Some Books

Last year, I caught up with Jane Austen. William Deresiewicz in A Jane Austen Education did so while in graduate school, later becoming a professor.  The book is part memoir, part overall examination of Jane Austen's live and works. Her "bad girl" novel not included, nor the one she started before she died.  WD was a bit of a brat apparently in his twenties, a bit insufferable, though it's good that a real person (who has sex, smokes pot, etc.) comes through.  The chapters ramble a bit, but overall have enough commentary and content to make it a worthwhile read for Austen fans or the interested general reader.

It is in no way a complete look at each novel, but a method to teach some life lessons. Emma taught him to see the charm in "everyday matters," including in novels that others might think trivial in nature.  Pride and Prejudice taught him about growing up, the need to make mistakes and learn that your point of view / feelings aren't always correct.  Mansfield Park taught the importance of being good, even if it seem boring and the alternative at first glance better.  Persuasion, the value of true friends.  And, Sense and Sensibility, the need to fall in (and learn how to) love the right way, including having self-knowledge and knowing the full nature of the person involved. 

"Jennie" also gained some "experience" in Higglety Pigglety Pop!: Or There Must Be More to Life, a favorite book of Maurice Sendak since it reminded him of his own dog.  Jennie had "everything" but wanted more.  In an amusing but insightful account, the fluffy dog leaves home in search of that something more, eventually finding happiness on the stage.  Never read the author as a child, but can see why so many of all ages love him.  The book has a great way to fill the inside binder -- it quotes an early review, not some advertising sounding pap. 

Sendak gave an extended interview to Stephen Colbert earlier this year and Colbert made a joke about writing his old children's book.  The book that resulted was I Am a Pole (And So Can You!), the title a takeoff on Colbert's previous book on being a America.  "It is the heartfelt tale of a pole searching for truth and meaning in its life" and Sendak, in a blurb to die for, said: "The sad thing is, I like it!"  A short amusing picture book not quite for kids (he tries to be a stripper pole at one point), the proceeds went to a veteran related charity.  Good to see him diversify.

Remember, it is "Caldecott Eligible" and prime for film.  

Release of Scalia/Ginsburg Bench Statements

Lyle [Denniston]: Justices Scalia and Ginsburg routinely release to the press and public the oral statements they make from the bench, whether in the majority or in dissent.

Lyle Denniston, veteran USSC reporter, is getting some notice himself.   But, this comment was of interest, since it is the first I ever heard of such a thing. The press (and the public?) immediately obtain transcripts of  statements from the bench, statements not found on the USSC website and at best eventually winding up at Oyez.com months later? So LD said during the live blog at SCOTUSBlog yesterday.  Such facts, like President Obama alluding to drone strikes during a Q&A before an official announcement, do at times come when you don't expect them.

I eventually asked the head of SCOTUSBlog about the matter.  Seems, and this is far from surprising given past concerns about recording devices at speeches and such, Scalia releases them with a promise that they won't be published.  This is silly on some level -- the remarks are public and if the press wished, unless there is some other rule I'm not familiar with against it, just take notes (if necessary, via shorthand) of the remarks as they are made.  This might lead to errors, so the policy can be counterproductive on that level, but so be it.  Still, that clarified it some, though one wonders if even them getting the printed remarks is secret too.

But, what about Ginsburg?  She is not known to be as secretive, posting transcripts of her speeches at times on the Supreme Court website.  Upon asking for clarification, I was told that he didn't know if they ever asked.  This was the third email -- I asked the question, got a reply about Scalia, asked about Ginsburg and then had to remind that even if she didn't give a statement that day, the comment referenced the past. So, I didn't belabor the point, but that's a bit strange.  Isn't such an oral statement of some value, such as her dissent from the bench in the Ledbetter case?  It shows a bit of lack of initiative to not press the point. 

And, I would find it curious if Ginsburg cared, since again, we are not talking about anything private here, but a public statement.  And, unlike her pal Scalia, she isn't a bit of an ass about it.

TV Watch

Bunheads was again pretty insufferable -- Gilmore Girls on steroids in a fashion.  I saw a cute episode of Shake It Up, however, that provided the cast a chance to dress up in a "flashback" to the 1950s. 

Some Are More Equal Than Others

I noted last week that it looked like unions and corporations, the arguments of some aside, were being treated differently by the Supreme Court. John Nichols flagged the point here.  If we want to be "libertarian" here, we should be consistent. 

SCOTUS Update: Liberals Mostly Win

No health care ruling yet.  A case who's mother is the only one that cares about at the moment and the Stolen Valor case remains.

SCOTUS summarily handled an interesting looking voting rights case (presumably, it was a mandatory appeal) that split the civil rights community (Rep. Donna Edwards on the "anti" side) , a brief summary with link to a more expansive news story here.  Election Law Blog summarizes result here.  The primary concern was that blacks were being lumped together and this would result to vote dilution, but various legislators (the law was signed by a Democrat) etc. thought the final deal acceptable.  Also, a provision that "purports to correct census data for the distortional effects of the Census Bureau's practice of counting prison inmates as residents of their place of incarceration."  The court below in effect said not enough there.  The home address law, a first, was praised here, though some were concerned with those without one. 

A cross case was avoided, Justice Alito noting there wasn't a final ruling below.  The Montana Supreme Court case that was thought of as a "fu" to the U.S. Supreme Court was summarily refused in a paragraph given there is "no serious doubt" that Citizens United was breached.  Four justices wasn't quite as sure, but in a slightly longer opinion noted that it was a red flag of the problems the opinion wrought and it should have been taken.  I'm not really surprised but the way the USSC keeps on rushing through these opinions (see also, the affirmance without comment of a case involving foreign money) is disconcerting if perhaps pragmatically the best reformers can hope for.

[And Also:  Some background on the law that doesn't seem to have some racist senator (see Thomas' opinion in Citizens United) to taint it or anything.  The Montana ACLU (the national ACLU supported Citizens United) believes corruption in the context of the law, as compared to general say-so without context, provides a compelling state interest to justify it.  I'm an outlier, perhaps, but think there can be various shades of corporate regulation and think it deserved at least a hearing.  Breyer et. al. probably reasonably enough didn't think the other five were listening.] 

A 5-4 ruling, somewhat surprisingly given it is of some note written by Kagan, held it unconstitutional to apply mandatory life imprisonment in non-capital cases for minors.  It did not decide if it never could be applied, even after individualized sentencing, since they did 'not consider if the 8A "requires a categorical bar on life without parole for juveniles, or at least for those 14 and younger." Two justices thought it likely one of the two people here did not intend to kill, so on that ground would not be liable to be executed.  But, the two are not out of the woods yet, it actually conceivable for the same sentence to be applied on remand.

To recap" minus cites:

Mandatory life without parole for a juvenile precludes consideration of his chronological age and its hallmark features—among them, immaturity, impetuosity, and failure to appreciate risks and consequences. It prevents taking into account the family and home environment that surrounds him—and from which he cannot usually extricate himself—no matter how brutal or dysfunctional. It neglects the circumstances of the homicide offense, including the extent of his participation in the conduct and the way familial and peer pressures may have affected him. Indeed, it ignores that he might have been charged and convicted of a lesser offense if not for incompetencies associated with youth—for example, his inability to deal with police officers or prosecutors(including on a plea agreement) or his incapacity to assist his own attorneys.  And finally, this mandatory punishment disregards the possibility of rehabilitation even when the circumstances most suggest it.

Roberts accepted individualized sentencing in capital cases (though not a complete bar) so he was a maybe; no dice there. The substantive reasoning of the majority is as usual more convincing that the nose counting to determine "unusual" and it basically says so at one point.  National limits on criminal sentencing of this sort is a bit concerning, but the narrow nature of the ultimate result (even if, as Roberts notes, it potentially benefits a lot more than many 8A rulings)  reassures.

[And More: It is notable here that "and" in the "cruel and unusual" provision is not interpreted to mean BOTH have to be present.  If crucifixion suddenly became popular, it would one assumes still violate the clause.  The USSC has taken up a policy in recent years to "count noses" to help them determine what violates the provision, in effect to determine what is "unusual" and help determine what was "cruel and unusual."  But, if the test is "that it is a precept of justice that punishment for crime should be graduated and proportioned to the offense" (Weems v. U.S., 1910), again, the numbers games is only so important.  Robinson v. California, which applied the 8A to the states, also didn't count noses. It found criminalizing addiction as a problem and not only because it was rare.]

In basically a 5-3 ruling (Alito agrees on two of four; Scalia/Thomas on one), the Obama Administration (in hopefully not a consolation prize way) mostly won (writ large too on some level; see here) in the "papers please" law, though ironically the one partial loss involved just that provision.  I commented on the orals here, a couple links touching upon some key issues. The majority (by Kennedy) notes that it is too soon to know if that section will be applied so strictly that it would be a problem.  Pre-emption the only issue, racial profiling concerns are a separate matter -- though as some noted, that factors into why the feds was so concerned about the law, given the foreign policy implications etc.  Also, the opinion itself notes in passing:

Second, officers “may not consider race, color or national origin . . . except to the extent permitted by the United States [and] Arizona Constitution[s].”

The mandatory system established (the opinion notes that this might violate federal enforcement policy, but is not clearly barred by federal law) only aggravates this fact.  Still, it is overall a good win, Kagan recused. Alito as noted only concurred on that section and one other.  Thomas went his own way. And, Scalia went Grandpa Simpson, SCOTUSBlog informing us that he even had written remarks for the press and public (apparently -- though I honestly never heard about this until now -- Scalia and Ginsburg has done this in the past; why not post them then?).  Alito dissented from the bench as to teenage life imprisonment, Scalia here.  SCOTUSBlog's live blog informed:

As part of Scalia's statement in dissent, he is commenting on the president's announcement about suspending deportation of illegal immigrants who came to the U.S. as children -- something that was not part of the case.

Scalia,* citing pre-20th Century opinions that later were at least partially reversed, started off noting how one of the "defining characteristic of sovereignty" of states is to keep non-citizens out.  In effect, he demanded a strong clear statement rule that he argued was not met. After all, "citizens feel themselves under siege by large numbers of illegal immigrants who invade their property, strain their social services, and even place their lives in jeopardy.”  And, "we have no license to assume, without any support in the record, that Arizona officials would use their arrest authority under §6 to harass anyone" Does the executive department of the U.S.?   Scalia has no "papers" either, apparently.

Fairly busy morning, but one big event remains.

---

* In full, FOX News and Grandpa Simpson fashion, Scalia inspired a good amount of commentary today as he did with his PPACA orals performance etc.  For instance, LGM has some snark here.  This is the bridge between conservative and "can't take this guy seriously."  It's embarrassing.

The Newsroom

First episode is pretty phony. I like a few of the actors, including Ms. Pill, have a bit of Mr. Smith in me and hope it gets better.

Gnomes

Seems as best as any reason why videos are suddenly not working on Firefox for me while it's okay on Google Chrome, which I don't like as much. Good Luck Charlie was okay. It's a boy.

Depressing This Is Even A F-ing Debate

I find the arguments against the PPACA specious in the extreme. It just isn't that I'm against them. I can sorta respect arguments against abortion rights, even if I oppose the premises. But, the arguments here are simply specious. When (see near end of clip) you have JAY LENO understand why it is a "good thing," it is underlined.

Change for the better: Marriage Edition

I hope same-sex marriage changes marriage itself. I hope it changes marriage the way that no-fault divorce changed it. I hope it changes marriage the way that allowing women to own their own property and seek their own credit changed marriage. I hope it changes marriage the way laws against spousal abuse and child neglect changed marriage. I hope marriage equality results in more equal marriages. I also hope it offers more opportunities for building meaningful adult lives outside of marriage. We must do more than simply integrate new groups into an old system. Let's use this moment to re-imagine marriage and marriage-free options for building families, rearing children, crafting communities, and distributing public goods.

I agree with MHP.  "Traditional marriage" has changed, as it has for centuries, and it tends to be a good thing overall.

"Liberty" and Judicial Review

The PPACA arguments has resulted in loads of comments and analysis, some on the anti side defending their approach as if "liberty" itself was at stake if they didn't win. This gets tiresome as does some of their concerns (I'm looking at you Randy Barnett) that somehow "liberty" was suddenly given a cold shoulder sometime c. 1937. I keep on asking one person, e.g., what his ideal moment of judicial interpretation is, since many groups don't think the early 20th Century is that ideal. Said person ignores me. The below was posted in response to one such move. 

The principle of presumptive constitutionality of legislative action -- action that is a result of the republican process in which the people vote for representatives who swear/affirm to uphold the Constitution and via Madisonian dynamics (or the less pure form present in the real world) settle upon public policy -- goes back to the 1790s. Judicial review was deemed a principle of constitutional government, but overturning legislation, particularly on substantive grounds, would only occur in the clearest cases.*

The 1930s reaffirmed this principle but noted that in various cases that a more guarded eye would be present. Carolene Products, FN4 is the seminal summary. The courts then did much more to look at free speech, criminal protections, equal protection, etc. Such cases was rare before then. Before the New Deal, e.g., the 1A was rarely given much of a look by the USSC. After it, a slew of cases can be listed that overturned legislation. In such areas, "liberty" was not given a more limited look -- that is, if we define it to entail closer judicial review. Thus, e.g., concerns that minorities did not get proper representation warranted less restraint over the majority process than certain economic matters as did private rights over more public matters. This has long roots too in early discussions of judicial review though there has been some changing views on the contours.

Lawrence v. Texas did not merely look at "liberty" but cited precedents that fit into the liberty interest in question. If something else was at stake, let's say the liberty to be a hairdresser w/o a license, such precedent would not be readily available. The case therefore does not look as open-ended as the OP argues [btw, I saw a form of this article by him in the Cato Supreme Court review of the case almost a decade ago].

Finally, I agree that federalism and enumerated powers protects "liberty." It works both ways (see, e.g., the term limits case, Kennedy concurrence) -- IF Congress has a power, it can protect our liberty to properly let it carry it out to protect the public good. This is how SG Verilli ended his oral argument and it is how supporters of the PPACA think it ultimately furthers liberty. But, it is curious to me how courts that EXPANDED judicial review in fact in many areas is seen as less liberty protecting. The reality of the situation is the judges have a certain amount of capital. When the modern Court expanded its reach over civil liberties, they restrained it over other areas. And, even pre-New Deal, the strictness of review was at best mixed, some periods of particular concern to justices, and even then not in all areas (cf. Lochner v. NY and Plessy v. Ferguson) 

Kennedy does in a fashion have a broad view of "liberty" but the net result is that the exact line is hazy. Lawrence itself is a case in point. It cites fundamental rights cases but some argue it is merely a rational basis case. This would water down the protection as Casey did to Roe.

 ---

* Thus, Justice Chase in Hylton v. U.S.:

it is unnecessary, at this time, for me to determine, whether this court, constitutionally possesses the power to declare an act of Congress void, on the ground of its being made contrary to, and in violation of, the Constitution; but if the court have such power, I am free to declare, that I will never exercise it, but in a very clear case

And, only two federal laws were struck down until the 1860s.

New Leader of Egypt

Mr. Morsi is an American-educated engineer who received his doctoral degree at the University of Southern California. Just doing our part to promote Islam. Is Obama to blame? FOX will be on the case!

Rev. Joe (The First Crusade: The Call from the East)

About 3/4 of the way through the title book, which intends to given a more "eastern" viewpoint (Byzantine) of things. On the whole, it is interesting and written well. Lose track of all the names at times.

David Blankenhorn Changes His Mind About SSM

David was concerned that marriage for same-sex couples might dilute this core purpose and re-orient marriage toward merely satisfying adult desires for love and companionship.

The horror! Still, good for you.

Maddow Again Tells Half the Story

Rachel Maddow again last night basically signed off the whole Fast and Furious controversy as some 2A conspiracy theory. This is a sad failure to do her job, since a decent analysis can both show the ideological posturing AND real problems starting pre-Obama.

Roger That

Necessary Roughness

Another pretty good episode, the actor who played "Smash" on FNL playing a different football playing character with some issues here.

PPACA Preview

[And Also: ACS is having its national conference and  various videos, including a great speech by Judge Liu taking a speech by Martin Luther King Jr. as his subject matter, can be found at its website.  A panel on the Arizona case, including a Utah AG showing how the prosecution side can be reasonable here, was also interesting.]

I am a bit tired of people trying to read the tea leaves (e.g., comments in Scalia's new book, Ginsburg making broccoli jokes or talking about value of dissents, polls of former clerks) regarding the PPACA ruling.  Understand the sentiment and the predictions, at times voiced with resignation at those darn conservatives.  I have done it myself. For instance, the idea "mandates" will result some sort of "rational basis with teeth" requirement for Congress akin to regulations that burden certain classes of people like gays.  This would be Kennedy's approach.

Turns out that there is evidence beyond Kennedy's sentiments during oral argument that requiring positive acts require a different calculus when applying the Commerce Clause and the "proper" nature of a regulation necessary and proper to advancing its ends.  U.S. v Comstock is a telling case in this area, a 2010 ruling handed down after the law was passed in which Breyer (with CJ Roberts joining without comment -- in fact, he is the one who assigned the opinion) applied the NPC for a "federal civil-commitment statute [that] authorizes the Department of Justice to detain a mentally ill, sexually dangerous federal prisoner beyond the date the prisoner would otherwise be released."

Breyer provided five considerations that on balance justified it, noting how the specific law is narrow, but overall he's the one to go to give the Congress broad discretion over their own powers.  Thus, Kennedy and Alito concurred in judgment. Kennedy noted (and CJ Roberts suggested this in the PPACA orals too, alluding to the "problem with Lochner") that the "rationally related" test that justifies a power not expressly enumerated but necessary and proper to the advancement of a power given to the federal government is not as easily met as the "rational basis" to uphold a state law under the Due Process Clause.  States have general police powers; the federal government has more limited power and a too loose use of the term would not provide enough of a check.  To wit:

The operative constitutional provision in this case is the Necessary and Proper Clause. This Court has not held that the Lee Optical test, asking if “it might be thought that the particular legislative measure was a rational way to correct” an evil, is the proper test in this context. Rather, under the Necessary and Proper Clause, application of a “rational basis” test should be at least as exacting as it has been in the Commerce Clause cases, if not more so

He then alludes to the Spending Power, which is the joker in the PPACA cases, noting "limits upon the spending power have not been much discussed," a red flag of sorts that some justices are ready to discuss them.  Kennedy accepts the regulation as being a "little intrusion upon the ordinary processes and powers of the States."  It doesn't demand state action, relieve "the States of their own primary responsibility to enact laws and policies for the safety and well being of their citizens," nor do so much that it "intrudes upon functions and duties traditionally committed to the State." The PPACA can fit at least some of these though a more general requirement is obviously not as limited as something that is only applied to those in federal custody. 

Comstock involves a narrow class of people who were already in federal detention so can be distinguished from the PPACA though such is often the case, especially if you want to do so.  Alito, who is seen as a lost cause here, accepted the law as necessary and proper to carry out the clearly legitimate power to have federal crimes, itself (except for a few cases) an implicit power.  The class here in effect is a result of the federal government's own actions.  If power can arise from legitimate but not "absolutely necessary" federal crimes, why not from legitimate but not absolutely necessary regulation of insurance companies?

A defender of the PPACA can quote Alito:

The Necessary and Proper Clause does not give Congress carte blanche. Although the term “necessary” does not mean “absolutely necessary” or indispensable, the term requires an “appropriate” link between a power conferred by the Constitution and the law enacted by Congress. See McCulloch v. Maryland , 4 Wheat. 316, 415 (1819). And it is an obligation of this Court to enforce compliance with that limitation. Id ., at 423.     

The law in question here satisfies that requirement. This is not a case in which it is merely possible for a court to think of a rational basis on which Congress might have perceived an attenuated link between the powers underlying the federal criminal statutes and the challenged civil commitment provision. Here, there is a substantial link to Congress’ constitutional powers.

The insurance coverage provision -- which like the commitment mechanism here overall arguably helps the people and states whose power is delegated to Congress -- is not in place for a trivial reason, one that is "merely possible" necessary to further the regulation of interstate commerce.  It might not be "indispensable," but Alito reminds that is not required. I'm shifting gears here, of course, since I'm using his words against him in a way (unlike in the case of Kennedy, who is a more reasonable chance to vote the sane way) somewhat unlikely to be used the way Alito would use them. And, he also referred to the clear long history of federal criminal law, when some note the supposed novelty of the PPACA. 

Still, the provision here in a narrow sense is novel.  The majority pointed to the long (back to the 1940s) concern of the problem, but the same could be noted about national health insurance.  Anyway, an approach can be imagined that recognized that a "rational basis" standard here would have some teeth, the fact that the "problem" to be addressed is partially a creation of the federal government's own making [guaranteed issue etc.] is not a barrier, the things it does not do to invade state interests can be cited and it is not "too attenuated."  Other "mandates" might be.

Well, along with other matters, we shall see. 

SCOTUS Watch (Not Yet)

The Supreme Court still did not hand down the cases most people are concerned about, namely the health care cases, the Arizona case or the juvenile life imprisonment case. It did hand down a few somewhat important cases, including one many were interested in, the fleeting expletives case. However, though Ginsburg concurred to say she would do it, seven justices (it from Sotomayor's old home, she recused herself) rested on narrow vagueness grounds. Something of interest did occur.  This might have been a reason the ruling was narrow. 

First, in the criminal justice arena, defendants again found that at times they can win one. The "Apprendi" rule involving jury determining the facts used to convict was applied (in a 6-3 ruling by Sotomayor) to criminal fines. Breyer dissented in an opinion about 2x as long with Kennedy and Alito. The majority did not keep "the reader in suspense" regarding "pot-ash and pearl-ash" (see FN7). That is, something involved in some ancient cases that the dissent apparently thought relevant.  Meanwhile, Breyer wrote about the "six consideration" that justified applying new rules on crack v. powder cocaine to old cases.

Another split among the liberals arose in a union [not the "a" before a vowel] fees case.  Sotomayor joined with Ginsburg to (1) snipe a bit at a majority opinion by Alito for in effect being activist (they both are the "enforcers" on each side) and (2) provide a more limited way for the unions to lose.  Breyer/Kagan was in dissent, Breyer reading his dissent orally. Let's hope he doesn't have to do something like that again.  SCOTUSBlog suggested the opinion might in the long run be significant. See also, here.  [And, here.  Can shareholders or those whose money are invested via pension funds etc. have the same "opt out" privileges as the employees do in this context?   SG Kagan raised the issue during the CU orals ... or do unions have second class rights here?]

When Justice Harlan, a patrician, wrote Cohen v. California, his opinion noted wrote: "Fuck the Draft," not "F- the Draft."  When Stevens wrote his dubious "seven dirty words" plurality in Pacifica (good opinion announcement though), a verbatim transcript was included.  But, when the words of the "singer Cher" and "a person named Nicole Richie" was cited, we get things like "f**ing." This prejudges that the words are forbidden.  The latest in a long drama on this issue -- even though last time Thomas (as quoted by Ginsburg) et. al. suggested the constitutional dubious nature of the old rule -- again was decided narrowly.  The rules were too vague.  Will this lead to another case to settle the issue?

There will be at least two more opinion days [or, at least, Monday won't be the last day of the term].

"Actually, it's been extensively covered"

in various print media, such as the Washington Post and even Business Weekly. It's just that most of us have our own lives to lead, and simply don't have the time to keep track of it all and stay current.  

See here.  Another person complained at Volokh, cites to both CBS and FOX not enough to show the "MSM" did not "ignore" things. 

Executive Privilege

I'm not a big fan of executive privilege overall though think it exists to some extent. I don't think much of the oversight chairman who thinks Obama is the "worst" President. But, if his administration is overreaching on their executive privilege claims, I wouldn't be shocked. I'll let the political processes play out.

There is SOME smoke there

Rachel Maddow went on and on about how the whole Fast and Furious scandal is a conspiracy theory but darn if her guest noted something actually DID go wrong.  The minority report doesn't deny this.  It went back to the Bush years, it was at least partially addressed and is not some conspiracy to deny 2A rights.  But, it isn't all b.s. 

Summer Has Arrived (7:09 EDT)

Also in the news: Vegan Becomes Vivisectionist

Some atheist bloggers have noted they lost one of their numbers -- happens a lot more the other way -- to Catholicism. I'm with those who note that Catholicism is not the one I'd choose especially if as a liberal feminist. OTOH, some are more hopeful.

Juneteenth

This is the holiday celebrated to honor June 19, 1865, the day slaves in Texas were told they were free under the Emancipation Proclamation. State courts later held the EP only came into effect when the U.S. gained control over Confederate territory. Slavery totally ended at the end of the year with the ratification of the 13A.

On T.V.

Crazy, Stupid Love has been on t.v. recently. After his night with Tomei still bothers me, but overall, good movie. The ensemble cast, including giving commentary, was very good on Army Wives (S1). Emmalin was a weak character, but worked later with a new actress.

Plea for TV on health care ruling

The chair and ranking members of the Senate Judiciary Committee have asked the USSC to televise the opinion announcement.  About as likely to succeed as the media request, but appreciated.

Less Approval, More Realistic?

Michael Dorf has a perspective spin on the drop-off of public "approval" of the Supreme Court.  A realistic stance reflects badly here, perhaps, but maybe he's right to think it was a useful compensation to in effect a mythical view.  Scalia still can be a boob.

Bunheads

Liked the first episode of this new ABC Family show from the Gilmore Girls school of television, but the episode after a surprise death was dull dull dull.  I stopped watching Drop Dead Diva this season after two episodes of lousiness, so watch out!

Army Wives DVD

I am watching the first season DVD as the show is in mini-hiatus and it has a lot of good stuff on it, including multiple commentaries with cast and producers etc.  The episodes on the whole are pretty good. 

R.A. Dickey

Wow.  Batters must be like "okay, he's a freak of nature, let's be glad it's over with."  He again served his "stopper" role, the Mets in the midst of a run of the 1/3 of the league that actually are good.  And, not doing well.  Most are mediocre, so they have a shot at doing okay.

The Legacy of Luna

Julia Butterfly Hill (born February 18, 1974 as Julia Lorraine Hill) is an American activist and environmentalist. Hill is best known for living in a 180-foot (55 m)-tall, roughly 1500-year-old California Redwood tree (age based on first-hand ring count of a slightly smaller neighboring ancient redwood that had been cut down) for 738 days between December 10, 1997 and December 18, 1999. Hill lived in the tree, affectionately known as "Luna," to prevent loggers of the Pacific Lumber Company from cutting it down. She is the author of the book The Legacy of Luna and co-author of One Makes the Difference.

I referenced a book about trees recently, noting their importance.* The book is by an environmental reporter/writer and discusses various issues, but the core of the story is about basically a shade tree farmer who had a life threatening event that included a religious experience that lead him to tree activism. Hill also was guided by this path though with evangelistic parents, she sort of had the divine and preaching the truth in her blood:

As I recovered, I realized that my whole life had been out of balance...I had graduated high school at 16, and had been working nonstop since then, first as a waitress, then as a restaurant manager. I had been obsessed by my career, success and material things. The crash woke me up to the importance of the moment, and doing whatever I could to make a positive impact on the future.

She was in her early 20s and decided to travel to find some meaning, an opportunity soon opening up to go to California with some people. There she felt a special connection to the redwoods and a need to do something to honor them.  Hill has what perhaps might be called nature religion belief in the connection of all things, of life, and her spirituality plays an important role in her story.  Like many, I guess, Hill ("Butterfly" a name from childhood, many in the movement taking aliases)  started here not out of some special knowledge, but what she felt deep down was right.

A need to do something to help the environment and the trees in particular led her to take up a call out to stay a few days in a tree, the "Luna" of the title.  The usual thing being for people to spend a few days in such trees, the time spent on a small platform that would be considered small as compared to many prison cells.  She did her time but went back up, this return engagement destined to last over two years.  She had communication, various visitors and early on, some guards trying to get her down, but  spent much of the time alone.  One thinks of some sort of crazy eccentric monk or holy person of the days of yore.

The book touches upon the important of proper management of trees, including their value for wildlife and as flood barriers, the book starting with a community destroyed as she tells it because of too much harvesting.  But, the book is not by an expert or about explaining in much detail the specifics here.  Overall, it is about her drive to protect the tree and environment and the special connection she had to it.  It is more of a spiritual book though its narrative is as a whole one that tells an interesting story.  I think it repeats itself a bit, but then from the text, it appears she was writing if as she was up there -- the end is dated a few days after she left!  One review at Amazon was upset at this lack of specialized detail but she provides "further reading" and it isn't really the point of the book.  She is an important symbol and spirit in the movement.

One thing that comes to mind is that she was after all performing a continual act of civil disobedience, one that cost the company in question thousands of dollars in profits.  She doesn't quite see it that way: for one thing, the company broke a lot more laws than she did, with all the write-ups and did not seem to suffer much of a loss for doing so.  Also, basically, Hill thought she was doing what was "right," and protection nature and nature's right to be honored.  This is the mind-set of many civil disobedience movements and it boils down to a question of line drawing.  Still, when elementary students act to support her by collecting stamps, what would teachers and parents tell them?  What did they tell them about a woman that after all was breaking the law?

Ultimately, the tree itself along with a buffer zone was protected by an agreement set forth.  The movement Earth First!, who was involved with the tree sitting though Hill did not know upfront that they were the ones behind her going up, agreed to provide the company involved the $50,000 collected.  The money went to an "agreement for research into sustainable forestry."  Hill herself, as one can see on her website and videos on YouTube, continued her activism and is an eloquent speaker on the importance of activism with a humanistic face. She often in the book noted her desire to keep positive, even when dealing with "the enemy."  A good philosophy, even moving past the non-violence as a whole.

Overall, an eloquent book with a handful of powerful poems.


---  

* The author wrote an article on "Why Trees Matter":

We have underestimated the importance of trees. They are not merely pleasant sources of shade but a potentially major answer to some of our most pressing environmental problems. We take them for granted, but they are a near miracle. In a bit of natural alchemy called photosynthesis, for example, trees turn one of the seemingly most insubstantial things of all — sunlight — into food for insects, wildlife and people, and use it to create shade, beauty and wood for fuel, furniture and homes.

More at link.

Constitution For All

"We the People" are the ones who allegedly have the ultimate power. The Constitution and law are upheld any number of ways in practice, not just by a few court rulings, which are influenced by the ever evolution of the law and society anyways.

Confrontation Clause Case

Looks like a few justices trying to find a way to distinguish a precedent they didn't like with Thomas agreeing for his own idiosyncratic reasons that isn't productive here to do what the USSC does -- set forth broad guidelines. Just calling balls and strikes.

USSC Watch (No Cursing, Health Care or Lies)

Still, Kagan's dissent in a 4-1-4 Confrontation Clause case, the net result hedged enough to be unclear, is worth reading for its down to earth tone.  Not a total fan of so much snark, but she has a refreshing style.  Sotomayor has two solo dissents -- one from denial of cert.

Talk Nerdy: Prayer

Interesting series here covers the power of prayer from a science perspective.  Religion often is as much about the natural as the supernatural, god(s) often not the ones who need the support though sometimes people like to say so to make themselves feel better. 

Still Upset About Him Winning In '06

A few more months of this tool.

Myths of Equality

One point Chris Hayes makes promoting his new book is that if we don't try to promote equality of results to some degree at least, equality of opportunity realistically won't be truly possible.

Father's Day

A shout out to all the dads out there. The seed of/to insanity that leads to people to feel compelled to have children has its benefits.

Rev. Joe (Environmental Spiritualism Edition)

When God's Creation is in the process of being destroyed, what do you do? Julia Butterfly Hill's story of love, compassion, resistance, and persistence is a powerful testament to how one dedicated individual can change the world in the face of growing violence.

Religious faith helps guide her. Book is good so far.

Dream Act Not Quite Deferred

The "Dream Act" move by the Administration looks to be a good move politically and as an imperfect matter of executive policy. Cato and some conservative evangelicals seem to agree. It isn't "illegal" or "dictatorial" (see here) though a law is better. See, Broken Branch.

Trees

I can't get into the book itself but The Man Who Planted Trees does early on list the various benefits of trees including as heat shields, carbon dioxide sinks, flood barriers, providers of wildlife, neutralizing various pollutants etc. Local trees have a nice smell too.

She needed a warning ala Anatomy of a Murder

The comment on Jewish religious beliefs on abortion underlines this a matter of conscience. The real problem, of course, is she said (sotto voice) the "v" word! [The subject line.]

The Help

MHP was not a big fan, but as seen by the comments, many blacks do not agree with her.  I thought the movie was decent, but it didn't feel like an "event" or anything.  The approach of the book appealed to one person I know, who let's say is a Bill O'Reilly fan. Flawed or not, this teaches some truths to an "alternative" audience.

Plea to allow health care broadcast

[One other thing that sort of annoys me is that there is a section on the USSC website for opinions from chambers, which are handed down from time to time (see here), but you never see them on the website.]

A long list of news organizations on Friday asked the Supreme Court to release, for broadcast, the Justices’ oral announcement of the coming decision on the constitutionality of the federal health care law.

See here for details. I find it curious that the author, a dean of the Supreme Court press corps, does not note that this sort of thing is not merely available (if perhaps a better part of a year later) at the "National Archives in Washington," but at Oyez.com.  For instance, McDonald v. Chicago -- the state Second Amendment case -- is found here.  This includes the opinion announcement -- a summary of the majority and Breyer's dissent included -- which is the sort of thing that the news organizations want available immediately.  More recent cases also are available, including (if not totally comprehensive) opinion announcement material.

As the discussion notes, current practice is for the Supreme Court to wait to the end of the week to release oral argument audio, which along with labeling the justices who ask questions and even having a website at all, only has been begun in the last few years.  Before they did this, the USSC in a few cases (such as the Solomon Amendment case involving military recruiter access to campuses that got Kagan in a bit of trouble) chose a few cases for same day audio.  That is, even though they didn't play it live (as C-SPAN does for congressional coverage), it is a sort of "live on tape" deal.  They can, of course, do this as well for the opinion announcement (and quite possible dissent from the bench) here too.  If they wished.

Although it is not unprecedented for the Court to do something it has never done previously, the chances that it will grant this request appear to be remote to non-existent.

This amuses me a bit, especially since the PPACA is supposedly "something ... never done previously." There really is not real good reason, if you are going to have argument audio, not to also have audio of opinion announcements.  They are done publicly and be they not binding like opinions, they have clear value like the also not binding headnotes found in each slip opinion.*  Some federal appeals courts (at least, I know the 9th does it) deign to give the public warning beforehand when a ruling will be handed down, not having them be on pins and needles each and every time opinion day comes. The USSC merely needs to release a transcript and/or audio of what the people there already hear.

The justices repeatedly tell people to read their opinions to understand their stance on specific issues but the practice of providing summaries during opinion announcements suggest they are willing to do more.  These tend to be a few minutes long though can be over five minutes in length; but, we are still not talking that much time.  The gun case was well summarized by Justice Alito in a way the general public could understand.  Other highlights would include Planned Parenthood v. Casey (twenty year anniversary) or Lawrence v. Texas, each with a dissent from the bench.  Why not this too?

The Supreme Court is sometimes said to be a teacher of republican values and has in recent years done some important things to fulfill this duty, down to writing books and making public appearances to different forums.  Immediate release, instead of a wait of months to it is available on a still largely unknown website, of the opinion announcement of the PPACA cases would be in this spirit.  It need not be live.  They can even wait until the end of the week.  Instead, the public will be left with a shorthand version through the medium of the people making this request.

That's just silly.   

---

* Each opinion with such comments has this disclaimer:

Where it is feasible, a syllabus (headnote) will be released, as is being done in connection with this case, at the time the opinion is issued.The syllabus constitutes no part of the opinion of the Court but has been prepared by the Reporter of Decisions for the convenience of the reader.

The USSC provides a summary of the case when announcing it for "the convenience" and guidance of the audience too. 

Necessary Roughness

Decent episode from my USA show. 

Gravity

I recently quickly referenced the teen fiction novel Gravity and will say a bit more about it here. Upfront, I guess she "can write."

It takes place in 1980s Canada* and involves an Orthodox Jewish family that express their beliefs in different ways. The mother, for instance, once thought about being a nun, but found the Orthodox path right for her. The way she felt in touch with the divine (the "gravity" metaphor arises from her) is by singing. This gets her in a bit of trouble when others think she overdoes it while reaching another plane in the midst of singing at synagogue.  The father also is Orthodox, with deep feelings, but does not express them in such emotional ways. The grandmother is largely a secular Jew though goes to Reform synagogue now and again. 

The older sister in effect follows in her footsteps and has long dreamed about escaping the confines of the family.  The main focus, Ellie, also feels trapped, dreaming of the sea.  The parents feel they have reached nirvana when they travel to Israel, a place for Jews, but Ellie feels nirvana while on vacation with her grandmother, near the water.  Ellie, who is fifteen, also has her first true love -- a girl she meets while on vacation.  The strength of this love, the physical nature that she cannot ignore, the desire to do things like touch her hair, is well expressed.  I think many romances do not truly provide such basic aspects of what love and lust and so forth is all about.  The confusion and emotional shocks are key points here.

Ellie has a crisis of faith given that Orthodox teaching has negative things to say about homosexuality and if you ignore one thing, the slipping slope to nothingness seems so easy to slide down.  But, God and religion still eventually seems right to her, just in her own way.  She also believes in her right to be happy, including breaking up with her true love when she does not seem to properly care for her and her feelings.  One review in a gay publication suggests she is transformed a bit too fast: one moment she doesn't want to wear a two piece, then she is secretly making out with her new girlfriend, for instance.  Maybe, a bit.  I think it works okay. 

Meanwhile, each member of the family makes compromises, recognizing they need to care for themselves and the people they love. The parents let the older daughter go to college away, the mom finds a new place to worship and so forth.  Also, nirvana does not occur: the book ends with only her sister knowing about her being a lesbian, for example. Thus, it is a realistic, insightful look at religion, young love, being different and being true to yourself.  Many themes, providing a rewarding read overall.

---

* The book was published a few years ago, so it comes off as a type of memoir in this sense, the author herself Jewish who grew up at that time with a gay brother, so some autobiographical details might be suggested.  There is no real sense of time period as such though except for the lack of things like cell phones or personal computers. 

Flag Day

We think the action of the local authorities in compelling the flag salute and pledge transcends constitutional limitations on their power, and invades the sphere of intellect and spirit which it is the purpose of the First Amendment to our Constitution to reserve from all official control.

Honor the day by honoring "for which it stands."

Heather Vandeven

A comment at a legal blog led to a hit and the thing that apparently was of interest was my quick comment on this actress. Must be her military background. She's no Korey Stamper though.

Supreme Court

Reading Linda Greenhouse's "Very Short Introduction" volume on the Supreme Court. Basically does the job. Made me wonder about a six vote rule for the USSC to declare a (maybe federal only) statute unconstitutional. 5-4 seems a bit off at times.

Trip to the Fruit Store

I may be a vegetarian but I don't eat as many fresh fruits and vegetables as I should. I had some fresh papaya, but didn't care for the seeds. Maybe, if I had parasites.

Colbert -- Voice of "Good Catholics" Everywhere

I respect Catholics like Stephen Colbert and these nuns who see the good stuff but the hypocrisy that results from this stuff is pretty sad.  The Church is more hierarchical than others, making it worse.

Gravity

Jewish week -- first a Jewish atheist, now a work of teen fiction somewhat based on fact (the author's brother is gay) involving a Jewish family. Like most good media, it is about a few things and overall was a good read. I learned about it via a NYPL tweet.

Chris Hayes

Saw him locally promoting his new book, Twilight of the Elites, which is "in transit" to my library. I think he would approve given his support of the public sector. Not sure how much his mega-theories will wow me, but I am impressed by the intelligence of his show. He noted he is a Cubs fan, thanks to his dad, though is a Bronx boy.

Loving Turns 44

More here.

Bunheads

Liked Gilmore Girls until it got old so Bunheads with a more jaded "Lorelai" and the same actress playing the deeper than she looks mother looked promising. Good first episode, pretty risque for "ABC Family" and darker than one might think along with the fantasy.

As The Nomination Wars Turn

The D.C. Circuit Court currently has three vacancies, but there is continued opposition among some Republicans in the Senate to filling those vacancies. One of the open seats — formerly held by now-Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. — has been vacant since Roberts was elevated seven years ago. The other two seats have been vacant four years and one year, after sitting Circuit judges took senior status, while remaining on the Court for some continuing service.

This sort of thing concerns me more than judicial term limits.

Words Are What I Want Them To Mean

The atheist book I just read had a motto of reasoned debate. In response to a 9-0 habeas ruling involving an unpleasant murder, one comment elsewhere spoke about how the Supremes are ignoring state sanctioned "murder" here. That is, the death penalty. Some place else, such free use of legal terminology can apply to abortion or killing OBL. Such is the path to ignoring what legal terms actually mean.

Heather Vandeven

After graduating from high school at age 17, Vandeven served in the United States Army for two and a half years, where she worked in food inspection. She has a degree in Education from Southern Illinois University and was working on her masters in Nutrition in fall of 2006.

And, then she became a porn star.  

Wait, this is MSNBC, Right?

MHP has a book with barbershops in the title so today's multiple segments (with an all black women panel) on black women's hair  is not that big of a surprise.  With so much overlap out there, she at times has different points of view and a variety of hair styles! 

Rev. Joe (Candidate Without a Prayer)

Herb Silverman fits the bill of a "character," a PH.D. math professor, who only wears suits to class on Halloween (his choice clothing is t-shirts and shorts, probably sensible in South Carolina) and is the sort of person that likes to invite Jehovah Witnesses into his home.  As a favorite t-shirt notes, smile, there is no hell!  This is a great face for the Secular Coalition and atheism in general -- has the brains to reason, but the pleasant personality that even your garden variety evangelical might like him.

I am half-way through his new book, a pleasant nice guy biography explaining his upbringing (Orthodox Jew with a controlling mother**), path to adulthood (such as learning how to change a light bulb) and public exposure as a leader of the movement (including his run as governor of South Carolina to challenge its religious test; he lost, so was deemed not to have a claim, but did finally get his notary license, long after the issue seemed to be settled in the courts*).  In the process, he freely talks about both religion and sex, the easy going summary of various relationships in its fashion as liberal minded as the religious ones.

It is a pleasant read that teaches as well in a gentle way that often leads to the best results. He is a math professor and even provides a bit of education there in his usual down to earth way.  His sense of humor is even seen in the table of contents -- he skips Chapter 13, noting there are three numbering systems -- English, metric and hotel, choosing the third.  Overall, it shows that you can be an atheist who evangelizes in one's own way without being of the sort that turns me off, the aggressive type that appears to me to ridicule believers.

Respect is a better approach.

---

* The author notes that the religious test is a blatant violation of Article VI, but that provision concerns federal offices ("under the United States," like the President has pardon power regarding offenses "against the United States") and clearly didn't moot every state religious test, particularly in the states remaining with established churches. 

The Fourteenth Amendment led to states having the same requirements, however, which also went the other way -- ministers could not be barred from office either.  The true liberty position, one the author shares, would honor both sides of the coin here.

** The family dynamic adds a human angle.  Finishing the book, I found the math chapters a tad boring.  I find math okay -- liked doing proofs. Overall, I recommend the book.

Citizens United Is Not THAT Powerful

Chris Hayes today in passing noted that Citizens United didn't have much influence in Wisconsin. State law either way allowed much spending before the Dems picked their (boring) nominee. Then, a comment about millionaires and CU was noted, but only an appellate ruling (Speech Now) actually covered that. Millionaires are not "corporations." As noted elsewhere, the margin of victory was high enough that money alone probably couldn't explain it either.

Natasha Trethewey

Prose is more my thing but I respect the power of poetry.

Item Becomes More Cloudy Upon Review

Blog Post: "Oscar-Winning Schindler’s List Producer Disinvited from Giving Speech at High School Because He’s Too Conservative." An "intolerant" treatment of conservatives? In Montana, huh? Local news account puts a different gloss on it. I realize not Hollywood Reporter.

Bart Ehrman

I myself was a fundamentalist, and it took me a long time to be over it. When I was seventeen I attended the Moody Bible Institute in Chicago, a bastion of fundamentalism where my fellow students and I believed that the Bible was inerrant in everything it said. There were no mistakes in the Bible of any kind. This is what we were taught and this is what we believed.

- Bart Ehrman (in speech when presented with the Religious Liberty Award by the American Humanist Association)

Bart Ehrman was referenced in a comment yesterday per my citation of a character in What If.*  I have read a few books by this lapsed fundamentalist who traveled the gambit to fundamentalism to agnosticism as seen in God's Problem: How the Bible Fails to Answer Our Most Important Question-Why We Suffer.  The latter is a basic cry, dealt by various people in different ways.  One interesting book dealt with Peter, Paul and Mary ... you know, the biblical figures.

I discuss Misquoting Jesus here.  Ehrman does a lot of work showing the complexity of interpreting religious texts, particularly when we don't actually have the originals.  It is as if events that take place decades in the past, already obtained secondhand are copied a bunch of times, each copy slightly different than the other one.  We wouldn't quite know what is meant if we had the originals (already flawed), but the end result (even if we use the right translation -- word choice often of particular importance here given the nuances of the faith using them) is particularly opaque.

The resulting lack of clarity can be seen as just how life is or even as on some level more interesting and overall a reason to be careful and humble.  Of course, assurance is another way to go. The same applies to constitutional interpretation and I often see an overlap:

Of course when trying to understand these different points of views we need to engage in the work of interpretation. Contrary to what some people assume, texts don't speak for themselves. They must be interpreted. And this can never be done "objectively," as if we, the readers, were robots; texts are interpreted subjectively by human.

Quoting Ehrman.  Anyways, the reference to Moody in the film concerned the wife being told that when you marry a minister, you should watch for that moment of doubt -- it always comes -- and this is what she thought was occurring when her husband suddenly was acting all strange. Actually, he was suddenly in an alternate reality, living as someone else up to that point, so his sudden rejection of who he was arose for somewhat different reasons.

The comment holds true either way, since doubt arises in any number of ways, and when it involves something of deep importance, it tends to pass.  Not always.  See, Bart Ehrman.

---

* I alluded to Kristy Swanson (who plays the wife) having "range" and the link shows a couple things she did in her career for which many viewers of the movie would not appreciate. This is better than the incident where an earlier satiric sex themed video (that few saw) led to a children's show host to lose her job.

Another thing that stood out was during the commentary where the star said a mild expletive.  Surprised they didn't edit that out. 

What If... (DVD)

My original review basically holds up. Decent director commentary and some cast interviews with interesting perspectives. Caught a reference to Moody Bible Institute. Kristy Swanson surely has range. The lead's book provides another possible story-line.

Lashing Out

To quote from this letter, this response to unions seems "dickish." The understandable disgust etc. people have does not justify, even if it helps explain, lashing out. Unions, you know, sorta thanks, but let's improve employer security with ponies and hope. Works so well.

Necessary Roughness

Good season premiere. 

Seemed Like A Good Idea At The Time (1812 Edition)

Recalls

Not a big fan on principle even without today's results.

[Basically, I think we need time for governing and two/four year elections provide proper checks. What if libs "went too far"? The Davis recall was not a great precedent either.]

Prop 8 Denied En Banc Review

Three conservatives dissented from the denial for en banc review of the Prop 8 ruling along with the original dissenter (with no opinion here). O’SCANNLAIN, Circuit Judge, joined by BYBEE and BEA are basically "usual suspects" in this respect. If anyone else dissented, it was off the record. The three started with a citation of President Obama's recent remarks:

A few weeks ago, subsequent to oral argument in this case, the President of the United States ignited a media firestorm by announcing that he supports samesex marriage as a policy matter. Drawing less attention, however, were his comments that the Constitution left this matter to the States and that “one of the things that [he]’d like to see is–that [the] conversation continue in a respectful way.”1 Today our court has silenced any such respectful conversation.

This is a misconstruction of what actually occurred. The panel opinion (by the liberal lion of the circuit) relied on narrow grounds that did not apply to most state laws and only arguably in the remaining (e.g., Hawaii passed a state amendment to stop a pending lawsuit that looked to place the state on the road to SSM, but there the state legislature was given the discretion to vote for it; not in California). Putting aside the merits (I think the ruling provides a quite "recognizable" reading of Romer v. Evans), the implication seems to be any ruling that "overruled the will" of the voters (but, not, the "will" of the governor they voted for, apparently), no matter how constitutionally problematic, would violate Obama's sentiments.

This is rather dubious. This case has dragged on for years and ultimately (even if the USSC does not grant cert., which I hope it does not, given its narrow reach etc.) the result is (like the 1CA ruling on DADT) a nudge, but a "respectful" one. It continues ignorance to interpret his words so literally that states are deemed to have carte blanche here. There clearly do not, even if they have broad practical and actual discretion. This is seen by other state practices in the Ninth Circuit, for which this opinion does not on its own disallow, including those without SSM. The comment is best defended in California, but the ruling is narrow enough that even there a law (the unpopularity is duly noted) can be imagined that would fit its terms. OTOH, as noted at the time, even various law professor types appear not to quite understand it.

As noted by a comment here, the dissent also does not seem that "respectful," but who is surprised given the author?

The Sports Pages

This 2001 DVD has two short subjects -- a (bit too long but pretty good) fictionalized account of the infamous "Heidi Game" and a shorter and amusing golf themed one ["How Doc Waddems Finally Broke 100"] with Bob Newhart going against Kelsey Grammer.

TV Watch

A couple series coming back from break this week but the first, Drop Dead Diva, had a pretty ham-handed season premiere. I hope the next one is better. A.N.T. Farm also had an off guest star episode.

Gun Show Nation: Gun Culture And American Democracy

Has a good line that the Constitution is not just legal but also cultural.  OTOH, focuses too much on the conservative culture here (white males at that), not even having a chapter on hunting.  Last chapter comes off as liberal cant after somewhat more balanced main content.  Some good history and commentary within its limitations.

Rev. Joe (Movie Edition)

More.  And, on today.

Anonymous Comments

This is the second comment from a professor at this blog complaining about anonymous comments, after in effect calling it a "coward" way to do so. As I note there, that's unfair and various named bloggers leave something to be desired, like those worried about "the left" out there "intimidating" judges. Facebook commenting is different.

Soda "ban"

I am still wary, but some of the comments here suggest the limit to sixteen ounces in various NYC locations make some degree of sense. [Also, the small print regarding diet soda, locations, etc. important.]

I Didn't Think He Promised Me A Rose Garden

But seldom have they come to stand in for the entire possibility of hope, change, progress, a bold reboot of the status quo—rarely do we have the opportunity to feel profoundly, soul-crushingly disappointed by them. Such a feeling now clusters around Barack Obama

Aren't we mature enough not to believe in Santa Claus by now?

Watching History

I was not really a sports fan until the 1990s for whatever reason and thus missed the highlight of many Mets fans' lives, the '86 World Series (and a wickedly long Astros game that got them there).  The mid-1990s was in fact that Golden Age for this generation's Yankee fans. "Donny Baseball" just missed it after the Yanks lost three straight against their previous nemesis (along with Baltimore, who remember a certain 12 year old boy) Seattle, after being up by two games.  He then retired and started studying to be a manager and I guess rest his back.  Then, the core of whom I myself think of as "the Yanks" (three left, four if you count the manager) shined (with a 1997 hiccup) until Arizona (with an assist from current Met Miguel "El Poet" Batista) stopped them and (after not getting to the WS in '02) they lost in six games (Pettite the final losing pitcher, pitching pretty darn good, but not quite good enough). 

They won the WS again eventually, but didn't seem to the same.  They have a pretty good team, especially some "who are they" relievers, but again, since 2003, never quite seemed the same.  It was time to focus on the Mets, though I watched them too before then, including choosing them for the '00 World Series (won one game, but broke a a stream of nine WS victories).  "The" Mets team for me was probably 1999 though 2006 was no slouch either, including a great defensive infield, relievers like Turk "the hunter" Wendell and starters like Al Leiter, Rick Reed and heck Bobby "One Hit" Jones too.  That was the year when it took an extra game to get to the playoffs and a few extra innings (six) to get to the six game of the Braves series that ended with an infamous walk from Kenny Rogers, who some years later embarrassed the Yanks in a playoff game.  As these things went on, some interesting Giants and Jets stuff occurred, including a not quite TD that got them to the playoffs that helped to lead to instant replay being so important. 

Whenever the pitcher who threw the final pitch against the Mets in '06 start, announcers seem to need to remind us of the fact, though now the hitter plays for the Cards.  Well, he didn't do well yesterday, the Mets scoring eight.  The Mets had a couple near misses after '06, that is near misses to get to the playoffs, John Maine and Santana (playing hurt) were involved in two gems along the way.  Santana was a risk pickup because it was not clear if his body would hold up. Turned out to be the case when his season was shortened and then missed last season, some not thinking he would be reading at the beginning of this season.

Though he looked a bit iffy at times, he was, and pitched pretty well except for a couple hiccups.  Pitched pretty damn well last night too, including throwing over 130 pitches, more than he ever pitched in his MLB career.  He also did something that he noted he never did, even in a video game, something no single Met (though, amazingly, not only did Seaver get into the 9th THREE times, it happened -- down to Phil Humber -- about ten times after a pitcher left the team, including Doc Gooden, who did it with the Yanks) did ... pitch a no hitter.  Well, I guess, it's time for the last remaining team, the Padres to do it.  Probably the only way they would win many games this year, seeing them play a few times recently.

I caught the last few innings -- to me, it looked to be another nail-biter and after a bad Phils series, not really in the mood for that. Actually, mid-game, it became a bit of a laugher with a twist.  Mike Baxter, a back-up OF from Queens, made the catch of the day and (shocker) got hurt.  The other story of the game, other than pushing Santana past his "no doubt about it" 110-115 pitch count (reached in the eighth; the Cards helped him by quick outs late, the first out of the ninth done with one pitch, though the last out started 3-0).  When Cone came back from surgery in '96, in one of the stories of that year, he was taken out in the seventh while pitching a no-hitter.  A hit, by then set-up man Rivera as I recall, ended it.  But, this wasn't his first game back, and he wasn't giving up the ball.

Yeah, I was saying, another story.  Turns out that mid-game (be more dramatic if it was like the eighth inning), Beltran (who was traded last year to the Giants as a two month rental in return for promising prospect and neat baseball name, Zack Wheeler) hit what everyone but the third base umpire said was a fair ball.  Not quite being cheated of it on the last out and would not be the first time a questionable foul call would be made.  Doubt that during the various no-hitters, not quite the rarity of the perfect game, similar bad calls were made.  And, many in fact didn't think much of the final strike call in the Humber perfect game.  Anyways, ump calls are part of the game and like that "not quite TD" for the Jets, they count, and Built up a lot of karma points here.

Some people last Winter thought this season for the Mets would be terrible, including at Mets Today blog.  I did not think so.  Though I'm a bit surprised that Daniel Murphy turned out to be a pretty credible second baseman, less so that yet again (six shortstops, including David Wright again for part of one game!) they have so many injuries (wanted Pelfrey to go, but not quite that way), I thought they would do okay.  This being in the mid-70s, which would be about their average of late.  They in fact are doing pretty good, though they were pretty good early on a few times of late before falling quickly after the All Star Break. But, with lower expectations, minus a few pretty hard to take games, the season in a way can be enjoyed more.  Well, won't take much now, huh?

I think that man deserves an extra day of rest!

[Update: Baxter made the play of the game and in return, according to KB, "out likely 6 weeks. Displaced collarbone, and rib cartilage injury." Ramirez, a reliever, hurt himself rushing to celebrate.  Some questionable calls in one hitters suggested here.]

---

* The announcer, especially one each on the radio and t.v. sides who have been long suffering Mets fans, were particularly excited. I posted a video that includes the radio feed ("put it in the books!!!!!!"). That sort of thing really added to the fun.  Though I don't like the new radio play by play guy, the Mets announcers are on the whole a reason to watch/listen.

The sideline reporter, Kevin Burkhardt, also was pretty excited with a few key tweets ("um, turn on SNY now," after the eighth).  He is still gushing, talking about how after Mike Baxter's catch, he thought it could be done.  Such is the mentality of sports -- forget about the past.  2006. 

Let Them Eat Shrimp: The Tragic Disappearance of the Rainforests of the Sea

At the intersection of land and sea, mangrove forests support a wealth of life, from starfish to people, and may be more important to the health of the planet than we ever realized. ... Mangroves provide nursery grounds for fish; a food source for monkeys, deer, tree-climbing crabs, even kangaroos; and a nectar source for bats and honeybees.

This environmentalist travelogue on the importance of mangroves is short but still a tad repetitive, perhaps best a subject for a documentary or an extended magazine article. Still, it covers a less known story that is part of building and maintaining sustainable ecosystems and local economies. I recall reading a book covering somewhat comparable ground regarding how industrial aquaculture, particularly shrimp, has problems just as the land form does.  This adds a travelogue vibe, though he is an expert too.

[As noted in comments, I probably should note that the issue here is a sort of monoculture where shrimp farming replaces the complex ecosystems of mangroves, not that collecting shrimp (along with other types of seafood) from the sea is specifically a problem. I have no understanding that the small time shrimp collector is a problem.  And, as noted, in that context, shrimp too would have their role.]  

An ethical vegetarian (no, not doing it for my health -- I don't eat overly healthy really), seafood is on the margins of my concerns, partially since I was never a big consumer of the stuff.  But, there remains some concerns, though the troublesome food here (the book is not mainly focused on shrimp but mangroves -- a type of saltwater forest says the book jacket -- as a whole) is mostly shrimp. Shrimp is seen as sort of the rich man of the sea, a delicacy that is not productive in providing jobs for the average person as compared to other seafood such as mussels, one the greedily takes natural resources for an often short time benefit of the few.

The overall view here is not veganism, however, but sustainable environment.  As noted (see link) in Justice Douglas' famous dissent:

So it should be as respects valleys, alpine meadows, rivers, lakes, estuaries, beaches, ridges, groves of trees, swampland, or even air that feels the destructive pressures of modern technology and modern life. The river, for example, is the living symbol of all the life it sustains or nourishes - fish, aquatic insects, water ouzels, otter, fisher, deer, elk, bear, and all other animals, including man, who are dependent on it or who enjoy it for its sight, its sound, or its life. The river as plaintiff speaks for the ecological unit of life that is part of it. Those people who have a meaningful relation to that body of water - whether it be a fisherman, a canoeist, a zoologist, or a logger - must be able to speak for the values which the river represents and which are threatened with destruction.

In the (in)famous dissent, he wanted to give standing to natural entities because they have special value. This book notes mangroves are not merely "resources" to exploit but more like things to value like we value people.  Concerns were made regarding to threats to local seafood after the BP oil spill, some still remaining, requiring advocates to push. The mangrove too needs a voice and this book helps provide one.  

And, along the way find out about Jesus lizards etc. 

Santana No Hits The Cards

First no hitter in Mets history. 

Amanda Marcotte Suggests Why Edwards Had Supporters

See here. I was for Dean in '04 but Edwards was my second choice (Kerry -- zzzzz) & I voted for him in the '08 primary since I thought Obama too centrist. He by then had apologized for his Iraq vote. Liked his book. I also was part of the Elizabeth Edwards love.

Nuns Join Obama War On Religion

Sister Pat Farrell, president of the leadership conference, said in a telephone interview on Friday, "We do want to go and speak the truth as we understand it about our lives."

Now, ladies, you must have seen Doubt. You need to follow the male leadership here. They speak. You follow.

John Edwards

Maddow excerpted this tonight adding it was pre-Citizens United, noting Newt's millionaire.  But, that guy is a lot of things, but not a corporation.  So what's your point?  Anyway, Edwards might be a "slimeball," but the prosecution was/is is dubious.

And More

Not enough votes for the same sex abortion ban. Nod to Ron Paul for consistency. And, again, not saying the drone rules are right. Problematic. [Colbert had a wickedly funny segment too.] Just not as wrong as some say. We need to focus on the right things.