Some Reading

And Also: Clint Eastwood has suggested that Gran Torino will be his last film as an actor. Well, either way, it was a superior work, including his direction and even his woeful singing of a few verses of the song at the end. We like his old angry man who finds a connection with a Hmong family next store in large part because we like and know him, but the film works on its own merits. I thought the ending was better than we might have expected. The actress who plays the teen daughter next store who knows how to handle him is also a find.

Though not an Incredibles fan, I am a fan of the voice of the daughter -- Sarah Vowell, who provides analysis of the day on public radio with the distinctive somewhat whiny (and/or creepy) voice of hers. In a sideway association she might appreciate, it seems fitting someone some supportive of the written word would have such a last name. I read a guest column she wrote in the NYT some months back, and it fit her usual slightly skewered progressive views of things, and suggests her skills in that format. I'm not sure how good Vowell handles long form, though am interested in her latest work on the Puritans.

I wanted to wait until obtaining the audiobook version of Assassination Vacation because listening her voice would be half the fun. [The local library system doesn't have it for some reason, so I did not get it until recently.] A few years back, I saw/heard her on C-SPAN promoting the book. It sounded like an amusing take on history, focusing on the three 19th Century (counting McKinley, killed in 1901) presidents who were assassinated, providing some interesting tangents to the main events and her own experiences (with sister, small nephew, etc.) looking at the various landmarks and such. Vowell also considers current day parallels (c. 2005), including how both Iraq and the Spanish-American War were optional and based on dubious claims.

Some over at Amazon don't like these latter details, in effect suggesting there was some sort of false advertising or something. This includes those who simply didn't like her anti-Bush comments, which were sprinkled around, but not shoved down our throats repeatedly. Why is the book called an "Assassination Vacation," if it was not supposed to be in some fashion an expression of her personal experience? The book was not meant to be a formal impersonal history, and history is in part studied to learn lessons applicable to the present. The Founding Fathers, for example used history a lot for lessons on present activity. I understand that some people might not be in the mood for her book, but it annoys me when they attack it on false pretenses.

The audio has various guest voices to handle various quotes she provided of historical figures, some choices rather interesting -- why exactly is Conan O'Brien on hand to voice repeat assassination witness Robert Todd Lincoln (the guy even was still alive when President Harding died prematurely, albeit of natural causes) or Jon Stewart as President James A. Garfield? How about Steven King as Lincoln? A bit of an inside joke of sorts, perhaps as a small way to promote the audiobook. Putting aside nuts like Charles Guiteau ("I didn't kill Garfield! I just shot him!"), they did it remarkably straight, though it is hard to listen to Stewart and not hear a bit of whimsy. Anyway, it doesn't add too much to the proceedings, but not a bad touch.

Vowell is inherently goofy, which is probably a good way to handle history and life in general. As to the book, mixed bag. Hearing about Garfield's lesser known love of reading or how his killer was associated to a 19th Century free love community (which didn't much love him) and so forth provides some interesting material. The aside on Hillary Clinton's predecessor William Seward's Alaska connection, down to some strange totem poles, suggests some of the details that fascinate her, but might bore some others. It starts well with many details about the Lincoln assassination, so much that I wondered when we would get to the others.

We hear more about a marker in honor of Garfield than his last days (e.g., was he conscious much of the time? if so, what did he do or say? the book notes at one point it looked like McKinley might survive ... I didn't know he lingered at all). By the time the book honestly seemed to ramble on about Ted Roosevelt, I was a tad bit bored. And, then she has an extended discussion on certain types of monuments and a closing bit that is supposed to tie things together that really was tedious. One criticism from mixed reports at Amazon was that the book could have used some more editing. On that, I agree. Also, she seemed to rush the second two presidents some, or (to the degree the audio was abridged) the editors did. Since we already know so much about Lincoln, this is unfortunate. And, it ended on a weak note.

Limited recommendation. I enjoyed Converting Kate more overall. Partially inspired by her own life, but putting things into the life of a teen, Beckie Weinheimer's first novel concerns a fifteen-year-old girl who finds the faith of her mother's strongly conservative church no longer works for her. The tipping point was the death of her atheist father, who the mother has lost faith in some time before, leading to their divorce. The danger of rushing into marriage out of love without hooking up as friends too is a lesson of this rewarding book for teens that adults might enjoy as well. As one writer of "young adult" fiction once wrote:

I like to think that I write about young people but not exclusively for them. Down with distinctions. … well written stories that happen to be about the young can and should be read without apology by adults. If I have, so far, written primarily about young people, it is probably because in my life adolescence is inescapable. Two adolescents are permanent residents [1980] of my house. I taught for many years in a public high school. My own childhood and teenage years stand out in sharp focus for me, most of the time, than more recent stages of my life. Finally, I like young people enormously. I hope I convey that, above all, in my books.

-- Robin F. Brancato

One of the book's messages is that it might be better to not be so sure about things, something Kate learns from the experiences in her new school far away from her old home. These experiences of high school life ring true, including the many sides of the students there. The book is also to be honored for addressing the touchy area of religion, highlighting in part the path to a successful religious group for teens. Some are in awe of the size some evangelical churches, looking more like malls than anything else. But, perhaps some think religion is too small a part of life, something to do for an hour, the rest to be used in other ways. Successful communities know what their people need.

When I was a child, I spake as a child, I understood as a child, I thought as a child: but when I became a man, I put away childish things.

For now we see through a glass, darkly; but then face to face: now I know in part; but then shall I know even as also I am known.

And now abideth faith, hope, charity, these three; but the greatest of these is charity.

I Corinthians 13 is an important part of the book as well, though its version (KJV) translates "love" (RSV) as "charity."* This is a notable difference; the two words not really the same. The latter translation is important also in that a favorite cousin of Kate is named Charity. The book highlights the "for now we see through a glass, darkly" (my RSV translation says "in a mirror dimly," less poetic) verse, which (as does her mom) originally emphasized that believers in Christ will at some point truly understand.

We often, for good or ill, supply different meanings to what we read than the authors did themselves, so it is okay if some readers favor the doubt. This is reflected in a Jewish parable. A group of rabbis dispute a point and God butts in. This doesn't go over that well. God gave the Torah to the Jews, now it is their turn to interpret it. God laughs; his creation has him beat. For good or ill, even true believers must admit that the meaning of the Bible is left up to them, if only as the receivers of God’s word. They who are still like children here on earth, children who have problems processing things.

Well, the part about thinking like a child is quite believable. That might explain some things said these days by people who one might think would know better.

---

* "Charity" does come from a word that means "love" and my Merriam Webster's even talks about its connection to "Christian love," but of course, the word "charity" now has a different connotation in most cases.

Muddy Thinking

Update: More on the second issue, including the double standard involved. Also, seems (see, e.g. Glenn Greenwald today) that Obama is clearly (no shock) the one who made the pick. The congressional committee just handles the logistics. Still would be "advancing" the problem.

The Atlantic's Ross Douthat has a post today -- "Thinking About Torture" -- which, he acknowledges quite remarkably, is the first time he has "written anything substantial, ever, about America's treatment of detainees in the War on Terror." He's abstained until today due to what he calls "a desire to avoid taking on a fraught and desperately importantly (sic) subject without feeling extremely confident about my own views on the subject."

RD recently had an op-ed over at NYT on how he couldn't compromise on "extreme" things like the Casey abortion ruling. The pro-life side, something he is more open about writing about, was said to be successful from the 1990s on because of their moderation (some naysayers noted national laws protecting abortion access helped and not committing violence is not really too big a sign you are "moderate"). Strangely, here I thought all the regulations Casey allows is evidence of "moderation." Or, that even without Casey (or Roe), most states (especially populated ones like New York, California and Florida) would have abortion rights anyway.

RD's "muddy" views here did not lead him to hold back on writing about the topic. Seems like a somewhat inconsistent respect for the life and liberty of human beings. On that front, some have been annoyed that Obama has not been totally consistent about the rights of homosexuals. I myself have noted that his reasoning on why he is against same sex marriage on public policy grounds (not just "I'm against abortion, but it's a personal call") was -- how to say this -- b.s. Audacity of Hope references his religious beliefs and the realization such public policy positions, how unfortunate, hurt some people's feelings.

Ditto having homophobes perform your invocation. But, hey, there aren't any religious leaders who are pro-gay rights, right? Dr. Rick Warren is a friend of Obama, has put for a pleasing face, and has said some nice things as to AIDS care, environmentalism and such. But:

Pastor Warren, while enjoying a reputation as a moderate based on his affable personality and his church's engagement on issues like AIDS in Africa, has said that the real difference between James Dobson and himself is one of tone rather than substance. He has recently compared marriage by loving and committed same-sex couples to incest and pedophilia. He has repeated the Religious Right's big lie that supporters of equality for gay Americans are out to silence pastors. He has called Christians who advance a social gospel Marxists. He is adamantly opposed to women having a legal right to choose an abortion.

The link adds more details that underline that this is not just about homosexuality (it's only equality; we are talking pragmatism here!). How about Warren going on right wing talk shows supporting violence against Iran and its leaders? How very Christian of him. Can't we show people that when you say "religious," you don't mean right wing hack? This will give prestige to the man and his cause. Some over at TPM whine about how this is much ado about nothing. This is sort of strange given that one value of Obama in the eyes of many in that camp is symbolic, his leadership and message. Some also might give more value to an invocation because they take it seriously. But, the focus on gays, as if this is all that the critics are upset about is particularly galling.

Finally, some point to the fact that the Joint Congressional Committee on Inaugural Ceremonies is behind the appointment. This is a figleaf comparable to the "Obama didn't say anything about Lieberman" dodge, when it is clear he "said" quite a lot to the degree such things matter. And, this is just what many who used him as an excuse (well, Obama said we should focus on other things, not to player hate!) showed. Anyways, the fact members of my representatives, a governmental body, was "to blame" or whatever, does not make me feel any better.

It even raises some First Amendment issues in my eyes. TPM, who has been level-headed on Obama critics thus far, has it right here. This is wrong. The fact it isn't "shit how could I have voted for this guy" wrong doesn't change that.

Whistleblower Underlines Suspect News Coverage

And Also: Drake and Josh partially had the excuse that it was a "reunion movies" type of thing, which especially in expanded form often has problems. But, iCarly was a regular episode, so has more to answer for its lame Christmas Carol knock-off ... serious Carly is generally a bad idea. We simply don't watch the show to see her cry; even her being really mad at her bro is a bit much. The Hallmark Xmas movie with Henry Winkler (often quite good post-Fonzie) and his character's cute niece that also was on last weekend was a bit predictable, but much better.

Newsweek has a story on the former federal prosecutor who was one of the whistleblowers involved in the illegal surveillance story that the NYT delayed for so long, including after the 2004 elections. The guy, with little warning (ads during Olberman was more focused on lame shoe throwing visuals), was on Rachel Maddow last night. We learn that he blinks a lot and basically thinks the Bush Administration breaks the law in various ways. This does not diminish what he did, though one comment (John) here suggests that such hatred does just that. It sounds like another "they just hate Bush" whine, ignoring that they dislike the guy for a bloody reason.

Anyway, what do you do when your government is breaking the law? Tricky business, especially when you are in their midst and they do not seem to care. More so when secret information is involved. Some argue -- I find this too high of a standard -- he just didn't try hard enough to work within challenges first. Partially I say this because how exactly do we know what would work, not just some technical show that would be meaningless. I refer back to this comment string, including the comments of "Fraud Guy" to underline how the story here seems mixed. Also, as to what he knew, (1) he is not going to publicly say anything and (2) he was but one source.

Rachel referenced the refusal of his own colleagues to do anything. But, it was a bit vague: we don't learn actually the chain of command here and such. The secrecy issue (overblown, selectively honored and not the highest good, especially when criminality is involved) also wasn't addressed. This is not to say he was wrong because of the secrecy. But, civil disobedience is not black/white simply because it sometimes is justified. This one-sided, woefully incomplete affair was sadly not atypical in the least. Keith Olberman is too much of a clown, especially with his constant FOX News gotchas (oh shut up already), but Rachel too speaks to the choir.

I'm part of the choir. Problem is, I too want a bit more diversity in my music. Maddow, albeit at times is predictable ways, tends to be more level-headed about her side. Playful times with opponents on talking head shows helped there. Sadly, her show is not really so much better than the norms so many criticize on the "MSM," in part because she basically is part of it. Some on comment threads realize the fact. One negatively compared her to Bill Moyers (Glen Greenwald was on both). But, as I have noted in the past, BM is no nirvana. He too seems to speak to the choir. The fact it is an "alternative" choir (see also, Democracy Now!) is relevant, but only so much.*

If anything, this underlines the need for diversity in media, competition ensuring that biases and incomplete coverage in some fashion cancel out and build on each other. This only helps so much, since people tend to view only certain media and the standard line** often is all over the place, even if one disagrees with it in some fashion. But, it helps some.

---

* As I noted, a couple was one the show some months back in part because they were a successful professional black couple who divided between Clinton and Obama. Moyers for some reason didn't ask them about a few of the key things that led many not to like Clinton.

On another show, he had Jeremiah Wright on. It basically gave him a chance to tell his side of the story. Important. But, Moyers (in part claiming "time restraints") failed to ask him to answer for a few of the more controversial things he said. Why the hell not? This underlines, all over the place, talking past each other that avoids core issues. It soon looks mighty hopeless.

** This happens all over the place. I referenced this in my football comments. The SL was that the Giants had a horrible game last Sunday. True. But, the game was clinched by a thirty eight yard run with barely two minutes to play. The score was 7-3 at the end of the Third Quarter. This was not a game where the Giants never had a chance. Not with 14-8 mid-4th and a stop meaning one drive could bring the go ahead score.

Electoral Day

Presidential electors vote today, it's official in January. A N.Y. elector supports a popular vote system. A NYT piece supports a "buddy system" to promote district voting in a way that avoids unilateral disarmament. Indiana, a surprise Obama pick, shows how electors are no longer elitist. And, though I think they can (see Art. II, as to "manner" of selection), Indiana doesn't require i.d. for them.

Football Players and Other Criminals

The Bills gave the Jets a gift win, while the Giants scored three times, but only got eight points. A bad game should not erase the fact that even then, only the 4th Quarter gave Dallas the game. Meanwhile, more evidence that the Bush Administration is full of criminals ... let's move on. Can't divide the country by doing anything! Off the table! About as sad as KC (they won this year, really!) and Detroit (0-14) football. Packers eliminated.

As with "christian," what is "religion" really about?

And Also: It is foolhardy to give A.J. Burnett a five year contract with his injury prone career. The Yanks apparently didn't learn enough from Carl "a few games in four years" Pavano. Other than the name, one worries some about the health of the new Mets pick-up of Putz, but they were a bit desperate to improve the bullpen. Finally, the Yanks have enough starting pitching (even without Pettite), so why not let the Mets have a real shot at Lowe?

The first step to solving this conundrum is to unpack the different components of religion. In my own work, I have argued that all humans, even young children, tacitly hold some supernatural beliefs, most notably the dualistic view that bodies and minds are distinct. (Most Americans who describe themselves as atheists, for instance, nonetheless believe that their souls will survive the death of their bodies.) Other aspects of religion vary across cultures and across individuals within cultures. There are factual beliefs, such as the idea that there exists a single god that performs miracles, and moral beliefs, like the conviction that abortion is murder. There are religious practices, such as the sacrament or the lighting of Sabbath candles. And there is the community that a religion brings with it—the people who are part of your church, synagogue, or mosque.

-- Does Religion Make You Nice? Does atheism make you mean?

We see here a sign that "religion" is about a lot more than God per se. When you talk about "religion," most will suggest that you are talking about God in some fashion, or perhaps the spiritual realm, since Buddhists and the like might not accept the traditional understanding of "God." And, this as a general matter, is often true. But, not in some important ways, and for some, not at all.

Why is one let's say a Catholic? Is it a result of some deep contemplation of the various options out there, resulting in a conclusion that its dogma is the best for them? No. It is more a result of family and other issues. In fact, for many evangelicals, there is a search for a church that fits. This fit is a mixture of belief, the minister and faith community involved, the resources the church offers, and so forth. The belief in God is only a relatively small aspect of all of this. Don't get me wrong. It is a fundamental aspect that provides a deep basis of the faith of many. But, still, I think it is not something that guides members on a day to day basis at all. Or, do we follow the commandments on a daily basis with the constant thought "must do it ... God says so!"

What is "religion" after all? I can believe there is a God, but does this really make me "religious?" Loads of people believe in God and aren't religious in any real way. Religion ultimately is practice. It is about dogma, ceremonies, rituals, things we find sacred, and so forth. In some special way, it is about the meaning we supply to our life and existence, and the plan we follow to live this out. It is more than -- if this is a key aspect -- than conscience and morality.* It is those things in action. Such things exist if we believe in God as a deep direct presence, as a more general one that is more akin to the "nature's God" of Jefferson (who spoke about life after death even when not believing in Jesus' miracles), or talking about the ways of nature and our place within it.

Religion more about practices and ceremony, the sacred and profane, than belief in God per se. [For many Jews and Muslims, unlike many Christians, religion is not about prayer and church per se, but everyday actions. Actions some do even though they are in effect atheists.] This is so even if many take as a given that God exists. Being a member of a congregation of believers [this includes belief in a cause or ideology, so can be done on one's own as well] provides a certain purpose to many people that is most often directly felt in tangible ways. The "sacrament" of birth or marriage has a holy aspect that is not limited to the God often cited in "ceremonies" involving them. A marriage ceremony need not be at a church to have a sacred flavor, one absent at City Hall. Just as one need not believe in God to think abortion is murder, or need not to believe in God to think abortion is a just choice in certain cases.

[Fact is, ideas about abortion and homosexuality underline that "God" alone isn't the final question. It is telling that people say we were created in the image and likeness of God. One might argue the reverse.]

It is this "ceremonial" aspect, not the supernatural itself, that is key to religion. And, it is the purpose and special, yes, "sacred," value given to various things (including humanity) that is often key to happiness. I reject the idea that "atheists" per se don't have such things, especially since many who believe in God are much more empty in this regard. But, perhaps, "religion" writ large does matter here. It is not just about God after all. In fact, in its most important aspects, many it is not necessarily about God at all. The stereotypes about atheists don't help, surely.

Care with terms works across the board. "Religion" is a dirty word for some, but if belief in the supernatural is but a part, maybe not even the most important (or even necessary, which is where I lean), it should be looked at with care even by atheists. In fact, some -- like Sam Harris -- do at times accept that some aspect of the term can apply even to atheists.** Harris notes at one point, for instance:

But we can have ethical and spiritual lives without lying to ourselves and to others and without pretending to be certain about things we are clearly not certain about.

He also noted: "I am not criticizing faith as a positive attitude in the face of uncertainty." Also, contra to another post in reply to this article, he later notes: "I don't know what happens after death." Speaks of "mystical experiences" and the "value of community." See also, here. Religion without all of that would be of little beneficial value. Surely, he repeatedly is opposed to "religion" as generally understood, but that is my point here. Our stereotypical view as compared to what is the case in actuality.

Maybe, we need a new word? It's like when someone says you are "christian" and really they are saying you are a good person. For many, this includes believing in God, for others, it helps, for some, it is not quite what they mean at all. Same thing when trying to determine how to be "nice."

---

* Religious freedom would include making choices regarding God and not favoring those that choose to model morality and such on God, but matters of conscience are probably also a necessary aspect ("penumbra" if you like) even if seen as a freestanding matter. As Justice Douglas (in a dissenting opinion also making the equal protection point) once noted:

It is true that the First Amendment speaks of the free exercise of religion, not of the free exercise of conscience or belief. Yet conscience and belief are the main ingredients of First Amendment rights. They are the bedrock of free speech as well as religion. The implied First Amendment right of "conscience" is certainly as high as the "right of association" which we recognized. Some indeed have thought it higher. Conscience is often the echo of religious faith. But, as this case illustrates, it may also be the product of travail, meditation, or sudden revelation related to a moral comprehension of the dimensions of a problem, not to a religion in the ordinary sense.

Citations omitted. On that general subject, atheist pro-life sorts like Nat Hentoff notwithstanding, many would agree that certain positions are not "secular," putting aside the fact that they do not necessarily rise or fall on the existence of God.

** For instance, some atheists are part of Unitarian Universalism, which is here defined as "not an atheist movement, but a religious movement into which some atheists may comfortably fit."

HARVARD BEATS YALE 29–29

And Also: Chasing Lolita: How Popular Culture Corrupted Nabokov’s Little Girl All Over Again by Graham Vickers is an enjoyable examination of the background of the book, adaptations of it and its context before and after its production. And, I agree -- the source is to be recommended as is the second film adaptation. I only saw a few minutes of the first one.

Various channels provide replay of sports games, past and present, and fans provide many willing viewers. A few times, analysis is supplied that puts things in historical context, or players involved supply input. This is such an effort, involving a memorable come from behind "win" (according to the Harvard Crimson) in the last minute against heavily favored Yale. This was 1968, and they did not have OT, thus the final score. They did have a lot of excitement, some interesting back stories, good film of the game, and enjoyable talking heads, including someone on the Yale side that designated as the heavy.

1968 provides some historical context, including a Vietnam vet (who said he was spit at when he came home) playing along side strong opponents of the war. Harvard remarkably comes off as a blue collar team (Yale required formal wear at the dining hall), several players first timers in college. The actor Tommy Lee Jones (who dormed with Al Gore) was on the team and comes off wickedly low key here, including when noting Gore was pretty funny. For instance? Well, he figured a way to play Dixie on the new touch tone phones. They also managed to cook a Thanksgiving turkey in the fire place once. Meanwhile, one of the Yale players bunked with George W. Bush, though that cheerleader (all male corps) had left by the time of the game.

The game is exciting, Harvard a big underdog, but no dog -- both teams were undefeated at that point, even if people expect the "BD" (yes, Doonesbury's BD is based on him) and the Yale team (another player was dating Meryl Streep at the time) was more clearly the offensive powerhouse. They rarely even had to try for field goals and was up by 22-0, late Second Quarter. They went for two that last time probably to avoid a possible tie. One might also thing the fact that (after the back-up QB was inserted) Harvard missing an extra point might have done the trick. This required not only a late score (with :42 left), but two two point conversions (they got the onside kick and scored at the end of regulation), one a retry after a dubious pass interference call.

Yale miscues, including incomplete passes when more milking of the clock would have helped (admittedly, when the score was 29-13), a couple key penalties, an ill advised (and unexplained) time out with 1:13 left, and a suspect onside kick defense all helped things along. TLJ noted that miss extra point was trouble, but all it really did was make it likely that Harvard would only go for two the second time. Anyway, good documentary with some quite funny moments. And, the passage of time didn't treat all the players equally well.

BD (aka "God") surely doesn't look like football material now!

Senate Republicans: FU Unions!

Though AP also cites opposition to environmental standards, the Senate Republicans are blaming unions for the failure of a bailout of the automobile industry, one that fell because they didn't want to give unions two more years to deal with cuts. This per a plan supported by the House, a majority of the Senate (the cloture vote failed 52-35 with Harry voting with the minority for procedural reasons), and the President.

If the Senate Republicans were serious, and the claims of fiscal responsibility ring false too, something of this magnitude wouldn't fall on that. They apparently weren't, except to screw unions. Key senators voted in support of foreign car plants with less benefits (why do they hate America?), underlining the importance of things like health care reform and trade policy. One analysis on the benefits involved, one that supports the bailout (stop the bleeding, then deal with the chronic condition), points out two important matters:

These retirees make up arguably Detroit’s best case for a bailout. The Big Three and the U.A.W. had the bad luck of helping to create the middleclass in a country where individual companies — as opposed to all of society — must shoulder much of the burden of paying for retirement. ...

But Congress and the Obama administration shouldn't fool themselves into thinking that they can preserve the Big Three in anything like their current form. Very soon, they need to shrink to a size that reflects the American public’s collective judgment about the quality of their products.

Yes, this is in large part about unions and how they were important in protecting the middle class. Contra lower pay workers in Republican rich former Confederacy states that have less economic well being across the board. After all, costs were not such a big issue when the banks got theirs. This is also about broad structural matters, which need to be fixed as well. We should include politics here, even if some want to blame the Constitution per se.

Did that force about ten key Dems to vote against the bill? For the leadership to make it easy for a minority to do this, when rubbing their nose into it etc. was the right path? For instance, force a filibuster, keep the senators in session, thru Christmas if necessary. From the beginning, have a united front (with a few Republicans joining in) underlining the alternative is unforgivable. How a majority supports this, including something like forty Republicans in the House, the President and the President-Elect.

Play hardball, like Republicans did when THEY were in the majority. Let us see what will happen. I have this idea, perhaps misguided, that waiting six weeks or so, will not be disastrous in the long term. For instance, bankruptcy takes time, right? Still, one does worry. After awhile, you know, something bad might really happen to the economy or something.

Clothing and Stuff

I'm not sure if Lieberman will attract lib blog readers to buy a product, but this is a creative ad. We had some yo yo weather here, up around 60, down around 20. And, it will be in the 30s, 40s, and 50s the next few days. Feels a lot like ... Easter?

Talking about clothes related subjects, Broadsheet over at Salon is getting bitchy:

At the heart of what bugs me about the Clothes That Got Me Laid is the lip service it pays to third-wave feminism. Contrary to popular stereotype, the movement isn't just about wearing makeup and sleeping around. It's about individuality, freedom and personal agency.

As some of the comments noted, it is partially about that all the same. Just ask the women at Feministing. One female response:

when i was in college if we wanted to get hit on, we wore our best fitting jeans and a stretchy tight low cut shirt that we called "the boob shirt".

if we didn't want to get hit on, we threw an oversized plaid flannel shirt over the boob shirt.

smells like teen spirit.

Some responses were of the "hey, it's just about the pussy" variety (on that subject ... I include this partially since I always thought his name brought to mind "vulgar," so why not go with it?), which is stupid. Next up, makeup? Heck, I don't care about makeup. Just a set of tits!

Anyway, as one reply noted, the piece was just what the linked blog wanted -- attention! Plus, it is fun. We are often serious here at JET, but we are all for fun too. Our email address is not exactly formal. BTW, I referenced Feministing above, and some of the women there are clearly sex friendly, but sometimes they are a bit too serious about themselves. This too, even if non-PC, can be fun. See, e.g., some of their examples of sexist products.

Meanwhile, the blog recently linked the latest from the consistently amusing "Target Women" gal.

Wendy and Lucy

As noted in a good review at IMBD, Wendy (well played by Michelle Williams, an excellent actress) and Lucy (a dog) "combines an intimate personal story with a reflection of the malaise felt in the country today" via a small but powerful film about a down on her luck young women searching for her dog. Has many powerful touches, including a scary scene involving an unhinged drifter. Timely look at the human experience. Update: The 'R' rating for "language" is totally lame. But, see here.

Privileges or Immunities Clause Redux

And Also: It's too bad Mike Royko isn't around today, huh? By one account, the state AG (an unsavory sort that will match Schumer in personality) Andrew Cuomo and the like nepotism bait (if with less public service) Caroline Kennedy are the top possibles to replace HC. Lovely.

[Below, I originally cited the "Privileges and Immunities" Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment when actually it should be "or" as the opening quote shows. For some reason, the P&I of Art. IV was changed and a new conjunction used. Literalists might suggest some difference, but I sort of doubt it has any real effect. But, the error deserves correction all the same.]

All persons born or naturalized within the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States, nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law, nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

-- Fourteenth Amendment, Section 1.

A guest blogger (some of the regulars are starting to get tiresome) at Balkanization brought to the readers attention a recent article on the Privileges or Immunities Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Substantive liberty as applied to state action is generally protected in the federal courts by means of the Due Process Clause in large part because the Slaughterhouse Cases supplied a narrow reading to the former provision, if by a 5-4 margin. [The case defined them to cover those "which own their existence to the Federal government, its national character, its Constitution, or its laws," providing a more expansive list in Twining v. N.J. (1908).] But, an open-ended security to liberty still was in the air, but like a dammed river, it was secured via a different route. Namely, the Due Process Clause with an assist at times from the Equal Protection Clause.

And, so is the case today, though Saenz v. Roe recently cited P or I in regard to discriminating in the realm of benefits depending on how long you resided in the state. Justice Thomas dissented, supporting a broad understanding of the clause but not thinking it covered such benefits, but the ruling as a whole has a certain flavor -- the right to become a state citizen on an equal basis, not a general concern with rights. So, using it to guide us to a new understanding of the clause is open to doubt. Likewise, it should be noted (it wasn't in the flawed article) that Justice Scalia split from Thomas (see Troxel v. Granville) respecting the the meaning of the clause; in fact, Scalia actually joined the majority in Saenz.

But, the article is correct that the Fourteenth Amendment's text and history is on the side of a broad interpretation of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. Since critics of substantive due process often (a bit tediously) focus on text, and history also is relied upon (especially rhetorically) by others, "text and history" matters. The article provides the first clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as a united whole -- birthright federal citizenship brings with it "privileges or immunities" (rights), rights that must be secured equally, and by means of fair procedures. The tie to national citizenship underlines the necessity of federal protections, including by the courts, as compared to pre-Civil War realities. Likewise, as Justice Ginsburg has noted, equal citizenship requires such things as control of "bodily autonomy and integrity."

The path taken now is protection of "liberty" per the Due Process Clause, which has (as Justice Stevens etc. have noted) origins in the Declaration of Independence. This has various benefits. First, and the article ignores the point, this applies to all persons. Where do the millions of non-citizens look under a regime that protects that rights of "citizens" after all? Some supporters of the P or I path point, easily enough, to the Equal Protection Clause. This is an indirect means that implies that lawful aliens are in some fashion a second class group, at least, more so than focusing on "persons." Comparably, some do not use references to the "right of the people" in the Bill of Rights to apply just to citizens.* Second, "privileges and immunities" does not sound as powerful as "liberty." It sounds like something given on sufferance.

Finally, it has a long history. See, e.g., Justice Harlan's dissent in Poe v. Ullman. There is an understanding, partially correct, that use of the Due Process Clause was an answer to the evisceration of the Privileges or Immunities Clause. But, this is only part of the story. Substantive due process -- and citations of Dred Scott underline the point in a negative way -- was already in the air. There was a radical Republican understanding of the provision -- "liberty" was protected, so could not be removed without due process. What did that mean? Well, simply put, it included wrongful deprivation of natural rights. This was the point, the other way, in Dred Scott. Congress was held not to have the power to deprive slaveholders their property to bring slaves into federal territories. A clear provision (cf. the ban on the international slave trade) might do the trick.

"Due process of law" developed from a provision in the Magna Charta concerning deprivation of rights by the "law of the land." Basically, the argument here is/was that there were certain rights that were basic to freedom, rights no free nation could legitimately deny. QED, there would be no "due process" available to do so. Rights that existed even without explicit enumeration. See, the Ninth Amendment, and life before the BOR were ratified. Those who argued the BOR were redundant very well might have also noted that wrongful congressional deprivation of its liberties would not be "due process" and thus actionable in federal court. The P or I, like the BOR, provides explicit federal force to rights. This would be particularly important when previously their security was mostly left to the states, leading to wrongs like slavery.

But, and in his dissent Justice Bradley in Slaughterhouse Cases clearly referenced the fact, due process on its own could arguably carry the load. The criticism of substantive due process also have a somewhat tired air in other ways. Dred Scott and Lochner are trotted out as scare tactics. But, use of substantive due process is not the flaw in either. It was barely used in Dred Scott, which was more about a twisted view of black citizenship and the reach of the territory clause. Likewise, the basic right to property is not disputed; it is the reach of its regulation. The same applies to the right to contract (deemed wrongly infringed via a "class" legislation favoring one group of workers without legitimate health justification) at issue in Lochner.

As the article notes:

Indeed, in discussing the fundamental rights of citizenship, the framers regularly included fundamental rights – such as the right of access to courts, the right to enter into contracts and enjoy the fruits of one’s labor, the right to free movement, the right to personal security and bodily integrity, and the right to have a family and direct the upbringing of children – that have no obvious textual basis in the Bill of Rights.

Lochner is used as a specter by two groups -- those who fear giving courts open-ended power to review laws generally and those who oppose them doing so in the economic realm in particular. The post-New Deal regime left the economic field largely (but not completely) to the legislative process, but provided some special protection to individual liberty of a more private sort. Justice Douglas (see Griswold; Doe v. Bolton, concurring opinion) refused to consider security of a right to privacy a matter of "substantive due process," as if the term only applied to a certain type of adjudication. On this point, Justice Stewart (see his concurrence in Roe v. Wade) is more honest. And, some security to the economic realm is important for liberty too.

Anyway, the fear of giving the courts too much power was at the heart of the majority opinion in the Slaughterhouse Cases, and citations to the P or I Clause will only help if the text/history argument convinces. It does not for the likes of Justice Scalia, just like Justice Black (who cited history to use the clause to incorporate the Bill of Rights) was not convinced it provided an open-ended security of liberty. Even if the Framers were particularly concerned with the private lives of slaves being violated or the like. The article also notes the incorporation of the Second Amendment can serve as a platform for its purposes too, since some who support that cite the clause. Well, incorporation makes sense, and the clause was used by late 19th Century sorts who tried that route.

But, we saw the dispute over history when the Court debated the Second Amendment, just as different justices interpreted the origins of the religion clause differently. This appeal to unity, thus is a bit cloudy. And, the article does not help by its somewhat selective overview. All the same, its bottom line is correct: the P or I Clause is an important aspect of the Fourteenth Amendment, one with text and history that can better be used in promotion of substantive liberty. As with using the Third Amendment to protect privacy and the supremacy of the civil over the military power, this mining of the past has force. OTOH, with reflection, I'm not sure focusing on a citizenship clause (which does have a lot to offer, including in areas like education) is such a good idea. The liberty of "persons" has a more 21st Century feel.

Overall, it's good, but not as good as it thinks.

---

* Justice Thomas notes in his dissent in Saenz:

The colonists’ repeated assertions that they maintained the rights, privileges and immunities of persons “born within the realm of England” and “natural born” persons suggests that, at the time of the founding, the terms “privileges” and “immunities” (and their counterparts) were understood to refer to those fundamental rights and liberties specifically enjoyed by English citizens, and more broadly, by all persons.

Perhaps, (per John Hart Ely, see Akhil Amar's discussion in his own Bill of Rights, which favors the equal protection approach and/or aliens as third party security to the rights of citizens), "privileges and immunities of citizenship" is a term of art that applies to the subject matter, not the recipients alone. Comparably, as Justice Kennedy noted in his separate opinion on a somewhat related subject: "the right of the people" ... "may be interpreted to underscore the importance of the right, rather than to restrict the category of persons who may assert it."

Or, to broaden the class, legal aliens might be among "the people" involved. See, Justice Stevens opinion. This would include those whose status is open to debate. All the same, security of "persons" per the Due Process Clause has clearest breadth. One matching current sentiment.

[Update: After all, today is the anniversary of the passage of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights. This is a problem, even when the person isn't a citizen.]

Bible and Florida Court On Gays

And Also: David Letterman was very good yesterday, including his announcement that he will be the next senator from New York. On that general subject, what is up with the governor of Illinois? Governors in this area of the country (see also, NY) are just giving the party a bad name! Also, was Jennifer Connelly wearing shoulder pads? Finally, closed caption replaced her [deleted] magnet joke with "chick" magnet. She didn't say that people!

[Florida Court: Apropos of the below discussion, see this discussion of a state judge holding Florida's outlier broad ban on same sex individuals adopting (foster care is acceptable) is unconstitutional. The citation of the facts in the ruling is particularly touching as is focus on the rights of the children.

I'm unclear, however, why this is not a "fundamental rights" case given family life is involved. As to equal protection, state precedent bars a higher test than rational basis. The judge appears to reference the federal ruling (also arguing the last five years brought more clarity in research supporting such adoptions) on the matter, but privacy is protected under the state constitution too.]

There was one bit in Bart Ehrman's book that bothered me, that is, not directly related to the subject matter at hand. It is an example of stretching to make a problem easier than it really is, and is also see in the new Prop 8 musical (see mention of shrimp). To wit:

No special emphasis is placed on one of these laws over the others -- they are all part of the biblical law. Yet, in parts of society, gay relations are condemned, while eating a ham sandwich during lunch break on a Saturday workday is perfectly acceptable.

Or, as Jesus (Jack Black) says in the musical -- they pick and choose. Sure enough. But, sexual roles are different. Citation of the Old Testament is hazardous, no matter what you are talking about in the realm of morals, since mosaic law is chock full with such things. OTOH, the New Testament makes it clear that a follower of Christ need not follow mosaic law. You need not "pick and choose" to eat that ham sandwich. And, putting aside the new focus on Sunday (when he rose from the dead), Jesus was all for supporting the spirit of the law. Honor thy Sabbath Day comes in many forms, including some that involved work.

Ehrman knows better than focusing on this lame strand. Acts goes out of its way to have Peter eat with "unclean" sorts to underline the point. Paul was truly passionate on the point -- to be saved, you had to accept Christ died on the cross for our sins. His main audience was Gentiles, so had a reason to be firm on not needing to follow mosaic law to be saved. Jesus focused on the spirit of such laws; Paul went much further. In fact, it is somewhat dubious that Paul accepted the compromise that Acts 15 held was decided upon between Jewish and Gentile Christians, and even then, its nod to dietary laws (food with blood or that was strangled -- not "unclean" animals per se) was later interpreted broadly to mean a ban on murder. The laws of Exodus were not necessary.

Acts 15 did set forth a few guidelines. First, idolatry is covered, including food sacrificed to them. Well, this involves one of the Ten Commandments, so is no surprise. Let's say some sort of kosher animal treatment provision was also involved here. Again, this could include ham, just via pigs killed in a certain way. [A literal reading would allow shrimp, since it has no blood!] So, even putting aside later interpretations as post hoc rationalizations, this was a narrow provision vis-a-vis the Old Testament. Finally, "unchastity" is also banned. Paul, who if anything would think this list too broad, also dealt with sexual morality.

Surely, such matters are not the main point of the NT. In fact, the meaning of Jesus' death and Resurrection as well as things like the brotherhood of man (and other good stuff, which is sometimes selectively deemed "Christian" behavior) is much more important. So, emphasis on homosexuals even in this context is myopic. Likewise, "unchastity" and sexual morality is about a lot more than homosexuality. For instance, Jesus did not say anything about homosexuality, but did broadly (except perhaps for immorality, see Matthew) say divorce was wrong. And, Paul lists many immoral sexual practices, while "unnatural" sexual behaviors included old fashioned sex rules (e.g., women speaking out in church) that is generally seen as outdated, even by homophobes. This is important to underline.

But, the New Testament does touch upon sexual morality, including in the discussion that specifically lists the bare requirements of a moral Christian. It explicitly, except perhaps in a mild way, does not mandate mosaic dietary practices. We "pick and choose" by making same sex behavior as patently immoral as compared to divorce or fornication. And, certain rules in Pauline letters (albeit most probably not written by "Paul" himself) would be violated even by the role women are allowed by the Catholic Church.

So, a more careful application of the general point can be made. Just not a sloppy one.

Prohibition Ends

Few days late, but here are a few links in honor of Bye Bye Prohibition Day, anti-Drug Prohibition edition. The second from last is a somewhat out of date thing I wrote pre-blog. The second partially makes a good privacy argument. BTW, while checking links out, I saw this is now a porn site. I too enjoyed it.

Can We Start Criticizing It Yet?

Yes, Saddam Hussein was a monstrous tyrant who was responsible for the death of hundreds of thousands of his people. But most Iraqis say that their life was better under Saddam than under the Americans. In any case, it's not a matter of comparing body counts under Saddam and the U.S. occupation and saying that whoever killed less is better. You can't start a war that kills a large percentage of a nation's population, forces millions more into exile, ignites a savage sectarian conflict whose wounds could exist for generations, destroys entire cities and then declare that what you've done is morally justifiable, let alone that it can be characterized as a "victory."

-- Gary Kamiya

God's Problem

And Also: Not a good day for NY, though both football teams are in first place, and Dallas losing clinched the division for the Giants. The Titans and Cards also clinched, the former a first round bye, while Detroit couldn't beat the Viks' back-up (aka QB of the future). The Jets losing to both SF and Oakland is like the Mets threatening their playoff spot by failing to beat the Nats (Expos) and Marlins. Imagine if a Chad led Dolphins (with arguably the easiest schedule left) team goes last to first?! Possible.

One need not read long books by 19th Century Russian authors (who also have long names) to ponder the basic questions of the existence of suffering in this world with the assumption that God is ultimately in control (aka we are "under" [insert pronoun here] as schoolchildren daily say as part of "patriotic" rituals). As with the five year old who asks "who created God," or the Native American child who is told that the world is on the top of a bunch of turtles, and wonders what the last turtle is on, the questions are rather basic. Life is rather basic on some level. Our ability to make it complicated might be a reflection of our abilities, but that's another story.

Or, rather, part of the issue here. Bart D. Ehrman is a religious scholar and former pastor/evangelist sort who is the type that lead some to fear too much knowledge. For instance, his past works underlined the fact we "misquote" Jesus all the time, in part because our basic source of what he really said (the New Testament) was the result of various authors. The writing down of which was a rather haphazard process, even if we truly knew what they were trying to say at a distance of two thousand years. Not that the results cannot be useful or even entertaining (Ehrman enjoyed The Da Vinci Code, even if he wrote a book to underline its not to be taken seriously as fact). You should just not take it quite as seriously as some do.

Ehrman's path has led him from pastor to agnostic, which seems logical to me, but others with the same knowledge have gone another way. So, it's not compelled or anything, though I must admit that his p.o.v. works for me. Bias alert, perhaps. Anyway, his most recent book is God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question -- Why We Suffer. There appears to be four basic "solutions" here: suffering is punishment for our sins, suffering is a test of some sort, suffering exists but eventually God/Jesus will win, and suffering just is/so just accept it. Two strands of the last one: (1) how dare you peon mortals question God's plan, just look at what he did for you and how ignorant you are etc. (2) c'est la vie, so try to make the best of it.* He prefers this last one.

Ehrman isn't impressed with most of this. He sprinkles the book with descriptions of various suffering in the world, including of small children (also a technique in The Brothers Karamazov), which makes God look like a monster. Some test! What did they do wrong? etc. The idea that things will get better in some distant future (Paul et. al. thought it would be rather soon, and looked at things through a different physical universe, one where disease often was caused by demons etc.) also does not impress. It also is a bit of a cheat -- we don't understand a lot, but we do know that will happen. Why exactly? Because if not, things will be lousy? As to free will, which is not a major theme in the Bible according to the book, the payoff again seems unbalanced.

The "apocalyptic" view (shared by Jesus and Paul) is problematic in another way. This view doesn't really explain suffering per se -- it assumes that there is evil in the world, the evil forces (e.g., the demons who cause disease in the NT) causes suffering, but we have that turtle problem again. Why did God (assumed to be all powerful) allow the evil out in the first place? Some basically suggest God isn't all powerful. There is a fight between good and evil, God might be a great help here especially if you are suffering, but something of a fair fight it is. Ehrman isn't really comfortable about such an imperfect God (he is more of a GOD person), but maybe deep down, this is more sensible.

Myths of an imperfect set of gods are more logical to me than trying to make suffering good somehow, when God is supposed to be all powerful. Ehrman notes that the free will argument is not really expressed too much in the Bible, nor the idea that suffering is good for character. Since both don't work for me -- but hey, I didn't create the world (just was "given" reason etc.), what do I know -- suffering still seems cruel, if God has the ability to do something differently. We do not really have complete free will by any means -- we have drives and so forth -- and there should not be a "in for an inch, in for a kilometer" rule here in which there cannot be inherent limits without free will being of little value.

Those who wrote the Bible basically assumed the existence of a beneficent deity, but like the complications needed to explain a system where the sun revolves around the earth, matching that up to reality is hard work. The earned suffering bit really gets me -- at various times, one hears of faith being threatened because of some personal calamity. How can God cause my loved one so much pain? How egotistical! How about all those who suffered before and during that pain? Ditto the idea that Israel fell because of wrongdoing. Were the people who lived when it thrived really so much better? Bluntly speaking, no matter how understanding we can be here, the basis of the sentiment here is flimsy.

Ehrman's bottom line is that suffering exists, we need to do the best we can amidst it (he has a pretty enjoyable life ... even if thanking God for it seemed off once he realized that meant God selectively made it that enjoyable for some strange reason), but biblical "explanations" leave a lot to be desired. Some aspects are quite humane in that they are serious about evildoing or compassionate about the needs and hurts of humankind, and Ecclesiastes has the right idea that all is fleeting, so let's enjoy it (but not recklessly) as we can. But, finding some deep reason "why," some ultimate meaning behind it all ... well, good luck there.**

---

* The first is found in the "poetry" strand of the book of Job, which appears to be a combination of two stories, the book-ends more prosaic and a reflection of the "test" angle. The second is found in Ecclesiastes. The book was perhaps written as late as the third century, which makes sense, since his summary suggests a Greek philosophy flavor, "in all things moderation" and such. The book presumes a God, but the opening is there to make the deity a lot less meaningful than other books in the Bible suggest.

** Here is part of one criticism of the book via a Google search:

When we understand that suffering is a direct result of human rebellion against God, only then are we properly equipped to understand that suffering may have many ends and that it may accomplish many purposes. When we understand that God is in control of this world, we realize that there is no such thing as meaningless, purposeless suffering. Everything that happens does so under the sovereign control of a good and just God.

How do we understand that? Is it some sort of given? Likewise, again, why punish children for such rebellion? What did they do wrong? The review claims the author at various points "refers to no authority other than his own" while other times suggests Ehrman (in a relatively short book for the general reader) uses the wrong scholars (aka ones that don't agree with the critic) -- what is it? The critic praises his knowledge, except to the extent it leads to conclusions that run counter to what he understands. This is sadly not atypical in this context.

Bye "Dollar Bill" Jefferson

A handful of elections still outstanding, a couple more lingering ones were handled last night. It is appreciated that the voters finally got rid of the Dems' Ted Stevens, Rep. William Jefferson. Both did barely, but I'll take it. Control of Congress is not at issue, nor do I think the opponents in each case (cf. Georgia) is an asshole. BTW, this focus on Roe (and some of his "compromise") is silly, especially given the first 2/3 of the piece!

Drake and Josh Christmas: Lame

I was a bit annoyed my local paper did not reference the new Drake and Josh Christmas movie, which is a fairly popular show; also, it was not like they had so many shows to talk about on last night. Anyway, find the show amusing enough, but (GPS bit funny, prison stuff real stupid, in a bad way) the special as a whole was lame. The LA movie was fine, so it wasn't just the length. Turned it off after an hour of inconsistent viewing. BTW, someone clicked on this piece of mine on the Royko bio, which also has a holiday bit.

A snapshot of judicial "activism" (or not) in action

And Also: In honor of Love, Actually (and contra to a character's view), Salon informs us that Britain is fairly uh slutty. I was also told this once by someone who lived there. A bit on the important, if less talked about, upcoming Secretary of Agriculture. And, more on food and the environment.

The application to vacate the stay of execution of sentence of death entered by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington on November 25, 2008, presented to Justice Kennedy and by him referred to the Court, is granted.

Justice Stevens (with Ginsburg) took a rare opportunity to specially concur with this stay, which was (per usual) done without an opinion. He made it clear that he agreed with ruling on the procedural ground that the federal district judge wrongly gave Stenson a second bite at the apple, after the state court refused his challenge to the lethal injection protocol in practice. To wit:

The state court decided under state law that the execution could proceed while respondent’s constitutional claim was pending. Accordingly, the District Court should not have entered a stay to give the state court additional time it decided was not warranted. In light of that procedural error, and on that basis alone, I vote to grant the application to vacate the stay of execution entered by the District Court.

This is given added bite with the reminder that when the lethal injection issue was decided by the Court last term, Stevens made clear his objection (on constitutional grounds) with the death penalty itself. No matter, he concurred (unlike Ginsburg, who held the particular procedure used there was unconstitutional) with the Court because Stevens thought precedent did not hold that the lethal injection protocol being decided upon was unconstitutional itself.

Stevens has for some time -- back to the early 1980s at least -- fought with what he deemed the Court's illegitimate "judicial activism" (in his view), and here targeted what he thought was a wrongful act of a lower court. He is supportive of a strong judiciary, legitimate "activism" shall we say, but shows that it really is a question of degree.

Anyway, this opinion suggests judging is not just about raw results, but yes, about the necessities of applying the law as given.* And, "judicial activism" is by itself a meaningless term, since judges are active all the time. It is how they are that counts.

---

* C-SPAN broadcast a Q&A with Stevens and a fellow federal judge last weekend. In response to one question, Stevens talked about the important Chevron case, which in general counseled courts to give administrative agencies the benefit of the doubt. He noted that -- on policy grounds -- a majority of the Court probably would have decided the case the other way. But, applying the law, they was guided by other things.

Love, Actually etc.

And Also: Sure, Burress is an ass, he will lose a sizable amount of money for being one, and him getting special treatment (even if a mandatory multiyear sentence for an unlicensed gun is a bit absurd) at the hospital etc. is troubling. And, let's not get all high and mighty as if being excited about the rich and famous was somehow suddenly an obsession sometime in the 1980s or something. Or, even THAT bad. But, it is a bit ridiculous how many articles the local tabloids have on the subject. Talk about striking gold.

I have enjoyed movies from a young age. Now, reading has it's own pleasures, as Billy once noted in the comic strip Family Circus:

TV puts stuff into your mind with pictures and sound. You don’t even hafta think. Radio puts stuff into your mind with just sounds and words. You make your own pictures. Books are quiet friends! They let you make up your own pictures and sound. They make you think!

Or, as a character in the book Against the Wind says: "We get lost in books, we’re essentially loners and books are easier than the world sometimes; certainly more alive." [I wrote that down once some time back ... the book is not really notable.] And, there is always reading about movies. More on that in a bit. But, let me toss in that the guest blog entry by Suzanne Vega in the NYT (the link to the first one is also worthwhile) is much appreciated. She has such a down to earth flavor that is also expressed in her songs.

Anyways, reading about film is kool too. There was an article in today's paper about the movie Love, Actually. A perfectly British title. The article notes that it is a good holiday movie, even if it is imperfect (sure enough -- it is a collection of stories, a couple great, a couple amusing/touching, a couple a bit tedious, a couple that probably shouldn't have been included), but one that made him smile. He thinks USA has missed the boat by only showing it twice this month. (Cf. Enchanted, which Starz is showing repeatedly) I am a great believer in the imperfect but charming (touching etc.) film, it being a neat trick to pull off. So, thanks for that. The Whole Nine Yards, not a holiday film, also belongs in this category. It was just on ... love it!

It is unfortunate that the NY Daily News has decided to pull back their review quotient, especially respecting lesser known films, and those that are released to reviewers late (or at odd times). These can be the best films to review, if one has the proper verve. I am annoyed when the likes of Roger Ebert get all snotty about some of these films. The U.S. has a glut of films, many (probably too many) not very good. But, many are good enough to deserve a bit more than some reviews offer. In fact, too many are downright lazy, tossing out bits that don't even match the film's plots.

Let me toss out there that I caught some more of True Blood, and found it a bit boring, though Anna Paquin still has a great character (and is hot). Also, a recent Tina Fey appearance on David Letterman is being replayed tonight. I caught it on You Tube -- recommended. Finally, Ice Princess has been on again recently. Good film. The lead also has an interesting face.

By Order of The President

And Also: The Rockefeller Christmas lighting ceremony is tonight -- seems a bit late -- which loses something when you pass the locale as much as I do. The tree, as compared to various local displays, is rather boring. It is big, that is true. The nearby ice rink, especially at night (on Election Day, a map of the nation, highlighted by who won the state, was available), is nicer.

[One more thing: One theme of the book was that even when some tried (often with good intentions) to provide a sort of rights-lite approach, often defended pragmatically, it tended to be counterproductive. For instance, targeting non-citizen Japanese suggested there was a problem, one that could justify citizen Japanese if one was a bit more careful etc.]

Japanese rights groups were supportive of the same sex marriage rights in California, just as that community spoke for the habeas rights of people in Gitmo. Fred Korematsu, behind the most famous Japanese internment case, wrote a brief in support of the latter group. George Takei, best known from Star Trek, had a double reason to be supportive -- he was interned as a young child and wished to marry his long time partner. A marriage now in jeopardy. Anyway, that whole "all men are created equal" thing tends to be interconnected.

I have just finished By Order of The President: FDR and the Internment of Japanese Americans by Greg Robinson. The book is a political and historical look at the matter, focusing on FDR's role in the whole thing. This includes long lasting distrust of the "otherness" of the Japanese, even citizens (racial limitations of citizenship from the 1790s were altered after the Civil War only as to blacks ... thus, many other groups could only become federal citizens by being born here or by select naturalization procedures), the fear of Japanese power complicating the situation. Thus, even though various people (including Hoover at the FBI) reported that the Japanese on the West Coast were loyal, FDR was predisposed to believe those who told him otherwise.

His support was furthered by racial prejudice and domestic opposition (including by Earl Warren in California, first attorney general, then governor), which also complicated ending the process when -- as early as 1943 -- it was clear that it was no longer (if ever) necessary to bar over 100,000 people, a majority citizens (the rest often elderly) from the West Coast. This was the case even though there were strong pressures from his own administration to change the policy. His Secretary of the Army (Stimson) was wary and later sorry, his Attorney General (Biddle) opposed, though both toed the line once he made his decision. Underlinings of the army were more anti-Japanese, especially the general in charge of the West Coast, as well as the Secretary of the Navy. One staid loyal into the 1980s, opposing reparations.

The book also notes that even taking the policy as acceptable as a given, FDR's prejudices and lack of concern led to unjust inaction (passionless inertia can be quite lethal), including not doing something to insure the safety of Japanese property (again, a majority here citizens), or even -- until fairly late -- informing the public that the people involved were presumptively loyal. Germans and Italians, the latter group in greater numbers on the West Coast than Japanese in many cases, were not similarly treated. Eleanor Roosevelt and others pushed for some positive treatment, and even a little bit of nice words went a long way. For instance, in Ex parte Endo, the Supremes cited FDR:

Americans of Japanese ancestry, like those of many other ancestries, have shown that they can, and want to, accept our institutions and work loyally with the rest of us, making their own valuable contribution to the national wealth and well-being. In vindication of the very ideals for which we are fighting this war it is important to us to maintain a high standard of fair, considerate, and equal treatment for the people of this minority as of all other minorities

Some opponents warned of negative Supreme Court treatment. Besides a lot of foot dragging and euphemisms (the first case only covered the curfew, the second the exclusion order, it being left to the dissents to note the wilful ignorance of such CYA piecemeal moves), they had nothing to worry about the mostly New Deal (and pro-war) court. The most substantive rulings only occurred after the election of 1944. The book is not concerned with the legal questions as such, but it is ironic that the cases ultimately were precedents for equality and justice. Korematsu underlined that classifications by race were suspect. Endo, which held that innocent loyal citizens could not be held (though, for the sake of argument, the opinion held they might be for short periods of time), even addressed a matter that became important in the recent Gitmo cases:

There are expressions in some of the cases which indicate that the place of confinement must be within the court's territorial jurisdiction in order to enable it to issue the writ. [cases omitted] But we are of the view that the court may act if there is a respondent within reach of its process who has custody of the petitioner.

IOW, as was held in Rasul v. Bush et. al., custody need not be in the district of the judge for whow a writ of habeas is sought. The key matter is that the person holding the person (or otherwise violating his/her rights) is within reach of the arm of the court. How this applies to non-citizens and so forth might be more complicated, but it is an important first step. One that wasn't consistently followed, but that doesn't justify the fact. It also has important bits like "Loyalty is a matter of the heart and mind not of race, creed, or color."

Endo itself, as Korematsu dissenters Murphy and Roberts (Jackson did not write a separate opinion here) noted, was another face saving opinion. One that "seems to [them] to ignore patent facts." Though accepting as a given the importance of citizenship rights and such, it ultimately held that the government here was not given the authority to confine loyal citizens in camps. As with its claim that this was purely a civilian matter, this is ridiculous. It is akin, in a fashion, to denying Congress gave President Bush the authority to invade Iraq in October 2002.

Robinson is correct that confinement without clear authorization was a further wrong, but Congress eventually funded the process, and even had repeated investigations that clearly assumed the President had clear authority to run the camps in the first place. The book overall is a worthwhile addition to the works that cover this stain on our nation, having additional cachet in that it was published in 2001. [One blurb notes "His careful study can also be read as a cautionary tale for our own 'pragmatic' times." Obama is on record as a big pragmatist.] It is a bit of a dry read at times, but still a recommended one for those looking to be educated on the subject. Something a full understanding of our history and the lessons it brings warrants.

Some rather not do that or accept just how relevant it all still is today. Ignorance is bliss, only if that is your definition of bliss.

Film Stuff

And Also: It didn't seem useful to dispute Richard Cohen's column holding the Marc Rich pardon (shocker! special interests! none left now Obama will be in power!) a worse sin than the Monica mess, and Holder's role (putting aside he is in Cohen's mind very qualified outside of it) a clear disqualification. Cohen's columns are not worth one's time. GG has a good perspective, though his citation of Cohen is probably too kind. Why this alone?

Overboard was on yesterday, followed by same director's film, Pretty Woman. Both films are sexist fantasies, one involving a slut by profession, the other (as Goldie Hawn's character says in wonder, "I am a slut?") is alleged to be by a man (ironically played by her real life mate*) getting some revenge for her previous bitchiness to him. Both sell themselves as uplifting fantasies, Overboard about finding happiness in near poverty (shades of Depression fare, showing how being rich is not all that it's cracked up to be), even if you have to be tricked into doing so. We are to ignore the cruelty involved, since she obtains happiness, and "earned" it after all. Besides, he is underneath a nice guy. Ditto Richard Gere ... give the man a bailout!

It does help that the films are rather amiable, putting aside the distasteful aspects of the plot. Still, the better way to sell this sort of thing is by making it all by mistake. Consider Big Business, a Tomlin/Midler farce involving a pair of twins that were mismatched at birth, in this case one of each being handed a rich/poor girl existence. The humor and fantasy element does not have the same bad taste. Or, it can be a bad act, just not directly involving someone who we are supposed to see as a good guy/woman. Of course, some can look pass such things, and I did watch (and to some extent, enjoy) all three of these movies. But, honestly, only so much.

A few somewhat related points. First, here is a good article on Tina Fey, including her comment that: “I only have two speeds, either matronly or a little too slutty. I have to be steered away from cheetah print.” Didn't know she was a closet prude, but it doesn't surprise. She surely does have the sexy librarian thing going. Also, did not even realize she had a scar [it is labeled as "faint" in the Vanity Fair article that inspired the Salon piece] on her face, the product of an attack when she was a young child. No big reason to either, really.

Second, Cynthia Nixon -- surely the best actress of the bunch -- is my favorite Sex in the City gal. Flawed bunch really [the rest, in order of my preference: Samantha, Charlotte and Carrie; I like Samantha's honesty and spunk, Charlotte is a bit of a priss, but Carrie is pretty annoying too ... and she has that full of herself Jerry Seinfeld thing too]. She also probably has the most interesting public life, including her bisexual tendencies. This also includes her activism, for which she seems to have a SITC girl fashion sense. Tidbit: she co-wrote a guest editorial on this issue, which received some negative responses, many ignoring her co-author is black.

Another nifty bit from Feministing:

The major first thing I noticed was that she had had serious augmentation done to everything she had, from breasts to lips to ass implants (totally don't get those). She kept telling me how much work she had done, so I mentioned that I wanted to get a reduction. She quickly said "You just want one because you're feminist. You don't want to look like a girl."

Calling Katy Perry! Finally, I referenced the ridiculous nature of Australia, which is probably better seen as satire than serious historical drama (or even semi-serious costume drama). I caught a somewhat over the top WWII hard boiled mystery (Crystal Bernard, Wings era, played hard boiled with a heart of gold Dol Bonner, whose family lost their money in the Crash ... so it's topical!), Lady Against the Odds, on Encore Mystery. This had the excuse of just being a t.v. movie, and you can almost take it seriously. Good to see Annabeth Gish again too.

I was going to go into just how ridiculous Australia was, but didn't want to ruin it for anyone. "And from then on, we called her Miss Boss." No, seriously, the apparently mystical natives (with a soft spot for "Somewhere Over the Rainbow" from the Wizard of Oz) probably were soft on Nicole Kidman's character because albinos (see also, Cold Mountain) are given special significance by various indigenous groups. Just when was she bit by a vampire? No, they have more color. The death by croc ... no, I said too much.

---

* Thus, shots of him looking at Hawn's ass are a bit creepy. Still, if family members can watch (or even think about people watching) as actors have nude and/or sex scenes in movies, I assume Kurt could handle that.

Deism and "Under God"

And Also: Yesterday was World AIDS day. A problem with the force is that a top option for Obama's choice for Drug Czar has (unlike him) opposed clean needle exchanges. (h/t Rachel Maddow ... again, much less knee-jerk than Olberman). Eric Holder also had supportive excessive penalties for drug crimes. Centrism has its limits, but do remember Obama will be the "decider," and disputes are ultimately his call. This new regulation also can be problematic in this area.

When I posted one form of my George Docherty discussion, deism was brought up. It should be noted that "under God" is not really anti-deist.* See, Declaration of Independence. And, Washington's first Thanksgiving proclamation (h/t CJ Rehnquist's Elk Grove opinion):

Whereas it is the duty of all Nations to acknowledge the problems of Almighty God, to obey His will, to be grateful for his benefits, and humbly to implore his protection and favor–and whereas both Houses of Congress have by their joint Committee requested me ‘to recommend to the People of the United States a day of public thanksgiving and prayer to be observed by acknowledging with grateful hearts the many signal favors of Almighty God especially by affording them an opportunity peaceably to establish a form of government for their safety and happiness.’

Deists would not necessarily argue that we should not "acknowledge" the God they believe in and that we our rights were "endowed by their creator" and so forth. This does not make daily rituals in public schools honoring such a God correct. For one thing, Jefferson and Madison did not support presidential Thanksgiving proclamations, even though both believed in the God being honored. Not that such things are the same thing as daily rituals involving small children, cites by the likes of Rehnquist and Scalia notwithstanding.

It might be argued that the basic spirit of deism would guard against such rituals. A spirit that accepts a God that is the source of rights and nature's laws, but does not warrant daily rituals, especially those that interfere with the separation of church and state. All the same, the citation in question arguably is perfectly fine for deists, who might not believe many religious tenets, but do (did) tend to accept that our nation is "under God," and that it is perfectly fine to honor the fact in patriotic rituals.**

Anyway, interesting Wikipedia entry.

---

* One definition: "Deism is the belief that a supreme natural God exists and created the physical universe, and that theological truths can be arrived at by the application of reason and observation of the natural world."

** One defense of the practice is that it is not "religious," but a patriotic act. This misses the point in that it is a sectarian patriotic ritual, the very issue at hand. Minor or not, it ties a basic religious entity (an active God -- not just a clockmaker, but one that continues to be "over" us and warranting our daily respect) to the state. This is establishment at the very core, involving our nation's very pledge to boot!

"Necessary to the Security of a Free State"

And Also: The Jets loss to Denver, appropriate in that they were beaten by the lowly Raiders (who beat the Jets as well), was not charming or anything. It did add to the upset and/or lopsided theme of the week, one that also had some close games -- but no exciting come from behind victories by the underdogs. And, some fans were a bit too full of themselves, forgetting the Jets still is a flawed team, not on the fast track to the Super Bowl quite yet.

In other news, WP fronts word that the Pentagon is planning to delve deeper into homeland security with 20,000 specially trained troops, who will be stationed inside the United States by 2011 to help government officials respond to a terrorist attack "or other domestic catastrophe.

-- "Today's Papers" over at Slate

It is often said that the President is "our" commander-in-chief, when in actuality the Constitution says:

The President shall be commander in chief of the Army and Navy of the United States, and of the militia of the several states, when called into the actual service of the United States

The stationing of 20,000 specially trained troops might be useful, though it does call to mind the usual fear of "standing armies," a sentiment that directly inspired the Second and Third Amendments, honoring the "militia" and the supremacy of the civil over the military power.

A "specially" trained group is just the sort of "select militia" that some feared, leading to the push for the reaffirmation of the "right of the people" to make up a "well regulated militia." Necessary tasks would be done, but in a somewhat different way. The recent Supreme Court ruling notwithstanding, this should be emphasized, not just the underlining right to own a firearm. See also, the use of the "militia" (that is specifically given domestic sounding tasks, such as executing the laws or repelling invasions) -- guard units -- for overseas missions, at times burdening domestic tasks such as dealing with national disasters.

The militia is basically us. Like our duty to serve jury duty, citizens also have a duty to serve in the militia when called to duty. And, being willing and able to do so, much like the average voter has a duty to be an informed citizen, even if not forced to do so. The feds also have the power to "call forth" the militia for national tasks, as they did, e.g., during the civil rights era. Or, when the Civil War broke. The people themselves, civilians usually, members of the active militia when necessary, would have a different mind-set and knowledge base than the select few who (honorably) volunteer. We rightly honor the military, but as with the police, they have a downside ... why have a Fourth Amendment, if police are just our pals, right?

Imagine, for instance, what might have been if local militia was trained and on the ready when Katrina hit. IOW, average citizens of each area, generally "off duty" going about their regular lives, but prepared when a disaster hit. Not outsiders or a select few who would swoop in to save them. A process, as some who demand the right to owe a gun for self defense (outside the likes of Mr. Burress*) will rightly say, that is an inexact science.

So, perhaps the 20,000 is a good idea. But, the training and preparation of the local militia is perhaps a more important one. Surely, in raw numbers as well as immediate effect, they will be very essential. A usual rejoinder tends to be that the military here would be a useful resource. So they say about the police ... how does that go in some places? It probably is not an all or nothing enterprise, especially in this age of national involvement in nearly everything, but we still should be on guard. And, realize it is but one tool after all.

A more democratic, or shall we say (with apologies), republican tool is also available.

---

* Violence, even at home, against sports figures suggest that it is not necessarily wrong for some players to think that owning a firearm is appropriate. It is a closer question, and concealed carry has been studied enough to suggest the fact is open to debate, if this is a good idea outside of the home.

All the same, even players supportive of their teammate were sure to say that there are limits in this area. "Well regulated" and all that includes licensing and safety issues, as Heller will tell you. Anyway, try not to shoot yourself in the thigh ... the foot is enough.