? Two more things. "Mandate" in effect means giving one a "hand" -- handing over authority. Second, when I say "Bush" above, really he is but a stand-in for his entire ilk. After all, he is not only commander in chief (of the military and the militia in service), but head of state -- sad state of affairs, but c'est la vie -- as well as of the Republican Party overall.**

Now, that is a group who supplied a "mandate" -- tainting them for years to come. For now, let us celebrate the third year anniversary of "Mission Accomplished!" appropriately. [I share the sentiments of one opinion piece that this event gives too much of a "mandate" to the person in power, who gets a chance to do his "look how amusing and down to earth he is" shtick that is akin to Nero fiddling while Rome was burning. You all are joining in his game. Enough!]

Trivia Bit: During his interregnum between his two stints as justice, Charles Evan Hughes served on the World Court. Scalia's dad, while in the process of not oppressing blacks (no affirmative action needed!), was known to have been against such involvement. Meanwhile, his son is in the news today because he shook hands with a rapper. The rapper noted Scalia likes to sing and has a loud voice. Scalia warily told the gossip columnist who reported the meeting that they just said "hi." Good to see that he is meeting new people.

---

* An excellent German film (2004) recounting the last days of Hitler, largely through the eyes of his young secretary. A short clip of a real life interview of her near the end of her life at the very end made reference to Sophie Scholl ... she passed a memorial of this anti-Nazi martyr, and decided that youth did not save her from guilt.

** It is also noted that he is the de facto leader of the fundamentalists who serve as a major base ... I guess ala the King of England being Head of the Church too. Likewise, reference is made to Jimmy Carter's book Endangered Values where he discusses a certain sort of "fundamentalists" that poison both religion (he is an evangelistic Christian ... no seriously, liberals can be Christians ... really -- stop it!) but also government as well. The mind-set applies to both forms.

Radio Thoughts

Movies: Clean concerns a Courtney Love sort fighting back from heroin addict, in the words of her father-in-law (Nick Nolte, remarkable in a quiet role), changing because she has to -- especially since she wants to re-build a connection to her son. The lead won an award for the role, well deserved, but the cast as a whole is quite good. The boy playing her son is particularly amazing. And, as suggested by reviews, the character's edge helps supply a well-rounded movie as does no easy answers. Its realism probably supplies a better way to deal with the drug problem than any of those pretty lame anti-drug ads out there.

The ads (PSAs) are also on Air America. Annoying, even if marijuana use among teenagers is not exactly an ideal situation, That '70s Show notwithstanding. I read a bit somewhere that there (again) are rumors that the network is having problems, not only guaranteed their home base in NYC after their contract is up in August. And, seriously, it does have problems. I noted in the past that the recent cuts -- involving day time co-hosts especially -- were bad news imho. The most unfortunate one might have been Liz Winstead because Rachel Maddow [who perhaps set her mark while filling in for Franken during the Katrina disaster] is definitely an asset -- young, smart, and evenheaded while still being firmly progressive. She is also a bit um boring, and Winstead balanced her pretty well.

Likewise, though she never was given enough to do, Katherine Lanpher helped tone down Al Franken's annoying tendencies. Franken has some good guests -- I love Tom Oliphant -- but overall his show is annoyingly "safe" in a certain fashion, kneejerk nice guy anti-Bush with a few simplistic talking points. Popular afternoon drive host Randi Rhodes does her homework, but is also annoying (and simplistic, ramming home a few themes) -- she also has the f-ing gay baiting bit, though does not raise up Jeff Gannon as much as foaming at the mouth (sure he has reason) Mike Malloy (no longer on the radio in NY). And so forth. Laura Flanders (weekend nights) has earned her progressive activist chops, but is also a bit tiresome by now.

This is all unfortunate -- a progressive radio station is clearly useful. As suggested, there are some good aspects to the station, especially some of the guests -- the "Ring of Fire" show on Saturday, for instance, had a couple interesting guests, including a report about measuring temperatures at the North Pole to keep track of global warming. [I have a book reserved on the general topic -- need to learn a bit more about it.] The synergy Majority Report has with liberal blogs is nifty too. And, a few weekend hosts (including a new one on worker rights) seem interesting -- in fact, I think it would make sense if they get more exposure during the week.

But, the whole station seems to be in a tiresome rut, a bit too kneejerk for me as well. Apros to this discussion, NPR reporter Bob Edwards was chosen to write a little book entitled Edward R. Murrow and the Birth of Broadcast Journalism, one of those series (there is one out on American Presidents) supplying a good thumbnail sketch of historical events. Having seen the recent movie focusing on his fight against McCarthy, this was a timely book for me to read, especially since I have not really read too much on the man (about a year back I did read a great book on war reporting, focusing on around ten big names).

How about these Murrow productions: "As Others See Us" (review of foreign press coverage of the U.S.), "CBS Views the Press" (examining press journalism -- ala, Editor and Publisher, perhaps), and "You Are There" (historical figures "interviewed" by CBS). The book was under 200 pages, so could not really attack the man in depth, but it suggests why he is the hero of the author. There also are some long excerpts of a few key broadcasts, including his report from Buchenwald.* Amazing reading. Amazing man.

Edwards notes in passing that -- though he later worked for the U.S. Information Agency in his administration -- that Murrow was not a big fan of Kennedy, partly because his brother worked on McCarthy's staff. This struck me, since it was the first time I heard of it, so I checked. Yes, Robert Kennedy did briefly work on the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations, chaired by Senator Joseph McCarthy. But:

Disturbed by McCarthy's controversial tactics, Kennedy resigned from the staff after six months. He later returned to the Senate Subcommittee on Investigations as chief counsel for the Democratic minority, in which capacity he wrote a report condemning McCarthy's investigation of alleged Communists in the Army. His later work as chief counsel for the Senate Rackets Committee investigating corruption in trade unions won him national recognition for his investigations of Teamsters Union leaders Jimmy Hoffa and David Beck.

I think Edwards misstepped by tossing in something like that in passing without adding a bit more context. Still, good little book, adding a bit additional flavor to the movie.

---

* The book mentions the report from the Hindenburg disaster, the reporter (from WGN Chicago) there to record what would have been the twelfth successful landing. Instead, to his horror, he was there to watch thirty six people die. Edwards notes that some now laugh at his "melodramatic" comments ("Oh, the humanity!").

But, I'm with Edwards ... it was appropriate. As was the cry of a woman radio reporter when she had to inform us that one of the Towers was collapsing. I have not seen tragedy THAT up close -- I am willing to wait for that. Listening to that was more than enough. I'd add that as with baseball, listening to it on the radio had a special flavor all its own. The flash of t.v., especially these days, sometimes (often?) does not add too much to that.

How About Sane U.S. Drug Policy?

And Also: "A garden" or surrealism in the war on terror.

Mexican lawmakers passed a sweeping new drug law early Friday that would crack down on small-time dealers, legalize the possession of small quantities of drugs and mandate treatment for addicts. ...

Supporters of the bill said it was meant to fix major flaws in Mexico's current drug laws. First, it will allow local judges and the police to decide on a case-by-case basis whether people should be prosecuted when caught with small amounts of drugs. Previously, every drug suspect had to be prosecuted, a system that put many addicts in jail while dealers went free after bribing officials.

Second, the state and local police will be empowered to arrest and prosecute street dealers who are carrying more than the minor amounts allowed under the law. Under existing laws, drug crimes were handled only by federal officials.

-- Mexico Passes Law Making Possession of Some Drugs

So noted an NYT article on the change in the Mexican drugs law. As you can see it is not really "drug legalization," though it is a sane step with some pragmatic results (including reducing graft). Thus, clearly, the U.S. is against it. Sanity and drug policy (see recent fiction on their official line on medicinal marijuana) is not the U.S. way:

A United States Embassy official in Mexico deplored the new measure. "We have not seen the text, so we cannot comment on it in detail," said the official, who was not authorized to speak publicly. "But any law that would decriminalize dangerous drugs would not be helpful."

Sanity is possible. In 1968, Justice White -- a pretty conservative sort -- noted: "Punishing an addict for using drugs convicts for addiction under a different name. Distinguishing between the two crimes is like forbidding criminal conviction for being sick with flu or epilepsy, but permitting punishment for running a fever or having a convulsion. Unless Robinson is to be abandoned, the use of narcotics by an addict must be beyond the reach of the criminal law."

The case was about voluntary public drunkenness, so he voted to uphold the conviction, but on this point he had support of five justices. [Recently a lower court used his reasoning to strike down arrest of the homeless for sleeping in public when there are not enough beds ... there are not enough drug treatment slots.] Now, on some level, surely a wide majority of drug users are not "addicts," even when dealing with drugs like heroin.

But, it underlines that a non-criminal model in this field is possible. In fact, on some level, a large segment (maybe not a majority, though certain cities and states might be different) of the population are willing to sign on. The current policy, like the one being replaced in Mexico, is just insane.

As with Rush, it is the "war" on some drugs, with some (you know, "them") victimized, while others get to bloviate on successful talk shows.

[For weekend viewing: the new movie Clean about a recovering addict fighting her addiction and trying to re-connect with her son. Co-starring Nick Nolte as her father-in-law.]

The Price of Liberty

And Also: Caught the last third of The Incredibles on the Dish -- didn't care for it. As to the new 9/11 movie, a local t.v. reporter finally pointed out that A&E already had a (well reviewed) t.v. movie on the same flight. The cinema version sounds like a nice P.C. effort which I have no real desire to see. It filled many with "respect" -- how could it not? Anyway, the t.v. version will be on this weekend, so I can see basically the same thing for free.

[Other Legal Stuff: I address two recent Supreme Court news bits here and here -- one dealing with a rare case of simple oversight, the other orals on lethal injection protocols.]

In 1936, Chief Justice Hughes noted in a ruling that:

The rack and torture chamber may not be substituted for the witness stand. The State may not permit an accused to be hurried to conviction under mob domination -- where the whole proceeding is but a mask -- without supplying corrective process. The State may not deny to the accused the aid of counsel. Nor may a State, through the action of its officers, contrive a conviction through the pretense of a trial which in truth is "but used as a means of depriving a defendant of liberty through a deliberate deception of court and jury by the presentation of testimony known to be perjured." And, the trial equally is a mere pretense where the state authorities have contrived a conviction resting solely upon confessions obtained by violence.

So noted one of eight good essays (the one on unions was a bit hard going and more time bound) in The Price of Liberty: Perspectives Of Civil Liberties by Members of the ACLU, edited by Alan Reitman. The essays were written in the late 1960s, but again, these themes clearly have timely lessons to teach us. This is not just a matter of comments that in effect predicted the Internet (if about a decade too soon), but matters that are always with us, unfortunately threatening liberty in the process -- perhaps in somewhat different ways (the chapter on the Cold War translates in various ways to the War on Terror). But, an overall concern and true desire for freedom remains as well.

The final section of the privacy chapter concerns balancing the rights of free press and individual privacy. This raises interesting themes. In particular, consider Justice Fortas' dissent* in Time v. Hill, involving an article that erroneously stated some pretty private facts of a family victimized by crime. The majority noted that the press was not liable enough to lose, but the dissent gave it less rope to hang themselves in cases like this where private individuals were involved. The majority underlined that life sometimes involves being put into public light, even when we rather it not be so. After all, they were victims of a crime, which is publicly reported, sometimes through very intimate court documents.

Fortas was more protective of their privacy (as compared to public officials), hooking things together with a general right to privacy (including contraceptive use ... he earlier also rejected forced blood tests when drunk driving is alleged, again on privacy grounds). Harriet Pilpel on her chapter on privacy was concerned when freedom of the press was limited for what she suggested was the less important right alleged here. But, she did accept the two rights might conflict, the press not always winning the battle. It also underlines the breadth of the right to privacy -- a right that sometimes might result in less "liberal" results in some sense of the word.

And, again, it points out how advocates of a constitutional right to privacy could and should not just speak of a privacy right as fundamental, but fit it into the enumerated liberties in place. For instance, freedom of speech is generally deemed important because of promotion of the public interest. State police power, best expressed by the Tenth Amendment, involves "health, safety, and public morals." And, so forth. The implication is -- and various cites from way back when can underline it -- was that there was some realm of privacy the state would not enter. The ACLU and even Justice Douglas might not like this idea when the press is involved, but they too must have some limits, even if the line was not crossed in Time v. Hill.

Given the time period, reading the book logically led me to take out my copy of Lucas Powe's enjoyable book on the Warren Court. The chapter on censorship also led to reading about the obscenity cases. A surprising duo in this area was Justices Stewart and Harlan, both deemed somewhat conservative, especially the latter. Justice Harlan wished to give states more discretion, though did so with a careful eye (see his opinion in Poe and Griswold ... and his "Fuck the Draft" opinion), he was more restrictive than some on federal obscenity rules.

But, Justice Stewart -- who knew it when he saw it** -- was more consistently dubious about restrictions than even liberal hero William Brennan, who tied himself into knots trying to protect all the worthwhile stuff while keeping out the bad. Given two justices were absolutists in the matter, three open to more restriction, this generally ultimately meant that it was up to him to decide if something was obscene -- and thus not protected by the First Amendment. Brennan was sort of a one person national standards board, and it did not work that well. [His push to achieve "justice" sometimes played a bit fast and loose with the "law," which was a problem I had with the guy.] Unfortunately, once he finally tossed up his hands, the votes for a libertarian approach were no longer there.

As to Stewart, he only would ban "hard core pornography," while eloquently noting:

Censorship reflects a society's lack of confidence in itself. It is a hallmark of an authoritarian regime. Long ago those who wrote our First Amendment charted a different course. They believed a society can be truly strong only when it is truly free. In the realm of expression they put their faith, for better or for worse, in the enlightened choice of the people, free from the interference of a policeman's intrusive thumb or a judge's heavy hand. So it is that the Constitution protects coarse expression as well as refined, and vulgarity no less than elegance. A book worthless to me may convey something of value to my neighbor. In the free society to which our Constitution has committed us, it is for each to choose for himself.

Privacy rights once again.

---

* Chief Justice Warren signed on as well -- on certain issues, Warren was a bit more conservative than his reputation might suggest. Thus, he despised obscenity and dissented in a case involving burning the flag (the majority avoided the immediate issue by narrowing it to a free speech matter -- the conviction possibly arising merely from the words spoken at the time). These two joining together here was a bit ironic since they in effect supported Richard Nixon, who represented the family (his only appearance in front of the Court -- I reckon the only time a future President did so ... Robert Kennedy appeared, but that was not to be).

** He did not define it when he made this statement, but in the quoted case offered a definition (and only in a footnote) via comments by the federal prosecutor. It left something to be desired though Stewart felt it did not apply to pretty explicit pornographic pulps (books -- so apparently only visuals counted) that touched upon some of the subject matter addressed by the definition. To join things together, Stewart also cited privacy cases to note that unwilling viewers raise different concerns.

I am not aware of any time when he actually voted to uphold a prosecution addressing the content of the materials ... the few times when the Court itself did, he was among the dissenters. His first inclination was right – it is ultimately indefinable except as a “chain of adjectives” based on the “psychological quirks of the individual who makes the judgment.” [The Price of Liberty.]

Selective Funding/Arguments

Yesterday's House episode ("House v. God") dealt with a teenage faith healer. The episode, which was not that good, ended in a tie (3 all) though Dr. House suggested the tie went to the mortal. [Talking about mortal, Kansas has a death penalty law where the tie apparently goes to the state.] The disease did fit into our recent discussion.* The episode also provides another bridge -- religious freedom is a chapter in the Price of Liberty book that I recently purchased.** And, of course, religious matters has been dealt with a few times already in the last few days.

The chapter gave me another case to look at the Everson case, the landmark in federal establishment law in the recent era ... Justice Black's glorious opportunity to spell the strict contours of the separation of church and state while ending up saying that it was not violated here. Justice Jackson thus compared the opinion to a poem about a woman who protested strongly, but ultimately consented ... a case of the lady doth protesting too much. In fact, the opinion was 5-4, the two dissents only disputing that the Court should have been more separatist. Compare this to current days where a 5-4 ruling is likely to turn on whether Justice Kennedy thinks separation is required at all.

The decision itself turned on bus fares. Forty years later, New York City supplied buses and bus fares to parochial students (the case arose from New Jersey). Along with the released time case a few years later (children released for a period for religious instruction, the remainder staying behind), the opinion held up, even before the recent school voucher case loosened up the rules a bit more. [Justice Alito wrote a student note on the released time cases.] The majority in Everson argued that this was a "child benefit," which is how vouchers (at least those supplied to the parents themselves) are sometimes defended. But, the neutrality of the specific benefit helped -- twenty years later, for instance, Justice Black dissented in a case involving books.

The minority here took a stricter line -- the government was supplying "support" to religious education by supplying funds to deliver students to religious schools. This was not akin to fire protection and the like, which covers all. The funds are targeted to religious institutions in particular with the clear intent to "support" them. Consider: surely, a state cannot fund a church, and bringing up garbage collection from it will not change the principle. On some level, this seems a bit to formalistic, but ultimately -- Justice Jackson underlined this in his separate opinion -- the case turned out to be easier than one might think.

The government favored parochial (or "religious," if "parochial" is deemed too narrow or demeaning in some sense) schools in particular, which also sometimes is clearly seen in voucher programs. The locality here did not just supply all students with free bus fare. A person going to public or even private school might still have to pay for transportation, which was not the policy in New York City in the 1980s. The township here took special concern for the costs to parochial schools, which put Justice Rutledge's dissent on sounder ground. He even noted in a footnote that a truly neutral subsidy to all students ... not a law targeted to religious schools alone ... would raise different questions.

More evidence that sometimes the narrow reason is the way to go. Sometimes, religious jurisprudence is ridiculed for the narrow and confusing line drawing involved though ultimately many areas of law turn on such nice questions for which centrist jurists reject clear lines. Thus, justices like Breyer and Ginsburg turn out to be less liberal and Kennedy less conservative than some might think. But, this is really how normal people decide questions -- lots of shades of gray with an ability to agree upon such matters, if they are not expressed too broadly. Meanwhile, people on both sides -- if given their druthers -- would decide things on a broader basis.

I see this a lot on message boards. I find attacking the middle ground sometimes is more useful, being able to "win" even on the other side's own ground. You know the "accepting for the purpose's of this case" approach. It also is a useful technique in that it sort of follows the "walk a mile in a person's moccasins" theme. View things through their lens, but still manage to get your point across. This might be hard if the other person seems deeply wrong in your judgment, but we do tend to have some common ground. We are all humans after all.

One need not point out that mixture of church and state tends by its very nature favors certain churches. Just point out that in this specific case, this turns out to be true. Do this over and over again ... raising the possibility that maybe there is some neutral area of legitimacy. The opening left will probably lead to some backtracking ... just as leaving the death penalty open even with a lot of barriers will lead to error ... but strict separation simply will not be accepted anyway. So, you attack the core problems the best way you can. And, yeah, now and again, raise the broad concerns.

But, most of the time, you will be attacking the more mundane. Life only tosses the truly profound matters in their purist sense at us a relatively few times. Thank goodness for that.


---

* Likewise, the NY Daily News recently referenced a television program about a 20 something couple that had an unscheduled addition to the family. The woman, you see, has a policy against using birth control. This "policy" is known as "stupidity." She noted that her policy tends to lead the guy to be more careful ... this would include not going out with such a person in the first place.

** The chapter on privacy is what first attracted me to the book -- it's by Harriet Pipel, who was a major player in the contraceptive and abortion rights movements. It turns out that she only briefly discusses this specific area (admittedly in its infancy at the time), spending about a third of the chapter on limits on press freedoms (in particular, respecting "public figures," a matter just being addressed by the Supremes when she wrote the piece). The ability of individuals to protect their reputations, even if First Amendment freedoms are at stake, underlines that "privacy" overall is deemed an important personal right that the government has clear obligations to secure.

Pipel also notes the reduced privacy rights of those on public assistance and suggests eavesdropping of the home per se might be considered illegitimate. I'm not sure if this can be absolutely true. Likewise, she discusses the obligations of the government to protect us even from private violations of privacy -- consider the recent law restricting direct marketing calls. Interesting chapter, again underlining my earlier comment that the book's lessons hold true over thirty five years later. For instance, without calling it such, data mining is addressed.

Michael Vick

And Also: Someone told me to "have a nice day" today after I told him the time. Now, this is an example of the implications and iceberg nature of many things we say. First, the subject is implied: it is "you" have a nice day. Second, it might better fully be expressed as "I hope you have a nice day," since it is not after all likely to be a command (the phrase as such looks imperative in nature). Likewise, it is an example of simple courtesy that we take as a given. A courtesy (and given his race, things might at some point, especially in the past, complicate things further) deemed especially important in its absence. Life is interesting, even if public affairs is getting so tiresome. I'm ready for change, aren't you? SSDD. The boredom of it all alone merits this.

Update: I basically assumed Mary McCarthy actually was guilty of leaking, which assumes too much. Glen Greenwald has various thoughts on this on his blog. My thought she is a scapegoat, however, seems true either way.

---

One of the stories on the AOL News menu concerned a quiet settlement between QB Michael Vick and a health care worker who accused him not only of giving her herpes (not only VD, but incurable VD), but doing so knowingly -- Vick apparently underwent treatment under a rather stupid pseudonym (Ron Mexico). Though a quick search suggested the controversy has been in the news before, this is the first time I heard of it. Meanwhile, a big deal (with much press) was made respecting some untoward behavior by Minnesota Vikings' players on a team cruise early last season. Behavior that did not match giving a woman herpes.

The terms of the settlement was not released, but no denial was supplied either. Just that a settlement was reached. So, I think it is pretty reasonable to suggest it is in a basic sense an accurate assumption. One expects that it was some large sum of money, though given the issue, this only takes one so far. You can live with the disease, but obviously it is particularly heinous to live with.*

More so to give it to someone via unprotected sex with someone you did not inform of the risks.* I basically liked Michael Vick -- he recently was overpaid, getting a hefty ten year contract though one doubts that his skills will be spread over that period of time, but is a fun player to watch. So are many who probably are in some fashion jerks (to cite less offensive sort, a former Mets player that added nice color to the team in the late '90s is a hunter), thus it is a good thing that we really do not know much about the off-field lives of such people. For instance, some are known to treat their wives or the mother of their children badly, or abuse drugs.

But, this goes to the next level. I personally cannot separate this from the field. A closer case is Barry Bonds. One local sportscaster who loves the Giants basically said that those who did not want him to do well really were not true fans. A true fan would keep his personality and assumed steroid abuse separate from the well being of the team, and wish him well. I wonder if said sportscaster had some line. What about rape? Or, this? The two are not really comparable, except as part of a pretty broad spectrum of bad activities (I despise thinking Bond will break Ruth's record, but I have perspective here). Still, it suggests how off field activity can taint the team itself.

And, sorry, giving a woman herpes just crosses the line Michael. It is a despicable act that should be a warning to others, especially young black men who unfortunately disproportionately take part in harmful activities, including of not treating women properly. Keith Hernandez chauvinistally criticizing the Padres' for allowing a female trainer (she's cute btw ... and unless her particular position is not allowed there, has every right to be in the dugout) in the dugout since "baseball is a man's game" (to paraphrase) has become a local story of some note.

Vick's actions should be a national story of much more ... like it or not, you are a role model. Or, rather, a man. A true man does not do things like that.

[This is an expression of my "values" and "morality." It is a product of my upbringing and experiences, not particularly my religious upbringing as such ... though I broadly understand "religion" as encompassing such things. Religion is in my view often lost among doctrine ... basic moral concepts is much more important in everyday life. Some understand this as a product of "God" (and furthered by etc.) in some core sense, but the two simply are not mutually exclusive.

I'd add apropos to Julia Sweeney, atheists are impressive in the sense they are assured that God does not exist. As the God is usually understood, this might be pretty straightforward on some level. OTOH, if we take every aspect of the word, it is a bit harder to be assured that there is no God. Thus, somewhat the weenie "who knows" aspect of agnosticism seems so much easier. But again, and I reference Jimmy Carter's book Endangered Values again, the underlining common morality likely to be shared by all three groups is most important.]

---

* It was not the first thing I thought, though it probably colors things somewhat, but I do know of someone in a related position. A friend of someone I know a long time back had the misfortune of catching herpes off someone who did not warn her of his condition. She later married someone else, but apparently was in some fashion pressured into the marriage given her situation -- the guy accepted her condition, and presumedly, in other situations, she might not have chose marriage.

This underlines a principle of mine -- equal respect, since in some fashion I probably know someone in a comparable situation. Not that I like to personalize things, but just to toss it out there.

Sunday Trip To The City

And Also: Get Fuzzy and Pearls Before Swine had a wicked crossover bit last week. The idea was that PBS strips were accidentally delivered to the GF cartoonist, who was behind schedule playing video games and such. Much to the PBS cartoonist's displeasure, he just used the PBS plots instead. Meanwhile, Boondocks is on an "indefinite leave of absence." Mention was made of his boredom with the strip, and now he has an animated series (not to my liking from what I saw of it) to amuse himself as well.

To continue the theme of the last entry, the suggestion that "values" has a particular political connotation is actually accepted by some on both sides. Various liberal voices will tell you that they do not think the other side promotes any values that are worth respecting. This is pretty understandable given recent events, though on some level it is not only self-defeating (a sort of all or nothing war of all vs. all) but not true. The better argument is that one side on the whole has the better balance ... or, that as current constituted, fundamental values we should be living by are seriously being threatened.

The overall theme was brought up by some of my travels yesterday while going to the city to see an offbeat Australian movie entitled Look Both Ways (interesting use of cartoon images and pictures to show the inner fears of the characters, who are in some fashion united in their fear of death). My first stop was to the Housing Works Book Store, a volunteer led effort near Bleeker which uses its proceeds toward fighting AIDS. I went there to pick up an interesting looking collection of essays that I saw a few months ago, but was somewhat remarkably still there: The Price of Liberty.

From the introduction: "[S]uch recent threatening circumstances as war and the souring of the civil rights dream create a prospect of contraction [of human rights] in the immediate future." Yes, it was written in 1968. How untimely, huh? Besides a nice bookmark and plastic bag (Barnes and Nobles also has nice bags), I picked up a free booklet: "The New Yorker's Guide to Military Recruitment in the 5 boroughs." With support of former military recruits, this is part of the truth in recruiting movement. It underlines the problems with unnecessary wars: the process overall is filled with problems, including misleading recruitment policies. This on some level is probably part of the system -- even if reforms can be put in place without overwhelming it -- but it just goes to show why we should be wary about using it needlessly.

On the way to the movies -- overdressed since the yo yo weather was much warmer than even the wet morning was -- I passed St. Marks Church. This has been known for its social welfare efforts per its social welfare efforts. If the word itself does not imply my meaning, yes, it promotes what is usually known as "liberal" values. Again, this is not a contradiction in terms, or even an oxymoron. The movie theater btw had some of them neat free postcards promoting a certain movie, which I collect and also include as free bookmarks in books I sell on Ebay. Movies are arguably overpriced, but such free stuff helps.

After the movies, I passed the new Trader Joe's, which via a Slate, I was informed was now in the City. Union Square overall has various places for the vegetarian (and/or natural/healthy food lover -- I'm all for that btw, but am in no way as loyal to it ... though again "eating healthy" is a good way to explain why one is a vegetarian and avoid the ethical debates) to pick up stuff. For instance, I went to Foodtown -- nice self-service check out counters (the fruit and other loose stuff is more tricky), and picked up a nice amount of treats. [But, even local somewhat seedy supermarkets around me have decent selections, including store baked garlic bread and packed green salads.] And, the Whole Foods Market (good plastic bags, cheap personal brand) is a great place to shop too.

But, apparently, Trader Joe's is seen as a special mecca, people traveling long distances to shop there. Also, it has reasonable prices, a sort of nice place to get sane prices. Whole Foods again has some of this as well, its personal brand providing various alternative foods at low prices, suggesting alternative does not equal upper middle class. [Hint: I am not of this class.] Thus, it was deemed a godsend for many city folk. I remain clueless -- there was a line outside the door, which did not seem to me promising. Still, I did check out the more sanely populated wine annex, and can see the appeal. It had a good selection of under $10 wines (and some over that price).

I'm not really a wine drinker, though a few (not that I know names) are decent, including the sparkling kinds. But, it's still a neat resource, including when buying it for people. Picked up a fruity wine (peach flavored) for $5 ... even if I don't like it, it is not like it cost me too much. Anyway, to close out this personal blogy [spell check!] entry, the damn subway turnstile cheated me out of $2 (I'll send the metrocard in for a refund!). I also got back a bit too late to catch the start of West Wing (I missed last week's episode, which I hear was pretty busy) ... not really a good one. Yes, I'm ready for the final episode ... and let's see who the Vice President will be.

Also heard that Victor "Kenny Rogers at the Yanks" Zambrano blew another one. The Mets still have a few problems, though Jorge Julio actually had something like five straight good outings, even getting out of a bases loaded nobody out situation (helped by a wild pitch/third strike baserunner and an error).* The guy might actually be ready to come in when the game is still close. And, such problems keeps one from being totally content, though I guess that would not make one a Mets fan any more. Still, Zambrano is really getting on our nerves. This is even without looking over to the Devil Rays and watching the prospect traded for him (Scott Kazmir) doing decent enough on a bad team ... without Rick Peterson to boot.

[Insert snappy final comment connecting this to opening values talk instead of just noting the balance in baseball -- even in places like Detroit and Cincinnati -- thus far.]

---

* Julio early on seemed (along with one for seventeen Valentin) like one of the few missteps made during the off season. The move appeared to some as much about getting rid of Anna Benson (rather than her husband, journeyman sort of guy, but still pitching pretty well for the Orioles thus far) as obtaining a key bullpen arm. And, with Brian Bannister showing some promise (he is as inconsistent as Zambrano, but manages to pitch five inning games without giving up the game in the process ... and as a rookie, he is given more of a pass), Aaron Heilman can be left in the bullpen.

Fans still rather have Benson than Zambrano [no relation, including as to consistency, to the Cubs pitcher], who probably should have been traded last summer when he actually had one of those good periods that trick people into having too much faith in his stuff. It is true that there apparently was not too many takers for Benson either (unless the general managers were also in fear of Anna), but the Mets probably had to eat a bit of his contract. In the long run, perhaps mid-season, they will have to give up something for another starter anyway. As to Julio, after starting with an ERA near 20, it is down to around 7.

Things are different when the game is on the line, but he looked bad in the past even when it was not. So his recent up swing is promising. Good thing -- these starters, especially the back three, will need a good amount of relief, even without too many 14 inning losses.

Lip Service

And Also: Olga Grushin is the author of The Dream Life of Sukhanov, concerning the sudden and somewhat tragic comedic downfall of a Soviet insider. Good novel, fascinating bio.

I posted a form of the Julia Sweeney entry on the Slate fray leading (not surprisingly) to a couple conservative religious replies while one other said more nicely that she was wrong, but hey, she has the right to be wrong. I'm all for such a response -- as with someone I know who is against abortion but unwilling to force her views on women making the choice, this is all we really can ask for under the laws of this country. [A fourth reply was more sympathetic to her stance.] As to the former response, somewhat tedious.

Yet again, one has to explain how separation of church and state helps both, so thought Baptists when the First Amendment was ratified. Likewise, even if one is an atheist (horrors), this does not mean you are immoral. That is, unless that term only means believing in God and/or following a specific moral path that does not include just being good and so forth. Thus, like Star Parker, White Ghetto: How Middle Class America Reflects Inner City Decay [on Book TV this weekend), such individuals have a shallow view of morality. Parker, for instance, sneered at liberal claiming to have moral values. Jimmy Carter (Our Endangered Values) therefore is an empty headed amoral sort of person.

Well, no. Once the scroll told me that the "Family" Research Council sponsored her event, the usual alarm bells were set off. The scare quotes are by design -- the council is for a certain view of family. Just as "value" voters as so defined tend to be for certain values. It is a blatant lie to suggest that most Kerry votes do not care for values ... unless you so define that term to mean conservative values. The "value" of re-electing Bush, for instance, seems unclear to me. Threatening the well-being of our nation by having illegitimate incompetent (and inane) leaders does not really seem too shall we say moral. But, of course, if you think dividing the country over things like homosexuality is compelled by God, maybe it is.

Values, therefore, are important to me. Carter lists "God's standards" to include "truth, justice, humility, service, compassion, forgiveness, and love." Those are moral values Ms. Parker, and they are quite liberal minded. And, many of them should be reflected in governmental practice. So, if we take values seriously, we would not have the current leadership in power. But, on some level, we do not. For "we" the people elected this people -- sorry, even if you think the 2004 Presidential Election was stolen, it is a bit harder to say the congressional elections giving the Republicans the majority were as well ... plus conservative Democrats that join with them on key matters.

The theme can be carried throughout -- if these people were serious, their cant might not be that bad. Bush v. Gore. Yes, equal protection including equal and nonarbitrary vote counting. Thus, as quoted by a circuit court ruling, election law expert Rick Hasen noted: "if the case were taken seriously, Bush v. Gore should have great precedential value in changing a host of voting procedures and mechanisms, particularly when those procedures and mechanisms are challenged prospectively." And, Stewart v. Blackwell did take it seriously*:

At issue were punch-card or optical scanning systems that do not give voters a chance to find mistakes they made on their ballot, and correct them before casting their vote.) As a result of that technology, perhaps 55,000 presidential votes were lost in 2000, the Circuit Court found, citing what it called a conservative estimate. That, the Circuit Court said in a 2-1 ruling, violated the equal protection rights of voters in the disfavored counties.

Truly being loyal to bad law is a messy business, to be sure, but Bush v. Gore was intended to be quite narrow ... and enough of the ruling itself was as well that to do otherwise is a bit bad pool. So is trying to use Justice Souter's partial dissent to broaden its reach -- the plurality was not as reasonable, and it is stupid to suggest as much. But, precedent other than Bush v. Gore can be used to back this up -- voting includes having your votes counted in some equitable fashion. The sin of B v. G is that this rule was not seriously followed. The rule itself on some level (election procedures are going to be uneven to some degree) is not the problem.

The same applies to some aspects of the neocon foreign policy. Though I do not have the stomach for it myself, there needs to be some sort of "bad cop" aspect to our foreign policy. So, some saber rattling is probably necessary though the extent it is currently being taken is surely dubious. But, as Joe Conason notes: "What good are U.S. threats against Iran when the whole world has lost its trust in our government?" Likewise, treatment of enemy detainees and others in the current times will surely be somewhat messy with some need for flexibility. But, this requires some trust and evidence of good will. Where is it?

And, so it goes. The generals are upset at Rumsfeld. Why? Because his policies threaten the sanctity of the military, including respect and trust in its motives and practices, necessary not only for the success of its missions but future increase of thepersonnell needed, especially given the drain of the current policy. It is a sadly predictable feedback loop of sorts. The generals obviously are not anti-military. A true respect for the military -- allegedly where Republicans more than Democrats in some fashion lean -- would be to take the critics here seriously.

But, I use the word "allegedly" advisedly here, of course. On values, precedent, sound foreign policy, sanctity of the military and so forth the problem is not that the current bunch lean a certain ideological direction. Well, not the immediate problem. Ms. Parker does not trust governmental programs. I can be sympathetic to that. What I cannot be is to the claim "liberals" (often used as an epithet) do not really have moral values. The ultimate problem is that these people are bullshit artists.

The liar still cares about the truth. The bullshitter is unburdened by such concerns. Bullshit-related phrases like bull session or talking shit also suggest a casual, careless attitude toward veracity -- a sense that the truth is totally besides the point. Bullshit distracts with exaggeration, omission, obfuscation, stock phrases, pretentious jargon, faux-folksiness, feigned ignorance, and sloganeering homilies. When Dubya speaks of freedom and liberation, and claims to be praying for peace as the army disgorges load after load of bombs, he is not lying. He is bullshitting. A lie would be easier to disprove. Bullshit is a committee-drafted simpleton's sermon about evildoers and terra and freedom being God's gift to all men.

-- Laura Penny, Your Call Is Important To Us

When simple ideological differences are all we have to worry about, a grand step will have be taken in the right direction.

---

* "Murky, transparent, illegitimate, right, wrong, big, tall, short or small; regardless of the adjective one might use to describe the decision, the proper noun that precedes it 'Supreme Court' carries more weight with us. Whatever else Bush v. Gore may be, it is first and foremost a decision of the Supreme Court of the United States and we are bound to adhere."

btw the whole matter might be moot, if the state follows the voluntary reform plan in place.

Sheena and Violence in Movies

Tanya Roberts [Bronx gal -- and she has the voice for it] recently was often heard on the radio doing the voiceover for a commercial for some resorts. She is perhaps best known as a latter day Charlie's Angel, and more recently, as Donna's mom on That '70s Show. And, then there is the cult fav -- Sheena (Queen of the Jungle).* It was on late last night: perfect late nite cable fare -- including the USA version (it would, of course, edit the bath scene**). And, on some camp level, not bad as a movie. Of course, we are talking low expectations here. There is even a serious moment -- a reference to the reporters' apartment ... with a view of the Towers.

The actress playing the shaman in the film has a pretty interesting backstory: She is of Ugandan royalty. Her family was banished from the country when Idi Amin took over. Graduated from Cambridge University in England and passed the British bar exam to become Uganda's first female barrister. Served as Uganda's United Nations representative and roving ambassador. A successful Ford Agency model, she was the first black woman to appear on a Harper's Bazaar cover. Measurements: 33-23-33

I live for trivia like that. The movie ultimately has a good amount of violence -- the Queen of the Jungle has to defend her people after all. In a film of this sort, the violence basically fits into the story, especially with its comic book roots. Comic books (other than the Archies sorts) are nothing if not partially about violence. And, if you are going to have violence, the ridiculousness of the movie (though any number of violent movies meet that definition, just without the eye candy) helps. But, sometimes one wonders. Is this the only way out?

In other words, it seems the only way to beat the bad guys ... and this includes fairly tame fair aimed for younger viewers ... is to kill them. Maybe, we should not read too much into this, but this seems notable. After all, one of my points about popular media (including low brow) is that sends certain important messages. Thus, some silly unfunny comedy might have certain themes that point out what is supposed to be "good" or "bad." The lovable loser, for instance, is a constant theme ... in the end, s/he tends to win out.

The use of violence to serve as plot solutions is also telling. Surely, this is so in Westerns and other similar types of films. But, it is true across the board. Except when we are dealing with serials and the like (including television), the audience expects the downfall of the villain. And, this downfall often is not just putting them in prison -- viewers of the original Batman television series will tell you the perils of that. Next you will be talking life without parole!

Real life, of course, is not quite so easy -- some people wanting it to be, notwithstanding. Sure, the movies are not real life, but the messages they send do in some fashion match what real life people believe or are meant to believe. Thus, romantic relationships in cinema are worth noting as is the general absence of serious adult sexual fare. Western Europe does that better ... the violence is left for us -- after all, this translates well.

Still, would not a bit less violence sometimes lead to more interesting and complex movies? Yes, we want brainless fare often enough, but even that need not (in the most ordinary light thriller type deal) so often end with the bad guy shot dead. On some level, this feels unpleasant -- a movie should earn its serious plot developments, including the sometimes truly unpleasant deaths of various characters. And, anyway, the same old same old is a bit tedious after awhile ... perhaps, sometimes something different.

A bit less violence. But, hey, it's okay in Sheena.

---


* The IMDB plot summary: "Sheena's white parents are killed while on Safari. She is raised by the mystical witch woman of an African tribe. When her foster mother is framed for the murder of a political leader, Sheena and a newsman, Vic Casey are forced to flee while pursued by the mercenaries hired by the real killer, who hopes to assume power. Sheena's ability to talk to the animals and knowledge of jungle lore give them a chance against the high tech weapons of the mercenaries."

See also here. This whines about how bad it is ... hopefully not seriously. "Serious" movies often have unbelievable plot twists; Sheena surely does. But, pointing them out is half the fun.

** Tanya has a nude scene here, but apparently in the 1980s, this was not enough to remove its PG rating. Meanwhile, a few years later, talking about masturbation and such by teenagers led Pump Up The Volume to get an R rating, even though teens were clearly its logical audience. This led to an early example of my muckraking ... a letter to the local paper.

Julia Says Goodbye To God

And Also: A couple pieces on Mary McCarthy, the CIA insider forced to step down for releasing secret information on governmental wrongdoing. It's easier to be upset given how the government does not have clean hands, but yes, she took some risks -- doing the right thing sometimes means that too. [If she did.] Meanwhile, they say it is so, so it must be so: medicinal marijuana edition. Darn free press ... makes Orwellian pronouncements so much harder!

I recently heard Julia Sweeney in a PSA for the Freedom from Religion Foundation. Its purposes:

The Freedom From Religion Foundation, Inc., is an educational group working for the separation of state and church. Its purposes, as stated in its bylaws, are to promote the constitutional principle of separation of state and church, and to educate the public on matters relating to nontheism.

The first should be blessed by many theists throughout the land. The second, well, some comments about typical liberal anti-God talk notwithstanding, nontheism is something of a taboo subject in public these days.

Julia Sweeney btw is best known as the "Pat" character on SNL. She also has a few "God" related one woman shows. For instance, you can rent her one woman show God Said Ha! or catch it on cable. Great show -- about her brother dying, her fight with cervical cancer, and life on her own. She has a great easy going sense of humor and can see humor in herself. And, most importantly, Sweeney has that basic Middle America niceness (that cutesy voice helps) that makes it so hard not to like her anyway.

Her PSA is timely since her latest one woman show is Letting Go Of God ... her road to atheism as well as deciding to adopt a daughter (she had an hysterectomy), who she named Tara. She adopted a Chinese girl ... who made it clear that her real name was "Mulan." Knowing an outspoken young girl named Tara, I can believe it!

The latest show has received good and respecting reviews:

The play recounts Julia's journey as a person who wants to believe--but is too smart and curious to just believe. And in the same way that she didn't shy away from the toughest questions posed by her former religious beliefs, Julia also doesn't shy away from the toughest questions posed by atheism. Such as, if there isn't religion, what is there?

See also here. Her growing love of science and so forth is particularly notable. I can relate: even without believing in some fantasy world, life is so wondrous and yes awe inspiring. Sweeney talks about the subject here. I hope she does come to NYC with the show. Cheers Julia!

Hard Candy

And Also: After basically running out of pitching (righty specialist streched too long), the Mets lost in the 14th last night. Questions might be raised about who was chosen to pitch, but the end was near either way. Advantage Padres. But, the announcers (TV here) didn't seem to care. Gary Cohen talked about how fun extra inning games were as a kid and the "14 inning stretch." Keith Hernadez claimed players in such situation really don't try to press, or perhaps, maybe that was the ideal. He also lazily noted in the 14th how it was advantage Padres. Home game for them, so it was about 2AM EST when the Mets lost 2-1. Is it just me or do other fans want Mets announcers to actually act a bit more like Mets fans would be upset? Also, we did not need three shots of the winning run. One less than a somewhat out at the plate call (long before) that would have made it 2-1, Mets. Get the damn runner home with less that two outs!

My reference to an essay on the subject resulted in an interesting Slate thread on victim impact statements. The suggestion that one particular case led to my stance, however, annoys me -- not for the first time, people accused me of arbitrariness based on particularized concerns. This is understandable, but still pisses me off.

Anyway, in honor of JPS' birthday yesterday, here is a good introduction why I worry about the practice across the board. In fact, though frayster Degme has a point, it sometimes can have problems even in a civil trial. Still, compensatory damages -- unlike criminal liability -- do have some strict liability aspects. And, victim impact -- even with its emotional over reason aspects -- is appropriate in that context.

[Spoilers alert!]

Talking about victim impact, Hard Candy is currently getting a lot of attention. In fact, I noticed that one theater that was playing another movie I wanted to see this weekend (one that just was released to boot) decided to have two showings of Hard Candy instead. Clearly, I should have waited, and watched the other movie first. What is the attraction? Well, the movie concerns a fourteen year old girl (actually played by an actress about that age -- as with Degrassi -- I find this often quite useful; cf. a current television show about a mature teen playing detective that is hurt since the actress is in her mid-20s and it shows) turning the tables on a thirty-two year old man who she met on the Internet.

The reviewer at NYT and a few others made remarks that they were concerned about their privates when watching the film ... well, don't pick up teenagers. In fact, it was noted that Japanese girls have been known to lure such guys into meetings and then beat them up. Notably, porn is an obsession in Japan too, including nudity in their anime and comic books (though pubic hair is a no no -- ironically, giving the porn an additional child porn aura at times). Also, of course, there still is some concern there for women not abandoning their proper roles. This gives the turn about an additional flavor -- though I reckon this also would suggest S&M sort of things (see recent episode of House) would also be prevalent in the country as well. The taboo is often fleshed out in role playing.

Anyway, as to the movie. It starts with the actual online conversation (all text) and the teen suggesting a meeting. The first visual of the characters is the girl -- baby faced/not the stereotype nymphet sort -- enjoying a piece of chocolate cake with clear sexual overtones. We soon find out she was the one doing the luring -- which might cause some predators to nod (you know, they are asking for it ... they tempted me, etc.) -- though only so she can turn the tables. And, the movie ultimately is worth seeing for the young actress' performance (she has other credits, and will be in the next X-Men movie, but this is clearly a star turn). Quite impressive, even as the plot becomes a bit dubious. The guy is good as well ... the movie basically a two person show with three cameos, including Sandra Oh (friend of moviemaker?).

The movie turns out to be a revenge flick. Now, I am not a big fan of this genre in various respects. My annoyance though tends to be when the movie simplistically twists our blood thirst and lead us not to care about the mindlessness of the vengeance. Consider Mystic River, an Oscar winner that I personally thought overrated. But, the movie suggests revenge is a dubious transaction. The actual revenge motif by itself seems to me a legitimate question to examine in cinema. This includes those that have exploitative aspects -- we actually see the victims being harmed in graphic fashion, often women -- perhaps most infamously shown in I Spit On Your Grave.

In this film -- hated by Roger Ebert, who nonetheless praises more "tasteful" revenge flicks -- we see the gang rape in disgusting detail, but the movie has some sense of artistic complexity, the actual victim gets revenge (not her agent, like in Death Wish), and the actual victimizers are targeted (again, Death Wish etc. ultimately attacks an open-ended criminal class). In fact, like Mystic River, the whole matter leaves a bad taste in one's mouth. Unlike there, questions of liability are not at issue -- no, we clearly saw what happened to her -- but the effect on the victim is not too gratifying. Not only does she pray in church before doing her task, the last shot is her catatonically riding the boat down a river.

[Hard Candy references child porn he photographed (and clothed shots of his teen models) and shows a picture of a past victim -- though how much the guy hurt her is unclear for most of the film -- but nothing more. So, the teen here is actually an agent too, though in effect a potential victim too. Charles Bronson similarly set himself as a "victim" to lure criminals, but this is given additional bite when we are talking about a fourteen year old girl.]

Various films however seems to abuse innocents so we can cheer the hero's use of revenge and violence and honor his (as it usually is) sense of justice. Man On Fire - at least from the reviews that were mixed -- was of this sort. A young girl was put in jeopardy, thus Denzel Washington can justly torture various lowlifes along the way. Other films just kill people off, perhaps after we have a nice little view of them. This is also a theme in action movies generally. On some level, this sort of thing is necessary for the plot. Even Slither, surely not intended to be taken seriously, involves a lot of loss of life. Ditto crime procedurals etc.

So, there has to be some sort of middle path taken, though revenge flicks often cross the line in my eyes. At least, to the extent I would like to watch the films. The films do sometimes have enough serious aspects, including dramatic weight that I find them worth seeing. Positive ID, for instance, turns out to be a revenge flick. But, it is a little gem, largely because of the lead character. And, yes, a few sort of are forbidden pleasures sort of things. Overall, Hard Candy is recommended for all these reasons. Now, some might not wish to get as close of a taste of castration ... in the movie's eyes not too difficult of a procedure really ... but the two character dramatics here is overall very good.

Ultimately, one complaint I had was that the movie made it a bit too easy for the viewer.* This was surely unnecessary to some extent given the plot -- an adult predator of this sort is not liable to have too much sympathy, even if the extent of his guilt was a bit more hazy. This is not shown to the very end, which does help explain some of the teen's earlier actions, including her assurance ... but a fourteen year old person in her position would by nature have such assurance, one that might be taken "too far."

[OTOH, again, for other teens, the assurance factor might not have been there without the clarity provided in the movie -- the movie ultimately does leave questions as to exactly why she did it. Something seems left out.]

Also, though there were a few trouble spots, the teen really turned the tables and controlled the situation a bit too assuredly. In other words, it was a bit unbelievable in that respect. But, this would not be the first time, right? Likewise, the movie started off playing with the viewer -- though it turned out the teen was just luring her prey, she did so in a sexual way that must have left many (male) viewers uncomfortable. This was a good touch ... once she became avenger, the complexity (including her youth and immaturity ... though again her appearance alone suggested this throughout, even if her actions did not) was less present. Again, the guy was not just a run of the mill predator. In fact, he photographed teen models for a living. OTOH, early on, he does come off as a decent guy.

Overall, however, I would recommend the movie. In fact, the quality of the lead performance and movie itself probably would have been worth seeing even if the film did not have one particularly painful scene and the child abuse theme.

---

* I have long thought that Shawshank Redemption did this as well. Andy is clearly innocent of his crime, though he does undergo a psychological change in jail. But, he could have done this even if he was guilty -- the crime, after all, was allegedly shooting his wife and her lover in the act. This would -- surely in the 1940s -- probably not even be a crime in a few states.

Surely, we would not think too much less of him if he actually shot them, plus still think homosexual rape and about twenty years in jail for the crimes would have been excessive punishment. Likewise, it would add complexity to the character. After all, Red was guilty of a heinous crime, but was a sympathetic character that also changed in prison. And, not only because Morgan Freeman played him.