Immigration

Texas Tidbits: The Yanks were down 9-0, but came back for good with two outs in the ninth, winning 14-13. Texas needed Doug Flutie, but darn if he retired, to do a drop kick extra point. Talking about Texas, Prof. Colb does a good job covering various bases re the ongoing lethal injection cases. Meanwhile, don't see any thing to convince me Bush's illegal immigration speech Monday night wasn't just more b.s. Surely not this. Better use of your time: giving blood.

---

As to that immigration plan, a truly amusing bit was in the local paper that leads me to add to this stub. Our dear attorney general / Bush's personal lawyer admitted that he wasn't sure if his grandparents -- Mexican immigrants/migrant farmers -- came here legally. The whole matter reminds me of some remarks in an introduction (or rather, preface, comments by another on the work, not directly a part) to a volume of one of my favorite books, Around The World In Eight Days by Jules Verne (none of the movie versions really did it justice -- ironically they tended to be long affairs though the book was pretty short).

The preface (prologue) remarked that it was revealing how easily our heroes travelled around the world without much ado -- no passports issues and so forth. The start of such things was suggested by the ever traveling warrant for PF's arrest (it turns out to be all a mistake with time zones helping our heroes) as he went through various points of the British Empire of the late 19th Century. Same with immigrants. My paternal grandparents came to this country around when Phineas Fogg met his beloved, and I saw my maternal grandmother's papers from Italy. So, she was legal. My maternal grandparents came here further back from Ireland. It is unclear how far back -- some vague talk suggested it was after our independence. But, they wouldn't need "papers" to come here.

Times change, and the laissez faire days of the past really do not work any more. Still, per a recent editorial by conservative John Tierney in the NYT (hey, even Tom Friedman is right now and then), it is unclear how much we should be concerned -- with national guard troops being cheated out of their training time in the process -- with the illegals at issue here. As he notes, we damn them for coming here to do agricultural work, low rent service jobs our citizens aren't crying too much about, and so forth.

This is sort of why so many are here -- somewhat comparable to drugs, it is a demand matter more than a supply one. The supply matters too, of course, and recent free trade agreements can be shown to be but one reason why this is also something to look toward ... again criminalization of the immigrants themselves seems a questionable solution. This does not mean free movement, but yes, some leakage is acceptable.

[As with my recent talk about Overthrow, this sort of thing raises my leftist side ... a sound solution must look globally, including when we negotiate trade agreements and deal with other nations overall. But, this bunch is loathe to work with other nations in any global sense -- put aside bilateral agreements where we have the upper hand -- since it might restrain our flexibility in some fashion. Sort of not getting married to stay independent and being miserable in the process ... still you have your independence!]

It is interesting actually why suddenly it is deemed not to be now -- I guess every 10-15 years, some re-entrenchment is deemed necessary. [But see here.] This issue is especially interesting since it divides the Republican Party, which is concerned about election year races that promise to be tricky. When political concerns match up with issues that divide the public (though I do wonder how many are really THAT concerned about this matter), the best one can hope for actually is some middle path mixed with some political ass covering. This might actually turn out to be the case here.

It's amazing how things turn out when the system sort of works as it is intended to. An imperfect, but acceptable, ending to this whole affair might be possible.

History Lessons

And Also: Listening to an ump of children baseball games complain about the pettiness and such of some MLB umpires -- he is on point. Some of these people are newbies, so might have chips on their shoulders, but a few too many don't just make clearly bad calls (bias here pops up for a fan, obviously), they have major attitude problems too. They make themselves part of the game. This is bad for baseball.

In Sean Wilentz's volume on Andrew Jackson, one of a set of small books on the presidents, he references a famous controversy during Jackson's first term. Jackson's one close ally in his Cabinet married a woman of plebian roots that women of society generally thought uncouth or worse, snubbing her. Upset especially since it reminded him of libels against his wife (an improper divorce led to claims he was a bigamist), it led to a major upheaval of his administration. Not directly saying it, Wilentz (who actively opposed the impeachment) compared it to the Clinton years:

The scandal described a social divide that would reappear in Washington politics down to our own time, pitting sanctimonious social and moral arbiters against new arrivals and commoners whom they deemed vulgar and uppity. Jackson took the matter so personally that he invested in it more time and energy than he should have thereby distracting him from his reform agenda and causing him to fall prey ...

History is interesting to me for various reasons. It covers so much ground and topics. It boils down to stories. And, it reminds one that nothing is truly new under the sun. Though we should not read into the past too much of the present, or attempt to unite things too easily into a bow, themes do arise. I referenced Overthrow ... how can we understand Iran without considering the overthrow of a legitimate government by ours in the 1950s that in various ways led to revolution two decades later, and led us to where we are today. But, when do we hear it mentioned?!

The government surveillance program, now targeting the press, also is better examined with a healthy respect of history. I deal with some themes here, but the sudden well trod principles of Justice Jackson's Youngstown opinion respecting the proper sphere of presidential powers suggests as well the past can help us clarify the present. FISA itself is after all a result of history, the history of governmental overreaching. Again, and attempts to suggest the likes of FDR had comparable programs sort of underlines the principle, a bit too often this is not respected in the coverage.

Going back to the Jackson book -- and I'm only half way thru it -- Jackson was also concerned with moneyed capitalists. He targeted the Second Bank of the United States in part because he feared it favored special interests, supplying illegitimate privileges that violated basic rights of equality of the people at large. One might compare this to the ban on titles of nobility. Or, the current practice of giving special benefits to corporate interests.

Anyway, what was with that Rove story? He even went to his scheduled appearance.

Stick It

Mets: They are playing as if each game is like pulling teeth while the Phillies lost once in about two weeks (against the Mets). The Mets managed to eke out a win after being comfortably ahead late (even with the Brewers given a fake home run -- hit wall) on Saturday, but Pedro's mistake a game this time was a three run homer ... add in some other stuff, even with the Brewers' missing ending it in regulation by a hair ... and they lost. Lead down to 1. Cards/Yanks next. Charming.

Haley Graham: [in response to Vickerman's gold-medal promises to several parents] You've got a lot of girls going to the Olympics. I wonder what country they're competing for. The state of delusion?

Stick It concerns a female teen delinquent being sent to a gymnastics academy after a stunt she did with her two friends (lovable nincompoops) resulted in some major property damage. It seems our smart talking (these sorts, including somewhat low rent team leader Jeff Bridges, have 'tude) heroine made waves by dropping out of the Olympics at the last minute, hurting her team in the process. The sport, where have we heard this from teens before, is sooo arbitrary anyway ... she also has the usual teen angst issues (and loser parents, though they seem to have some money). But, it's a way for her to get retribution ... and darn if she begins to care again and even grow up some.

The movie has a bit of a music video feel to it, including the quick camera shots and such, and rapid pace. [There are some real gym stars here btw.] And, does it well -- fun movie, not just for the teen girl demo. Witty dialogue, characters that you care about and having some flavor, and a feel good story (and "wow" moves) adds to pleasant movie that seems to be a bit loss in the shuffle (including advertising and promotion). Characters that feel real -- including those two best buds of the heroine who have her back -- is not always an easy thing to find. Like the bitchy character on her team who deep down has another side.

Predictable and all, but it plays out well. [Lost a little steam near the end, but the message sent by the climax competition was on point ... just a bit forced.] And, serious drama and lit is predictable too. They just have different names for it ... like motifs etc. Nice little film, one of many sports movies out in early '06.

And Also: How many people are just sooo hoping Rove really will be indicted today? And, what is with this plan to use National Guard troops for border patrols? Yes, this is sorta a more appropriate use of them than oversea adventures, but can you say "symbolic move?" [Google News per Time: "the aura of a renewed White House about." Oh please.]

Those Darn "Givens"

And Also: In honor of Mother's Day, I offer this old time favorite poem in honor of the lady of the hour.

At one point while discussing executive department involvement in coups of foreign government, Stephen Kinzer in Overthrow notes that they were done "in strict accordance with the laws of the United States." The meaning of this statement was that they were "not rogue operations" because the President authorized them, while the CIA had the power respecting "duties related to intelligence affecting the national security." This is insane. Intel does not mean promoting coups. And, part of "the laws" at stake here is the U.S. Constitution.

This document gives the power to wage war on other nations -- including overturning their lawfully obtained governments without congressional authorization, even if in some fashion they are deemed threats to our economic imperialist goals. Kinzer writes about the misguided nature of these fiascos, the often unintended consequences (the 1980s was a direct result of our overturning Iran leadership in the 1950s), and the path of ignorance (notwithstanding expert, repeatedly including on ground intel) that guided them.

But, you simply cannot ignore the fact that the whole affair of executive led coups is simply unconstitutional. It is not what the President has the authority to do on his own. Not understanding the point is scary -- if you start with one hand tied behind one's back, the end result of dropping the ball all too predictable. The theme sadly seems to be repeated all too often. To take a past example. Slavery is deemed a necessary evil. This starts one on a road to perdition, since those who want to end it -- and there were ways to go in that respect -- are deemed utopian. The best one could hope for was benign treatment and limiting the problem, but things were not so easily cabined.

And, the system is by design not benign. Sorta like now -- you entrust the President with too much power, and find it unfortunate when he abuses it. As a letter to the editor in yesterday's NYT noted, who in the heck is surprised at this? No need to be too predictable here, though -- accepting the unacceptable is shown in various cases in various contexts. Sometimes, however, fundamental lines must be drawn. Basic truths faced.

[Somewhat on point, at the supermarket today I saw an interesting paperback version of key Bible stories, written in prose and supplied with secular commentary. Puts things in a different light -- for instance, King Solomon was damned for having a harem of women for whom he had shrines built to serve their gods. This was heresy. But, looked at differently, it had a freedom of religion flavor that later benefited the Jews when the Persians and Romans allowed subjects to practice their own religions. The "given" was in hindsight not ideal.]

Three Things

First, let's summarize my sentiments from the last post. Under current judicial doctrine, warrantless collection of phone numbers is in some sense (this matter was not directly addressed) (wrongly) deemed constitutional. Statutory law -- though the experts are gnashing their teeth at the complexity of the matter (but since there is more than one potential problem, surely there is at least one breach, if not more) -- is another story. Finally, overall, politically we should be against this sort of thing. The "no quarter" position of the President underlines the point. Let's not get bogged down in legalisms -- such things always has wiggle room, though ultimately they will try to go with a broader argument. Such is their wont. Let's hoist them on their own petard.

Second, though it might not be over, the last six games of the Mets are cursed. After winning two vs the Braves in somewhat surprising fashion, fans expected a loss on Sunday from Lima. But, bad calls (balk/non-play near the plate) tainted things -- you felt cheated, even though the game was destined to be a loss anyway. Quirky events led to a loss vs. the Phillies (three or four plays had to go their way for them to ruin a late inning comeback). Blowout Mets win. [Phillies meanwhile was on a winning streak -- ultimately cutting the Mets lead to 2 ... for now.]

Then, a Phillies' outfield played martyr (broken nose) to rob the Mets of three runs, leading to the first five inning game (2-0, Phillies) the Mets had to deal with since 1993. And, then two close calls (ball/safe at third) prevented Lima from getting out of the Fifth up 3-1 ... he was left in at least one batter too long (4-3), and then three more runs were given up before the final out was made. Enough already -- once or twice, these are excuses. After awhile, it's at best pretty bad luck.

Finally, a heartwarming story led me to consider a philosophical question. A local political figure stepped down from a race to donate a kidney to his teen daughter -- the mom gave one years before, but it was bust a few years before the doctors hoped. The problem was present at birth -- in effect, the parents passed it to their daughter.

A case can be made that they are morally obligated to give her a kidney, even outside of the fact that she is their child. But, legally, surely not. Legally, even if they knew that they had a recessive gene that was likely to lead to the problem, bodily autonomy is supreme. The right to privacy, including with abortion connotations, clearly follows. The issue was obviously not raised in the local story (NY Daily News), but it implicitly underlines such principles.

By the way, I'm reading a good book by Stephen Kinzer concerning how the United States was responsible for the "Overthrow" of various governments -- with often tragic results -- over the last century. This includes the government of Hawaii -- involving a queen who felt her predecessor's transfer of the rights to Pearl Harbor was a "day of infamy." Kinzer leaves the irony to the reader. It is a depressing read, fourteen chapters of sadly quite "American" behavior that in various cases is still defended or (when unpleasant -- see the Philippines atrocities after 1898) conveniently forgotten. How will the current situation (addressed) be treated down the road?

I guess, if the sports related stress does not get me before my time, I will find out eventually. After all, I recall the "coup" of Gorbachev, the First Gulf War, and so forth, now deemed almost ancient history. Will current events, a decade or so later, be equally deemed so?

Unnecessary Price

Baseball: Matsui of the Yankees broke his wrist in the 1st inning, so did not play enough to get an official appearance -- thus, his long consecutive game streak was broken ... it hurts to get hurt in a game you did not play in. Meanwhile, the outfielder of the Phillies also broke something (his nose) robbing the Mets of at least three runs. After quirky plays cost the Mets the first game, more quirk lost them the third. This includes the game being called after 4 1/2 (official game) with the Mets down 2-0. The rain was predicted, the game started a bit late, and rain really started in the bottom of the third. But, they waited to an official game -- a bit of a cheat really, though yeah, officially legitimate.

[And Also: Interesting argument -- how the President's assurances added to the "legitimate expectations of privacy." Good point.]

It is true that in a case with pretty limited facts (after a woman was a victim of a crime, threatening phone calls btw, a pen register was set up to collect numbers ... cf. the NSA program!), the Supreme Court ridiculously said that we consented to give out the numbers to the phone company, so the phone company in return can give it to the government. [Consider the logic. We consent to give a confession to a priest. The priest thus has every right to tell everyone our sins, including on t.v. programs. And so forth.] Justice Stewart rightly dissented from this cheapening of privacy rights ... he should know, he wrote the Katz (wiretapping in phone booth) ruling underlining privacy, not the semantics is involved here.*

But, the government itself is often an essential source of privacy. Laws are in place, and were federally before wiretapping was deemed a violation of constitutional rights, to guard against intrusion. Some exist here. Though the SC, in the dissent's words did not recognize that "The information captured by such surveillance emanates from private conduct within a person's home or office - locations that without question are entitled to Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment protection" ... the Congress ultimate did.

Congress as representatives of "the people" [read the 4A] can help determine "legitimate expectations of privacy." [Smith v. Maryland noted that this did not include the privacy of our phone numbers in a twist of phrase fitting for those now in power.] This in turn re-enforces our liberty, including of the 1A sort ("Many individuals, including members of unpopular political organizations or journalists with confidential sources, may legitimately wish to avoid disclosure of their personal contacts." dissenting opinion).

But, this is meaningless to the current administration.

One must not assume that the assault on liberty always originates with the vicious and the corrupt; differences about expressions of loyalty and the means of which their survival can be achieved often are honest differences; and in times of peril the argument the sanctity and privacy of the individual must be invaded to protect the national security has an attractive if not a compelling quality.

-- Louis M Hacker [1968]

The new message is that we are at war and that secrecy is quite important, so even talking about this is dangerous to national security.** Not only the vicious and corrupt buys this line.

Not to be picayune, but we are not really "at war." Seriously. There was an authorization of force, two really (Afghanistan/Iraq), but at issue here is part of the "war on terror." It is an open-ended affair that leads to another quote from the book (The Price of Liberty, of course) ...

Civil liberty lost ground in the cold war. Some has been painfully regained; but it is unlikely that we shall ever return completely to the liberties of the past. And if ideological ever again seems essential to the defense of the state, there will doubtless be a recurrence of the excesses of the 1950's, no matter what the Constitution may say.

-- Walter Millis

Cold "war." That lasted around 50 years. If not in civil liberty effect, it is surely comparable to the current conflict ["Terror War"] in some ways. Long and low level. No wage and price controls. No rationing. No tax increases. None of the slew of limits of a true "war." This is telling.

Anyway, the idea we can not even talk about something that even Republicans in Congress are quite wary about since darn if it seems to violate the law and our privacy to boot, is simply unAmerican. We were lied to as well, of course. Where is that warrant the President promised us? The court*** -- secret court! -- involvement the NSA refused here?

War however also means lies. Sorta why so many were damn concerned about us going to "war" in 2003.

---

* Justice Blackmun wrote the opinion. It is unclear if he was not so gung ho about it a few years later when he strongly supported a right of personal privacy in the home respecting consensual sodomy. I reckon calls to one's same sex lover (or perhaps gay friendly organizations) is covered here as well. Since simply calling certain questionable characters, without determining the content of the conversation, can lead to problems, Justice Stewart was right to be concerned back then. Privacy does not stop at one's front door, but it surely is strengthened once you cross inside. This my dear frayster is partly why DUI checkpoints are not on point, nor those at the airport.

** Thus, the imperfect use of leaks as a safety value. Surely troublesome, but when the executive's own oversight boards (or whistleblowers generally) have trouble getting the security clearance to investigate/talk of Congress, what is the alternative? Cf. The Pentagon Papers -- Daniel Ellsberg first tried to get Congress interested. If the regular channels fail, who is to blame?

*** The phone companies (regulated by the government to boot) here surely had pressures ... even a request to submit the matter to FISA was turned down. It is depressing that a virtual rubber stamp is now seen as too much to hope for. The pathetic implication is that after all this, the President will be pulled with gnashing teeth to a position where he has to submit things to a court with a refusal rate even lower than his poll numbers.

Why Naturally!

The idea of "inalienable" or "unalienable" (the edited spelling) rights was always a bit tricky in my mind. After all, in practice, the rights tend to be "alienable" (capable of being transferred ... it's one of those legalistic words we take at face value like "more perfect" in the Preamble). The state surely treats them as such. But, the Declaration of Independence is ultimately concerned with "natural law," the "laws of nature and of nature's God" to be exact.

Sometimes, waiving a right is involved -- so one has a liberty to speak or remain silent, and it is waived. The liberty overall is still there. On the other hand, sometimes the state takes it away, and it in some sense still remains. A police officer might beat up a suspect, but this does not legitimize the practice. Such is the logic here.

The Declaration speaks of "we" personally recognizing some self-evident truths, so the document is not quite as presumptuous as one might at first think. Likewise, natural law (and rights arising therefrom) is not quite "nonsense on stilts" to the degree the philosopher Jeremy Bentham sometimes suggested (or so I am led to believe). True enough that there is an arbitrary nature to the concept, since the human mind can formulate quite different, and often competing, sets of guidelines by a reasoned examination of nature. And, resting things on nature or God is questionable as suggested by the 20th Century concept of "human rights." Still, law must arise from the character of the community for which it is created (sure, some "creating" is done here) to apply.

The nature of the animal, so to speak, thus is important. For instance, it is simply like having water flow uphill to have overly restrictive mores and laws respecting sexuality, including even for teenagers. Sex is a natural part of our make-up, and it is on some level wrong to try to deny the fact. Sometimes, nature is bad -- some people have tendencies toward violence or perhaps prejudice is "natural" since distrusting the unknown (including a different race) was somehow an evolutionary marker. But, as with fundamental rights generally, few things are absolute. As a general matter, "fighting nature" should be done only when truly necessary.

And, from this, we can formulate a framework in which such things are "rights" -- society, not nature, would create them ... but "natural rights" is not really a bad way of looking at such things. Rights aren't the only thing that can be looked upon in this fashion. Perhaps, the need for certain restraints (which can be looked at the other way as a means to guard against invasion of rights) also arises from nature. Thus, in an important sense, certain criminal laws have a "natural law" flavor to them. We are naturally self-protective, even if the net result would be unfair. So, there are laws against self-dealing, and so forth. Men are not angels, as goes the saying, so negative things sometimes have to be done to restrain them.

This whole matter came to mind while I was reading the various majority opinions (I did read the dissents in the past, do not worry) in Furman v. Georgia, the big death penalty case that set things into motion to require more procedural safeguards ... and a clear upholding of the penalty a few years later. The opinions, including the dissents actually, are quite interesting ... they supply different points of view (as with editorials, I find court opinions a useful way to attack an issue) as well as useful background information. Justice Stewart was concerned with the arbitrary few sentenced to die, but did not want to attack the whole penalty at once. This led to a bit of natural law:

On that score I would say only that I cannot agree that retribution is a constitutionally impermissible ingredient in the imposition of punishment. The instinct for retribution is part of the nature of man, and channeling that instinct in the administration of criminal justice serves an important purpose in promoting the stability of a society governed by law. When people begin to believe that organized society is unwilling or unable to impose upon criminal offenders the punishment they "deserve," then there are sown the seeds of anarchy -- of self-help, vigilante justice, and lynch law.

Justice Marshall, especially when facing similar logic in the later opinion, answered it in two ways: unbridled retribution is not a legitimate purpose of punishment, since it is "purposeless vengeance." But, yes, a basic sentiment that wrong doing must be punished is acceptable. Nonetheless, the death penalty would still be excessive, since there were other ways of handing it out in these cases -- especially, given the other problems with such a "can't take it back" punishment. Still, not the "nature of man" deal. Maybe, it is a bad part of us, but currently it still (like it or not) has a place in our criminal justice system.

As discussed recently on the Slate Jurisprudence Fray, however, it can be cabined. I'd add this brings to mind a discussion cited by Digby. It was noted that a devious technique of the Right* these days is to promote extreme positions as "acceptable," which in effect moves the goalposts. If abortion is always wrong, suddenly targeting second trimester abortions (and making first trimester ones more difficult, or even, allowing states -- well sure maybe they are wrong, but they have the power to be so, etc. -- to ban them) is a "reasonable" position. Heck, maybe even a "compromise." Nifty trick. All I have to say is that just because something is not radically ridiculous does not make it right.

The death penalty might not be patently unjust by any reasonable account to be unjust all the same. The trick is not to fall into such traps -- giving an inch is not giving an mile. An educated citizen, which simply is a bit too passe these days, recognizes the complexities of things. One need not use that nasty word "nuance," but a little of that helps too.

---

* On that point, Perle was on Al Franken today. I welcome such crosspollination, even though I (it's a character flaw, what can I say) cannot really bear getting thru too much of the other side's crap. My beliefs are eclectic enough (is it time for me to complain about anti-smoking laws again, yet?) to allow me a decent amount of balance, but it does skewer things some -- I don't think I am too atypical here (it helps btw that a few people close to me are wrongminded on some issues but remain decent people -- perspective).

Anyway, Perle tried to do things like saying Cheney did not misspeak at all by saying "no doubt." Just a question of bad intel and all. Words simply do not have meaning here. If they did, NO and DOUBT would mean something. He did not say "beyond a reasonable doubt" or anything. No, crystal clarity was necessary. Good thing -- optional aggressive wars need that. But, giving an inch is apparently impossible, even now. Even an imperfect interviewer like Franken can show there was "doubt" that Cheney should have seen.

So, in the end, Perle has no credibility. Not 100% wrong or anything, surely, but if you want to talk to us like we are morons, get lost.

1000th Post: Oversight

And Also: I caught some of David Letterman's interview with Kurt Russell (missed the Britney Spears' announcement): it was a good one, one of those times when he truly connected with his guest. They talked about a shared concern: relationships with the mothers of their children without marriage. Signs of his serious side and playfulness still come out, making the show worth checking out. Conan also was "on" in his live show in Chicago. Good connection to the last post, hmm?

A regular reader has shared the concerns of some that focusing on impeachment now is a bad tactic. Nonetheless, apparently, so (as noted last time, post 999) is oversight ... only petty partisan revenge, you see. Glenn Greenwald discusses the point, adding to the reality that people are concerned about the "MSM" for a reason.

I will just link to his blog overall since he also adds another interesting point on the Richard Cohen editorial that reaffirms my sentiment -- the need for passion, which is all to often (even by "allies") deemed as a bad thing. I'd add that his bashed editorial underlines the value of freedom of the press -- the fact his sentiments are wrong-minded does not mean they are not shared. The importance of recognizing such things as being "out there" and criticism (in all shades of the word) of them is one value of blogs. It references my long ago (talking high school here) use of editorials as sounding boards -- a means of debate and clarity of my opinions.

As to congressional oversight generally, President Wilson (in his political scientist days) noted:

It is the proper duty of a representative body to look diligently into every affair of government and to talk much about what it sees. It is meant to be the eyes and the voice, and to embody the wisdom and will of its constituents. Unless Congress have and use every means of acquainting itself with the acts and the disposition of the administrative agents of the government, the country must be helpless to learn how it is being served; and unless Congress both scrutinize these things and sift them by every form of discussion, the country must remain in embarrassing, crippling ignorance of the very affairs which it is most important that it should understand and direct.

But, like vetoing, respecting judicial review, not breaking the law, and so forth, just doing one's job is a bad thing in today's Republican political climate.

Don't Drink The Kool Aid

I was doing other things for much of the game (and light hitting stalemates, as this game was for about six innings, bore me), so only watched a bit of it, but darn if the Mets' loss vs. the "can't lose" (yeah, for now) Phillies was darn tedious. Pedro gives up three quick runs, does nothing else, and the Mets can't do anything against their starter. You know, until the eighth, when it is 3-2.

But, Do Luca couldn't quite handle the relay, so it's 4-2 in the bottom. New closer, previous Yank (you're the enemy now, man) Tom Gordon, blew the save. Manages a hold though, so some pitch hitter (another ex-Yank, just from a few years back) can hit a ball the perfect spot with two outs ... triple. Another tricky play, Phils win 5-4. No loss for Pedro though -- three runs doesn't quite deserve it, but the Wagner (ex-Phil) blew his sixth win, so here's a partial repayment. Got to deal with these things, but they still are annoying.

A complaint about Richard Cohen's whiny follow-up because people were annoyed about his whiny criticism of the Colbert joke-a-thon was lost because of a saving error. No great loss ... I matched it up to Chait's whiny piece in The New Republic in which he agrees with the "left's" complaints about Lieberman, but still wants them to "re-think" their attacks ... since they are too divisive or something.

And, John Dickerson over at Slate thinks Pelosi's is playing into the Republicans' hands by suggesting oversight is a reason to vote Democrat in November. btw maybe those R. funding letters are suggesting focusing on that (they don't mention the "a") is spin, John? You know, like an attorney getting her client to testify about the bad thing and maybe try to spin it? Kool aid tasty, John?

The "left" are upset about the Republicans (and the media/Lieberman sorts) for a reason -- they are f-ing things up. But, they also have policy proposals. Not that talking about them means much until we get the current bunch out. And, part of the way to do this is to underline how bad they are. The low poll numbers sort of suggest the people are sort of respective to that strategy. Anyway, remember that oversight was only one (no italics necessary) means of attack. She also put forth what we stand for, as does Dean ... you know, if "they" stop stereotyping him. And, what about his opposite number ... Melman or something ... from what I know of the guy, he is no prize. But, it's all about Dean as the crazy, right? Oh wait, am I being too "cannibalistic," Chait?

Anyway, what was I doing while the Mets had their road to nowhere? First, I was listening to the author of the Bush Agenda (5/8), whose overall thesis is also suggested here -- the economic imperialism in Iraq thread. I focus on other things, not quite as wonky as some blogger regulars, but the depth of neoliberalism economic thought is a troubling issue that definitely has enough to it to be scary.

Yeah, and it is discussed on those blogs, not just Bush bashing. Darn if it is divisive though, since many Democrats have drank the kool-aid, even Clinton to some degree. But, wait, wasn't he some big liberal? No? A centrist with some conservative leaning tendencies, you say? Shoot ... I was laughed at when I suggested that a year or two back. It was by someone who turned into a bit of an asshole, but still ...

Seriously, her book sounds good (reserved it), and the second link is worth a read. My thought is that a major reason why we are in Iraq is imperialism of some sort, but the depth of such matters, the details, are interesting to dwell upon. Naomi Klein over at The Nation, etc., also deals with this sort of thing. Anyway, I also saw some of the season finale of Gilmore Girls. Yeah, still mediocre. Also, House -- pretty good episode with a killer piece of dialogue by the father after the tragic death of the baby.* I also saw a repeat of the funeral episode of West Wing yesterday -- missed it the first time around -- it too was a good episode. The last few were so-so, but not too bad. Series Finale on Sunday.

Britney apparently is pregnant. Maybe, Anna Nicole too -- well, she did win that Supreme Court battle and all. Some soft porn special of hers was on last night -- didn't see it, mind you, but it could be considered research and all. You know, the case ....

---

* The mother had delusions that led her to put the baby at risk. That ailment was fixed, but we find out she has cancer of the stomach or something. She doesn't want to treat it, since, well, she blames herself for the death of the baby. The father indirectly helped by not dealing with her condition at home (both are recovering alcoholics). Anyway, House shames him into recognizing this, and he goes to see his wife. Unable to say much to comfort her, he finally asks her to tell the baby (in heaven, apparently) that he was sorry.

Saner Heads Prevail

Licensing and copyright rules dictate that no performance of Chicago ["a show about homicidal jailhouse vixens seeking fame"] is to be performed within seventy five miles of its home theater in Manhattan. Thus, a cease and desist order was sent to Lehman High School* (Bronx), which planned to perform the musical with the top ticket being $7. Particularly unfortunate is the fact the principal did not take this possibility into consideration, leading the students to be heart broken, especially after months of practicing, building sets and so forth. Rules are rules, and the principal/other school authorities involved have to take a good chunk of the blame here. He was in that position for many years, so had the responsibility to keep up with the rules. Or, is this limitation not too common? Still ...

But, the ownership of the rights and the basic copyright laws at stake are really to blame. I have spoken about my annoyance at copyright law here before. It allows monopoly of content for nearly (corporate) or over (human) a hundred years, which is patently (they are for something like 20 years ... for life saving drugs) insane. The Supreme Court (7-2) a few years back not only upheld the "limited" time in name only, but even allowed Congress to extend the time for many current copyright owners.

A middle path can be formulated. Chicago has been performed for decades. The story overall according to my Leonard Maltin movie guide was told in film during the actual time (1920s) portrayed. I myself watched Roxie Hart, a non-musical version starring Ginger Rogers from 1942. In other words, it has been out there for quite some time. There is really no sane reason why in 2006 that it should not be in the public domain. But, we are not even talking about a regular for profit performance by some low rent off Broadway outfit. It is a public high school performance! Come on now! There are quotes from the company representing the owners defending themselves -- saying they really are not meanies or anything.

Such was the state -- great for my indignation! -- this morning. But, a check suggests saner heads prevailed:

But later Tuesday, in its statement, Samuel French said, "Despite these circumstances and not to disappoint the students of the school, we will in this one instance permit the production, provided the appropriate application is concluded."

Ad hoc compromises often are a way out of overbroad policies, quite important really. Still, the discretion quite often leads to insanity, arbitrarily too often enough, and this still leads one to be rather concerned.

---

* Lehman is down the way -- via the parkway -- from the Whitestone Multiplex Cinemas, a former drive-in ... that in its present form used to be a regular stop for me on Saturdays. It also is where I took one of my SATs some years back. So, there is that "home base" additional flavor to this whole deal.

Worst President Ever?

And Also: The value of civil liberty and democracy in fight against terror. But, some clearly think otherwise. Or, perhaps, define things differently [few honestly think they are anti-First Amendment ... they just interpret it rather narrowly]. But, self-delusion is only somewhat of an excuse, isn't it?

Sean Wilentz, professor/historian/author, was on Q&A (C-SPAN/Brian Lamb's interview program, a follow-up to Booknotes, a show I was sorry to see go) last night. I read and enjoyed his refutation (he is a contributor to The New Republic) of Garry Wills' (who I find pretentious anyhow) "The Negro President" argument (Jefferson came to power because of the 3/5 Clause ... Federalists were disproportionately vis-à-vis the Democrats, anti-slavery heroes). I also have his tome on the rise of American democracy, which I obtained cheaply, and might just read one of these days (forty pages down, six hundred or so to go ....).* Wilentz brought together historians to oppose the Clinton Impeachment and is also the "historian in residence" at Bob Dylan's website (he first met him at Wilentz's father book store). All and all, an interesting guy.

Wilentz, other than his impeachment efforts and a Grammy nomination for his liner notes, has obtained some notoriety in recent days because of his Rolling Stones' piece: "The Worst President in History?: One of America's leading historians assesses George W. Bush." The "stupid Bush" dunce cover (stupid does not equal worst) was not his idea, nor did he know at the start that his analysis would be so negative (as with the bishop character in John Mortimer's recent book, he was no fan of the man, all the same**). The general sentiment was that bad presidents generally were face with great tasks and failed to attack them miserably with Bush's greatest flaw (the article discusses others) a failure to be flexible and open-minded -- too much of a one track mind. Darn if that was supposed to be a plus.

In his interview, Wilentz pointed to two key points where Bush misstepped. (He also was sure to cover himself and say that Bush still has time to reform his image -- the article is a bit less optimistic.) First, after the messy election (in my eyes, he started off horrible and didn't look back), and then the whole Iraq fiasco. Wilentz gave him credit for his post-9/11 efforts (no comment to his utter failure, as compared to my mayor, on the actual day).

I give him no quarter. One does not deserve too much praise, though I guess you have to take into consideration the man, for Afghanistan. There was a "no shit" flavor to that move, and many will point out that overall even that was done badly in various ways, especially after the easy part of overturning a backward pariah government. As to his speech to Congress, his ability to read other people's words doesn't impress me. I know how full of shit he truly is. Again, only a total incompetent could not appeal to the nation in that position. A nation desperate for leadership, even if it wasn't there. Sorry -- given his record, he has to do something extra to earn my respect.

[Still, I do have some perspective. A respected blogger used some stupid quip he made about catching fish being the biggest moment in his presidency as a special example of his overall make-up --- see, it was not really a big deal, it was his own lake/so stocked with fish anyway, etc. But, it was probably intended to be a joke. He brings this sort of thing on himself, but sometimes the criticism is over the top to a degree that is annoying and even counterproductive.]

The web posting of the article has a link: "We warned you! Look back at our 1999, pre-primary assessment of George W. Bush," and it does suggest that those so SHOCKED at what became of his presidency at least partly have themselves to blame [this, call me unfair if you like, pisses me off -- I'm unsure what exactly people expected given his record]. A (1999) discussion of his "military" record is telling given the later controversy that was used to focus things on the media. [And, the media's incompetence and the other side's deviousness were blamed, while Kerry's failure to adequately counterattack was downplayed -- "they" are to blame for everything, you know.]:

How Bush got into the Guard when its nationwide waiting list had 100,000 names is a story that illustrates his privileged position in life. Although the likelihood of his being accepted through standard channels was remote, Bush applied to the Guard during his last semester at Yale and was immediately admitted to the 147th Fighter Group of the Texas Air National Guard at Ellington Air Force Base in Houston, near the congressional district then represented by his father. He enlisted in May and was commissioned in September. Later, Bush's commanding officer, Brig. Gen. Walter Staudt, insisted that congressman Bush did nothing to get his son into the Guard, but this is contradicted by a source close to Ben Barnes, the speaker of the House in Texas in 1968, who was elected lieutenant governor that same year. According to the source, George Bush telephoned Barnes and asked him to make a phone call to facilitate George W.'s acceptance into the Texas Air National Guard. Barnes made the call.

And, why wasn't this quote (made during his run for governor) -- yeah, I know, Rolling Stone is rather obscure and all -- tossed all over the place:

"Putting an F-102 jet in afterburner in a single-seat, single-engine aircraft was a thrill, but it also wasn't trying to avoid duty," Bush said. "Had that engine failed, I could have been killed. So I was at risk." In the days after the debate, veterans groups angrily criticized Bush for comparing the risk he faced flying jets on practice runs over Texas to the risk American soldiers faced in live combat in Vietnam.

Or this ...

In June 1995, Bush made one of his most controversial moves as governor. The Patient Protection Act, which was approved by the Texas legislature, would have instituted major HMO reforms by requiring companies to be more open about their benefits, allowing customers dropped from a plan to appeal and instituting reviews by the Texas Department of Insurance. Bush vetoed it. He argued that the act "imposes too much government regulation and unfairly impacts some health-care providers." The Blue Cross and Blue Shield Association released a statement applauding Bush's veto. In the coming years, Bush would receive some $1 million in campaign contributions from insurance companies for his re-election bid.

Failure to be up to the task isn't just the problem leaders have to face, it is one for the people themselves. As Wilentz noted, the people were in effect lulled into the impeachment. [And, since we always fight the last war, now even top progressives like Molly Ivins think impeachment should not even be discussed among ourselves, since it is so divisive and all ... hey, he didn't personally torture those prisoners or drop the bombs in Iraq, did he?] We look to our leaders to point us in the right direction, to guide us along the way. But, in a republican democracy, we too have a lot of responsibility.

Might "worst" be applied to those who let him and his ilk get so far into worsedom as well?


---

* A piece: "The most important congressional vote about slavery during Jefferson's presidency, apart from the vote on shutting down the transatlantic slave trade, came in 1804, on the so-called Hillhouse amendments. Proposed by the Federalist James Hillhouse, a senator from Connecticut, the amendments would have banned slavery in Louisiana Territory, but they failed to win passage. Once again, though, the crucial vote involved the Senate, not the House; pace Wills, the three-fifths clause was irrelevant. And the record on the vote is highly revealing. Although Hillhouse was a Federalist, the bulk of his support came from Northern Jeffersonians. The northern Federalists, meanwhile, split right down the middle, with the pro-slavery position getting the backing of, among others, Wills's hero Pickering! (Wills has Pickering voting for the amendment banning slavery, which is another howler.)"

Fairness dictates me saying I did not read Wills' (don't buy that s's construct) book, though I did try to plod through his pretentious book on The Gettysburg Address. But, I have no reason to doubt Wilentz's account, a historian respected across ideological lines. Also, it matches my (obviously more limited) understanding of the era. It also calls to mind Lincoln's famous Cooper Union Address in which he points out that the Framers who were in the Congress almost always (there were two or three exceptions) voted for the various restrictions of slavery in the territories that came to pass. Some of them were from slave states. Also, Jefferson won NY and Pennsylvania in 1800 and rather comfortable in some more firmly slavery friendly states. Firmly enough that the 3/5 compromise would not have mattered.

** Mortimer is best known for his droll Rumpole on the Bailey series, later a hit on PBS (the man who played the role died, but Mortimer is still around). Quite Honestly fits his usual tone (this time nicely done from two points of view) the misadventures of a young somewhat naive woman when she tries to "do good" by helping a recently released burglar. Amusing with his usual somewhat cynical views on law and such, but I'm not clear why he tossed in a tragic bit about a minor character's baby. It didn't fit.

The Value of Private Moral Choices

And Also: Another Mets starter bites the dust ... with 14th inning games (two so far), wild wins, and so forth, there is so much the drama in their start. And, now Lima Time. This led to a wild inning involving a double play taken away via a questionable balk call, an animated/ejected Lo Duca claiming he DID tag out the runner, and the Braves manager (who I respect -- guy wants to win, and more than not, does) being ejected as well. This all hurt what was destined to be a rocky first start for Lima anyway, but he eked out five innings -- as the team basically needed him to. [The game collapsed soon afterwards ... but few really expected a win, so it's okay. They should have let a position player pitch the ninth, down 13-2.]

Sunday NYT commentary time.

Last week, I read it in style -- outside in the sun while drinking a coffee and having a donut. This is a fine way by the way to read the paper, and I have done so at various times. It can also be noted that the NYT is a bit of a rip-off, especially since many people do not read chunks of it (yeah, okay, you read the automobiles and real estate section regularly ... fine). It is $3.50 and much of it can be found online, though now their precious opinion columnists are generally behind a subscription wall. Not worth the price to read them. But, I still find hard copies of papers and books worthwhile, including at the table or outside. No laptop with Internet service have I, but even if I did, not quite the same.

A few interesting pieces can be tied together as having a religious theme. A piece (focusing on how poverty, deprivation, and governmental policies leads to extremism) on troubles in Sinai has this telling comment:

First slowly, and then more rapidly, religious and government pressures began to undermine the one institution that served to maintain public order: the tribe.

"They destroyed the most important thing in the tribe, the power of the sheik," said Salah el-Bollak, a writer and expert in local Bedouin culture. "Now the sheik is nothing but an informer for the government."

People here said that the government inadvertently made the same mistake with the mosques, by requiring that all imams be employees of the state. That dictate undermined their credibility and sent people elsewhere for religious guidance, many local people said.

The "elsewhere" all too often are extremists, who are in effect seen as honest brokers. The value of separation of church and state as well as privacy rights is underlined. A well rounded understanding of the Founders of this country would re-inforce the point. "Liberal" thought was concerned about tyranny of all sorts, including limitations on personal, economic, and religious action. Putting aside the fact that many key leaders were rather freethinking in sentiment (a Book Review piece covers this ground ... it should be noted that focusing on elites here can be misleading), they were clearly concerned with separating church from state -- not totally, but a lot more than some who want us to believe they were all Christian conservatives like to imply. [See also, The Godless Constitution, a good little book.]

The move to conservatism in this country, as well as the importance of the base to those in power, has led to various troubling things. One area touches matters of sexuality, including such things as abstinence education -- this sounds like a good thing, and it can be, but only if taken in moderation. Moderation sounds like something conservatives might like, but one thinks of Barry Goldwater (supportive of gay and abortion rights) comment that extremism in promotion of liberty is no vice. Sometimes, it is. When you hold back funding to needy international women's health funds because a group might merely speak about abortion, you cross a line. The NYT Magazine also discusses the movement against contraception.

This is simply counterproductive and self-defeating. Contraception reduces unwanted pregnancies and abortion. Now, it also can further sexual activity, but nothing is without cost, right? Sex was well practiced outside "acceptable" limits way before the Age of Aquarius. Contraception in some form was always with us. Apparently, it's okay if the potential is there in some rough fashion (think Russian Roulette) to make it a fearful presence. Or, perhaps, God or nature, wants the infertile to have all the luck, since they can have sex without worry. It also is a sort of "job well done" retirement perk for post-menopausal women. This fertility issue also connects to why gay marriage is so problematic with all the exceptions somehow explained away. Given the reduced sex, there is a lot more time for such scholasticism.

Zenarolla [a leader in the pro-life movement] told me she converted to Catholicism two years ago: "I tell people I became Catholic because of the church's teaching on contraception. [Some Protestants have similar views.] We are opposed to sex before marriage and contraception within marriage. We believe that the sexual act is meant to be a complete giving of self. Of course its purpose is procreation, but the church also affirms the unitive aspect: it brings a couple together. By using contraception, they are not allowing the fullness of their expression of love. To frustrate the procreative potential ends up harming the relationship."

This should be a private decision ... it is religious in nature, a selective way of upholding the intimacy of private associations, and involves personal liberties (and equality). So, this alone is a reason to attack those who want to press this one view on the rest of us via the force of law. This includes blocking Plan B, funding programs that promote this viewpoint (with tragic results), and so forth. But, it can also be attacked head on. Let's put aside those who see contraceptives (and abortion btw) as a way to allow men to have their way with women. In practice, fear of pregnancy has not stopped men from forcing themselves on their wives. It is not worthy of much more than disdain.

The idea that playing Russian Roulette, especially at various tricky times during the marriage (economics, family illness, and so forth), furthers intimacy and so forth is downright questionable. In many cases, it clearly is counterproductive. It also leads to hypocrisy. The Catholic Church is against "any action which either before, at the moment of or after sexual intercourse, is specifically intended to prevent procreation." It is sophistry to focus on "specifically" and therefore allow the rhythm method. A method that is "intended to prevent procreation." A measure that "frustrates" the unitive function of marriage ... pulling the couple apart a chunk of the time.

It doesn't hold up to scrutiny ... Vatican II made a big mistake by not taking the dissident view among theologians and allowing them. Anyway, the fight emphasizes the importance of first principles. The current leadership is bad for any number of reasons, the bad way they lead is but one.

Various

Legal: Dahlia Lithwick has a new column up on the ongoing lawsuits vs. lethal injection protocols. I find it a bit too dismissive; meanwhile, see also here and here.

CIA Mess: Lots of talk about the sudden resignation of the head of the CIA in the blogosphere. Looks pretty bad, doesn't it? If this was Great Britain, a change of government would have occurred by now. You know, for the safety of the public good alone. Again, you know, impeachment is for that too. Democratic Congress doesn't mean BushCo is gone. Clinton showed the limits of the opposition party controlling Congress. Yeah, I know, impeachment is academic. A warning all the same. Oh, who was in power in October 2002?

Movies: The latest "Brits deep down aren't quite as conformist as you think they are" / crowd pleaser flick is Kinky Boots. A somewhat nebbish sort of man decides to save his father's shoe business by specializing in the drag queen market [travestites wear women's clothing, drag queens can pull it off]. Putting aside some tedious plot driven moments, it is an overall pleasing sort of movie. Chiwetel Ejiofor, a British actor popping up in various roles (not to my knowledge The Crying Game sort of things before now) as a drag queen/designer steals the movie. Drag queens are interesting overall -- playing with genders and so forth.

My movie companion, a woman in all the usual ways, noted she simply could not pull off wearing heels. He does and a lot more while having charisma to spare. She also noted that everyone in the movie looked cutesy and ordinary (you know, other than the drag queen sort of thing). True too -- adds to the crowd pleaser flavor. Need more movies here (The Station Agent comes to mind) where the characters feel down to earth and ordinary on some core level.

Sometimes, we want larger than life figures, but sometimes down to earth works just find. Michelle Williams, who has a small roll in TSA, has a bit of both. [She hooked up with her "husband" in BM in real life.] It's like Paige in Degrassi ... the alpha chick ... clearly star presence, but doesn't look like a pin-up model either. I like that sort of thing -- over the top people of all sizes are a bit overwhelming.

Mets: Well, those were amazing wins ... root canal surgery would be less painful and stressful, but vs. the Braves, the fans will take 'em.

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.