Jan. 6 Commission

And Also:  I appreciate that Secular Coalition of America had a productive meeting with the White House Office of Faith-Based and Neighborhood Partnership.  Any effort by the White House to involve religious groups should take into consideration everyone, including those whose "religious" like beliefs are of a non-theistic nature.  On this, they should be Unitarian. 

Judge Posner was dismissive on the results of the 9/11 Commission, which I on this blog found unconvincing. Moving past how that was nearly 17 years ago [the timing might be compared to the criticism that the December 2021 deadline here is too soon], my opening paragraph is relevent here given the comparison to the proposed 1/6 Commission:

I was impressed by the 9/11 Commission Report, though realizing that there were various limitations, and that the reforms suggested might be problematic in various aspects. All the same, it was well written, provided good background material, had striking "you are there" reporting of the day itself, and provided some important thoughts on how a successful policy might be carried forth.

The Lawfare analysis linked above, which I will referenced at times, cites possible benefits that overlaps with why I found the 9/11 Commission attractive:

The success of the 9/11 Commission—which both issued a compelling narrative history of the events leading up to Sept. 11 and issued a set of bold policy recommendations for Congress and the administration in response—shows that the structure the bipartisan bill embraces is at least consistent with effective investigative work product.

There is an argument being made that current congressional investigations would be satisfactory. Those sympathetic to the goals of the commission, as compared to those fearing it will hurt their political chances, are complicit in some fashion and/or supportive of the insurrectionists, have questioned it as well. A major concern is the Republicans will in effect be "fifth columnists" here. But, such people also think some sort of select committee or perhaps special investigation in the Justice Department would anyway advance the goals just as well.

This is why such an inquiry needs to be removed from the hyper-polarized environment that is Congress and instead be established as a well-resourced independent commission with a clear and specific mandate focused squarely on Jan. 6 and overseen by commissioners who aren’t focused on their next reelection campaign.

There to me appears to be various arguments in support of a commission outside of Congress, which has more independence than a normal select committee. The legislation provides a method for those experienced in various things relevant to the investigation in a way not as likely in Congress. Concerns about the possibility of bipartisan commissions, especially given how one side is more self-interested than in the 9/11 context, are quite valid. It looked like even the Minority Leader would see some common ground. After all, during the impeachment, Trump's lawyer said such a commission was the right way to go. It might not seem like it, but thirty-five House Republicans in this environment voting for the measure is also significant.

And, contra let's say a comment made by Charlie Pierce on Twitter, there does seem to be public support and value to some united effort. We might think it stupid, but continual pushing for that on policy underlines that the median voter very well trusts something more when it does not seem one-sided. And, here, it also is important, noting that there will be some passionate minority that won't trust anything of that sort. 

The Lawfare piece as noted is concerned about the end date, which might be a legitimate concern -- I'm not sure about needing to release it after the 2022 elections, though there is a message of neutrality advanced there.  It also suggests a mechanism to break possible ties (ties as well lack of quorums have made regulating federal elections, the FEC split by party picks, a continual problem), which might also be useful. As noted there, what will be key is who is picked.  The 9/11 Commission Republican chair was Tom "former Drew University head" Kean, an establishment Republican type.  Justice Sandra Day O'Connor was also on the Commission. Query if Souter or Kennedy would be ideal here. 

As noted above, the bill to form the Commission passed the House with thirty-five Republican votes.  That is still rather bad, especially after real effort (not that they want to admit it) was made to find middle ground.  By the way, it is not clear to me why articles on the passage cannot simply clearly provide a damn link to the bill -- I repeatedly have to search for thing (the same thing popped up during the impeachments).  The current chances in the Senate are a bit dim, which means ten Republican senators do not want to join in.  Graveyard Mitch grave yard-ed it.  

This is one somewhat cynical partisan argument for pushing this thing.  There is (again contra to Charlie Pierce) apparent strong public support for this sort of thing.  As with other things, the weight of such support is not necessarily so compelling that another path won't work out in the end.  Still, there is partisan value in tarring the Republicans here (other than it being patently legitimate on the merits).  And, then Democrats can have a select committee or whatever, saying "we tried, man." 

I'm open to all arguments here, but do think there is some good arguments on the merits.  A separate commission independent of Congress provides a means to examine the situation over a span of time, focused on one thing, in a more organized and expert fashion.  A report, with narrative and proposed reforms, can also be useful as in the previous situation.  It also provides a chance to show that government works, which even can give Republicans a chance to show some good faith.  On this subject, the party surely needs that.  With around 1/6 (how apt) of them voting for it, this is sort of a free riding exercise on their part, but so be it.  

The complaints of Republicans that this is redundant given their past actions (BENGHAZI!) are as believable as senators at this point saying they didn't read a nineteen page bill that has big margins so can't comment on it.  And, also wrong on the merits -- the bill even instructs the commission to try not be too redundant with what was already done. The insurrection occurred in January and the prosecution process is still ongoing, with we still getting news of arrests.  New knowledge and judgments are quite possible, especially with different types of people involved.  As with the Supreme Court commission, time will be helpful.

So, in conclusion, I recognize the concerns and find them reasonable ones. Nonetheless, especially before we see who is chosen to be on the Commission (including as minority co-leader), I am guardedly optimistic about the enterprise. And, even if I was less so, the effort is probably in the Democrats' self-interest. I generally trust Pelosi and Schumer's basic political judgment in that regard as well.  Finally, the impeachment trial here was a useful prologue, including McConnell saying Trump is clearly not not guilty.  His intransigence now is unsurprising but his words then are still on the record.  

Can we have a 14A, sec. 3 enforcement bill too?

Books

I added Tangled Up In Blue: Policing the American City to the side panel. It was a quick read, largely narrative of a law professor/public servant (such as in foreign policy roles) Rosa Brooks (whose mom is an old time lefty) becoming a reserve police officer in D.C. I like the idea of getting a more diverse group to be member of the modern day "militia," and even better if more members of the community served that role. The book is also referenced here. Compare another liberal blog with ten part series about there not being any good cops.

The book is divided between a section on the author thinking about it, training and then about half talking about her time as a new recruit. She ends with a more academic flourish, discussing her academic contribution involving giving the police a way to examine their role and other issues. The book provides some commentary on policing but is largely a narrative of her personal experience. The police comes off as mostly benign (if not always the system) with some questionable actors. You won't find any blatant abuse, except during training.

Meanwhile, had various false starts. A Kiss For Midwinter was something of a mix -- I skimmed the novella and it had some interest. The particular interest was to give the heroine (based on Lydia from Pride and Prejudice, at least her experience as a teen; Lydia in the book seems more flightly and the parents are different here) sexual agency. I was intrigued after reading this article by the author while she was a law student.

Professor's Use of Pronouns

There are less than seventy Supreme Court opinions due this term involving cases that received full briefing and treatment. This is not all they do, to be clear, and order lists repeatedly involve treatment of other cases (such as sending back cases like the ones they decided). There is also the whole "shadow docket" issue where the Supreme Court decide at times significant cases. But, even with all that, we are talking about a small number of cases.

There are thousands of cases in the lower federal courts and state courts every year. Some get significant attention given some interesting facts or significant happenings. For instance, a few years ago, the Kansas Supreme Court signficiantly protected abortion rights, using the state constitution to use a stronger test than the "Casey" standard. We will deal with one such case here -- one involving a professor pushing back from using the desired pronouns and related forms of address ("Mr.") in a college classroom.

The case has received some attention in places like Slate, but my immediate reaction here arose from a blog discussion and comments. The case has various complications that often arise in these cases, complications that cloud the issues that get the most attention.

So, for instance, this case raises allegations of religious discrimination. The court of appeals panel (a trio of conservatives) frames the facts to suggest evidence of heavy-handed religious discrimination. It is a bit unclear to me in fact how (as they noted) the professor had no problems practicing his religion for years until this specific issue came up if the college actors here were so crude. The district ruling went the other way, and yeah, the players come off a tad bit differently.

The panel decision also frames the student as a rather crude character while the professor comes off as a victim who reasonably is trying just to practice his religion and express his views. It is a hard to really determine how much spin is involved here. For instance, a comment argued the core issue was his right to state his dissenting views on the syllabus, which the school rejects.

But, a read of the decision doesn't really tell me what exactly he wanted to say and fully why the college rejected this. Anyway, as I note there, if that was the only issue, it would be a narrow opinion. It wasn't and I understand not in effect treating a syllabus as just a public forum of sorts. OTOH, a simple disclaimer on his part might be possibly crafted.

My basic position is that a respectful rule to allow students and professors (staff) to choose what to call them is an acceptable one in this public context. It is basically a legitimate time, place and manner rule. A couple quotes from CLS v. Martinez, allowing an "all comers" rule for official school organization fits.

They do so by participating in a community that teaches them how to create arguments in a convincing, rational, and respectful manner and to express doubt and disagreement in a professional way.

The basic theme of the blog piece is that usage of "Ms" or someone's maiden name as compared to their husband's name is a matter of respect. And, again, that is what immediate comes to mind for me too on a basic level.  The quote, as many quotes turn out to be, does offer the other side something as well. The professor wants to "express doubt and disagreement."  The syllabus disclaimer is a possibility though there are other ways he can as well.  That might be a fine line, since the syllabus is in effect a limited public forum, to perhaps use the term close to accurately.  OTOH, a basic rule of respect includes agreement on certain respectful usage of names and titles in professional settings.  Rules of order in this respect do no violate the First Amendment.

A reply speaks of the professor "forced" and his "sin," which to me is rather heavy-handed language (the first reply came off to me as annoyingly fatuous and the second -- after the professor calmly basically noted there are close calls, but somehow we manage without the hypos cited ever coming up -- just annoyed me more)  for basic social graces that we managed to do daily without being required to call people silly names.  How is unclear going by "rational outlook" person. 

Academic administrators routinely employ antidiscrimination rules to promote tolerance, understanding, and respect, and to safeguard students from invidious forms of discrimination, including sexual orientation discrimination.

But, and this touches upon a reply that bothered me [spent time to provide a reply but deleted it; then the second reply just led me to have a morning rant aloud], the immediate case does raise discrimination concerns. I touch upon this on my comment. If we want to treat this as a "value," it is a constitutional value, one that is factored in when regulating speech.  Discrimination law does in some fashion involving changing social understandings.  This has speech implications -- it is not a violation of the First Amendment to have a civil rights law that deems usage of "boy" as discriminatory, even if a person honestly is expressing a dissenting view on the matter of racial relations. 

This isn't just something that pops up in this country. Somehow, Canada, e.g., in 2021 as compared to 1921 has more concern for sex and racial matters.  Again heavy-handed language ("dominant societal position") can be used here, but that sort of thing is factored in when regulating how to address people in public accommodations. If the person merely said that respect was not the only rule used, okay, but the idea line drawing here is just arbitrary value choices between "sinners" and saints is another matter.  The "at least in the U.S." comment is just one of many badly reasoned heavy handed comments that triggers annoyance.

"Leaf Blower" or something is not the same as gender pronoun usage or wanting to be called by your maiden name. This is part of why the first reply annoyed me -- yes, an "anything goes" rule isn't in place. There are various complexities. You cannot just require a professor call you "Mr. Asshole." And, race and sex discrimination concerns factor in here among other things.

The blog post might largely focus on respect, but the gender based examples are still notable. Sex discrimination is specifically a thing. Gender is a fluid thing which cannot be easily handled by some visual test and there is objective reasons here to provide a personal choice.  The basic rule of letting the person have a personal choice is a basic reasonable default, but there are going to be concerns around the edges.  And, being called "Leaf Blower," e.g., isn't going to raise federal sex discrimination policy questions or something here.  

I don't see why this is not a "great" or rather reasonable "idea." The allegedly absurd (not that one is safely advised to say that, since this is a game of gotcha) examples are also both not quite the same or even relevant.  The issue at hand is what choice specific of gender titles are appropriate. Wanting to be called "POTUS" or "professor" (if one is the student) is not the same thing.  Not only is the gender equality questions not arising, it is not a choice among some set. It is wanting to be given some other title.  And, yes, the objective reality of trans students as compared to someone thinking they are POTUS is not the same thing either.  It is simply not merely a "value choice" to see this difference.

People also have silly (to some) or maybe even somewhat offensive (let's say Jesus, which some might think blasphemous) names.  The latter shows their might be close calls (the "offense" here is different than "Mr. Asshole").  Some names actually translate to something as mundane as "Leaf Blower."  If that is a person's name, the name on their transcript especially, you call the person that.  That's a neutral rule.  Ms. Jackson over Mr. Jackson is not the same thing as Jackson wanting to be called Hillary Clinton. 

As Prof. Colb noted, she never had someone ask her to call her that.  It is more likely to be some sort of troll challenge of the rule, a rule that as applied here is not just a matter of respect, but a result of discrimination concerns.  And, if someone actually, seriously, wants to be called that, I bet it can be handled.  Still, there ARE reasonable lines to be drawn here. It is not all subjective values all the way down.

The cat example to me is just asinine.  I'll play the game -- let's say someone comes from a clan associated with an animal.  A "cat" clan and they feel they have the spirit of a cat inside of them.  Blah blah.  So fucking what? Really.  You call cats by their names.  They might not care, but they have names and personal pronouns and titles.  So, Mr. Whiskas or whatever.  So, what does the reference even get you at all?  There is even a name matching a cat -- Cat or Catherine.  It is not like there is a box on the transcript that says "human" or some cat related means of address.  You call cats by their names.  That is a "rational outlook."

So, I think as a general rule that you are not likely to have any problems by calling someone by their preferred name and pronouns, at least if some neutral standard rule is followed.  So, you know, they don't get to have one each day and if the professor goes by what is on the official records, it is a basic safe harbor. A professor might ask "Oh. So, you want to be called Sponge Bob Squarepants. Is that what you want on your formal recommendation letter?"  Because the average woman who uses her maiden name or a trans student very well is likely to consistently do so.

Still, sorry, "societal attitudes," attitudes that arise from objective things like the science of gender and constitutional discrimination rules, will somehow factor in -- at least along the edges.  The same arises in the Fourth Amendment. What is "reasonable."  Likewise, what is "cruel and usual." And so forth.  Yes, some close rational analysis is warranted since common sense is not always sense and all that.  Still the point holds. 

And, the cat example is simply stupid.

TV Update

The Mets chug along, more injuries coming, including after Kevin "stud" Pillar had his nose broken after being hit by a pitch (nasty way to score a run) and was in the dugout watching -- if not able to play -- the very next day. Let's see how they handle a heavy schedule with maybe (DeGrom will have a rehab start) regular starters, one still wet behind the ears.

All Rise is basically the only fiction series I watch regularly. The only other constants of "new" stuff are John Oliver, baseball, Rachel Maddow at times, Hallmark type movies at times and C-SPAN non-fiction programming. I don't watch various "in" stuff, including on the cable networks available to me. Of course, All Rise has been cancelled. It has been having some behind the scenes issues, but its somewhat continuing plot lines made me feel like there was a lot left. Not so much. Maybe, I will check out the book that inspired it.

I got out China Beach, which co-stars one of the supporting cast here, and which I watched (if not consistently -- don't recall seeing the later episodes really) back in the day. I checked out the pilot and it was well done with a good commentary track.

More SCOTUS News

Conference Day: Thursday was the day the Supreme met for their conference.  There will be an opinion day on Monday -- with over 25 opinions left, it makes sense to release a few a week until late June.  See below for an update on the below post.

The Presidential Commission on the Supreme Court of the United States had its first public meeting, basically to deal with preliminaries. One thing it did was to flag the areas it will cover:

Then several of the members summarized the five areas that the commission will study: (1) the genesis of the reform debate, including why reforming the Supreme Court has been a debate throughout the nation’s history and what factors contribute to the debate of late, (2) the court’s role in our constitutional system, including debates about the scope of judicial review and the authority of the court to invalidate the acts of the other branches of government, (3) length of service and turnover of justices, (4) membership and size of the court, including proposals to expand the size of the court, and (5) the court’s case-selection process, the shadow docket, and the court’s interactions with the public.

The White House page for the commission provided video as it occurred, unlike the actual SCOTUS.  I think this commission can be useful, both to inform and perhaps push the conversation and maybe a few actual reforms (such as ethics).  It provides a national platform that the public can watch, which puts the issues out there.  The fact the commission isn't supposed to set forth proposals to me doesn't erase its value.  

===

There is some more talk about Justice Breyer, including some thought that he might not want to retire now since it would cause partisan divisions that will hurt the Court.  To me, it would make more sense for him to retire now, which would be a normal practice and lower the temperature a bit while some of those most angry will find it appealing that a younger black woman will take his slot.  Just holding one of the three seats liberals have really won't mean too much, but there are also a few lower court slots (including court of appeals) opening.  

Anyway, there is the fear some Democrat will die or something and thus losing the majority.  But, let's say he wants to retire in 2022. That is an election year.  That will invite problems.  Why would he want to be there when two major cases (guns and abortion) are likely not to go the way he likes?  One person not too dubiously suggested Breyer just likes him job and doesn't want to let it go.

He also is supposed to have a new book out that seems to cover the ground of his recent big speech.  Just retire -- RBG is dead, so keeping on her now is a bit gratuitous, but yeah, he better fucking retire in June.  Yeah.  Look at me.  Tough guy.  But, it's time.  I granted RBG a bit of lack given everything taken into consideration; we saw what happened.  Breyer used to work for Senator Kennedy.   He should care a bit about the risk of not retiring now.  It does come off as stupid and selfish if he holds on. 

===

Quintin Jones (20) murdered an elderly relative after she would not give money for drugs.  That was in 1999.  His supporters say Jones turned his life around in prison, and is remorseful.  And, those supporters include relatives, including a sister of the victim. They opposed executing him. "What about the victims?"  The legal claims raised arguments of mental disability and questions on the use of expert evidence.  A reporter in an interview referenced the problems of proving future dangerousness.

If the legal claims were not strong enough (especially given current doctrine), it would not surprise, but I believe that the Supreme Court should always at least provide a brief explanation in a capital case for these final appeals.  None this time; none from Breyer or Sotomayor (who is more likely to at least drop a statement) either.  Just a standard denial.  He was then executed, the first state execution of the year, and without media witnesses for I guess Big V related reasons.  

The federal executions in January were patently corrupt affairs. This was the first state execution since last July.  It was not patently corrupt. It was more typically arbitrary.  The guy at twenty murdered a family member for drug money.  The family doesn't want him executed.  Over twenty years later, they execute him.   To what end?  Worse of the worst? Come on.  

ETA: It turns out the media did not view the execution because of some mix-up that led them not being called.  

Texas is meanwhile passing a ridiculously extreme abortion ban that is particularly bad since it has a broad opening to make civil claims for violating the law.  This is disgusting and all that, but it is a bit tiresome that some people do the usual bit about them being "pro-life" (sneer).  

A big year -- which hasn't happened recently -- for executions is around 100.  In 2017, there were 140 abortions in Wyoming.  Put aside some sense of perspective (or even "thou shall not kill" didn't mean no death penalty -- the same book lists lots of capital crimes), the numbers involved here are ridiculously different.  If you want to complain, complain about Texas' social welfare system, including caring for parents and children. 

Joe's Eclectic Thoughts Comes Of Age

Another blog turned 17. Well, hell, I'm 18. If this blog was a ... well, you know. On Saturday, May 17, 2003, this blog started. As a link there shows, I was commenting on the now defunct Slate "Fray." I also had a website that actually is still up though I didn't add to it for a long time. My old email address was from the show Reboot, not something else.

I will continue chugging alone for the time being, finding it helpful to have a spot to express my views and stuff. Few people come here, mainly because I linked a porn movie (seriously), but a few do, so it won't be treated as some sort of private diary. Just an educated civilian who is not an expert on the things expressed expressing things. Stay frosty.

SCOTUS Watch: Abortion Case Taken (etc.)

Order List: The big news is that -- after repeatedly putting off making a decision -- the Supreme Court WILL consider on a broad basis (they separately took a case determining when the government can bring a case to defend a law) the right to choose an abortion. Avoiding narrower questions, they will decide "whether all prevability prohibitions of elective abortions are constitutional."  One account here.

There is surely some behind the scenes going on (including delaying a big case in Barrett's first term), including why today (why not when other news might partially crowd out attention, such as the ACA case) and how that specific question was decided upon.  The lower court struck down the 15 week ban unlike another case where a law that in a somewhat narrow fashion blocked doctors openly agreeing to perform abortions on account of the fetus having Down Syndrome.  This created something of a circuit split, but the question presented widens the debate significantly.

It's something of a parlor game now to try to fashion how the Supreme Court is likely to rule.  But, of course, that is what one does.  Me?  I think the question might have an implicit implication that the answer is "that is a pretty extreme position" -- so, it would in some fashion leave open some sort of prohibitions of pre-viability abortions (like the Down Syndrome one?)  but will not go full Handmaid's Tale.  A surprise might be a Kavanaugh plurality making prohibitions disfavored (if not closing off all cases) but inviting a further watering down of Casey as to regulations.  

A basic point to underline here is that the SCOTUS is tainted. One third of the Court, in large part this issue is a major driver, was confirmed using corrupt methods.  It is simply not fit to decide such a basic question.  The hand-wringing of "packing" the Court is asinine. It was already packed. Meanwhile, Jen Psaki today again noted President Biden supports codifying Roe v. Wade.  How that would be done is a bit unclear, but state and political means to safeguard abortion rights is now that much more important. 

In a somewhat related action involving blocking the communication of certain abortion related information (via a Trump rule), a challenge was disposed of after the Biden Administration provided a letter brief as requested.  Thomas/Alito/Gorsuch dissented without opinion from the dismissal.  The whole procedural matter is a tad confusing, but seems to be that the whole matter is disposed of as of now.  (See here for more clarification.)

----

Two other cases were taken for oral argument but much less hot button.  Justice Sotomayor again found a problematic criminal justice case, this one involving what can be used to help determine if someone should be sentenced to die.  As she does repeatedly, Sotomayor did not dissent from the grant, but inserted a statement on why she was concerned, even if the matter is not "cert-worthy."   

Opinions: The biggest case is a 6-3 opinion that did not retroactively apply the unanimous jury case.  In the process, it basically finished the job interring the possibility of doing so in other cases.  So, it amounts to a major criminal justice opinion, though experts can debate how much it matters given actual practice.  Kavanaugh, who briefly concurred in a federal courts case Kagan wrote to argue her opinion in effect narrowed two precedents (rightly so in his view), wrote the majority opinion.  

(Sotomayor wrote a separate concurrence in that case, arguing Kagan's opinion should be treated as a narrow one.  I wondered if Kavanaugh was making a bit of a dig on Justice Stare Decisis.  Gorsuch also wrote a federal courts case in which only Sotomayor dissented.  Alito didn't take part because of unstated financial conflicts; a pending bill would require justices to explain why they did not take part.  

I won't say anything else about these two technical cases, except to say that a typo was found -- the date the case was argued was misstated.) 

Kagan, who dissented in the original case on stare decisis grounds, wrote a strong dissent for the liberals.  She in part framed the jury case as a racial justice matter (Kavanaugh has made that one of his things), which is an easier case to make on the facts.  I personally thought there was a way to concur in judgment before without necessarily overrule the non-unanimous jury rule completely.  Anyway, another strong liberal dissent.

Easter Egg: The majority opinion attached an over hour long video of the confession (which the defendant tried to suppress) which is of unclear relevance. There was a dissenter on the jury -- inconveniently the sole black juror for a black male defendant -- and the current constitutional rule is that means a not guilty verdict.  11-1 isn't enough.  We aren't supposed to say "enough if the evidence is crystal clear" and who is going to watch the video anyway?  The Supreme Court nearly never attaches video and past cases repeatedly were separate opinions.  So, this stands out.

Edward Caniglia (petitioner) retrieved a handgun from the bedroom, put it on the dining room table, and asked his wife to “shoot [him] now and get it over with.” She declined, and instead left to spend the night at a hotel."

Justice Thomas wrote a four page (something of a record for a full press case) opinion noting it is obviously wrong to across the board allow no warrant entry into a home for "caretaker" reasons. That is, if the police act not for normal police investigatory reasons, but for something like to check in to see if someone is doing okay.  

The treatment suggests per curiam possibility, even with Roberts/Breyer concurring briefly separately to reaffirm that there is a special circumstances emergency medical treatment situation exception.  Kavanaugh basically covered the same ground, but with somewhat more verbiage and a lot more citations. Alito also had a concurrence reminding people that the opinion was narrow and that there were various  possible contingencies to cover along the way.  And, that leaves 29 opinions (per SCOTUSBlog).

Fiend Without A Face

Tonight's Svengoolie film was a better made and acted creation than last week and maybe somewhat less silly. OTOH, the ultimate "spoiler" (Sven was particularly concerned there) turned out to be silly looking brain creations. But, the rather ridiculous explanation aside, the film itself was pretty well put together and the "invisible" danger was rather creepy. 

[I will now add some more commentary, including a bonus film.]

The movie fits in the overall brain experiments etc. plot into a 1950s context with the U.S. doing secret testing of a nuclear based aerial surveillance system outside of a small farm area in Canada. The locals blame them for problems with the milk (the cows eventually adapt to the noise) and later the strange deaths. The military stuff is handled pretty well without a big budget. Though the hubris of the scientist is truly the problem here, the nuclear power provides an opening for the problems.

So, the film in a fashion had shades of other films (especially in Japan) that suggested the at times unexpected problems with nuclear power. OTOH, once the brains are destroyed, like last week, the locals are shown to be ready to pro-American. So, there is also a pro-U.S. bias involved here too, even if the film takes advantage of topical fears.  The balance is better here than last week as well with smarter locals (they are not as off as it seems) and less stereotypical Americans.  But, related dynamic.

There is a copy of this film with commentary and other materials available in the NYPL and it might be interesting to get some more background.  Generally, films can be seen as an expression of the time as well as telling more than merely the basic story.  It can be rewarding as well as interesting to examine them in this fashion.  The same can be said, for instance, about various 1980s films of various types.  And, films today.

One thing that is often a constant in these films is some sort of romantic aspect, at times heavy-handed and/or crowded out some of the other plot that many people want to see.  One thing that this does is provides a relatable way to find a connection to the characters and plot, perhaps feeling them as a sort of stand-in for you, the viewer.  In these films, the woman often is a scientist or otherwise professional type, such as the level-headed woman here who acted as the scientist's assistant. 

The concept in fan fiction of a reader stand-in, the "Mary Sue," is a sort of heavy example here.  It also provides something to take screen time as stuff happens (action can only fill so much time; horror movies, for instance, are often very exposition orientated).  Traditionally, women (and children) also are characters the viewer feels protective about.  And, it also might be a way for women viewers particularly to have someone to relate to.  

To toss it in, there are other tropes, including characters with a more flippant attitude about things (such as the hero's assistant here), who sometimes are the heroes as well.  Anyway, the film as a whole put all of this together in enjoyable 1950s monster movie fashion, including the heroine, who is shown on the movie poster in a towel (she has a shower scene! if a 1950s version and is so petite, the towel hides most everything).  Kim Hunter has a limited IMDB page, but seemed to me to have potential as a pretty good supporting actress in films of this nature.

One thing that often comes to play in these Svengoolie films is that the ending is somewhat lame.  There is a mix here, but after all the build up, the brains are kept at bay with handguns while the hero runs and blows up the control room (this is how to stop a nuclear reactor?) with what looks to be a rather small explosive device.  Admittedly, some final battles are a bit better.  And, here, noting the stop action work being impressive for the times and all, the brains were a tad silly.  Better off camera. 

===

Bonus Film: I have noted here at times that Hallmark and UP TV romantic movies include some enjoyable content -- given how many there are, just the law of averages would suggest that (other channels also have such content, especially at Christmas time -- so, e.g., Lifetime).   

Some films are good enough that repeated viewing still is enjoyable.  Uncorked overall is one such film.  As is often the case, older familiar faces pop up, here as the male lead's parents.  Hey, it is Ross and Monica's dad!  And, he's charming here too.  The film is interesting in that there is a sizable lead-up, parallel stories, of the couple's stories before they start to have a relationship.  The woman has wide resume in other types of films.

Usual person of color (Asian) friend/colleague.  Spouse disposed of by death, often a single dad?  Check.  So, yes, various usual tropes.  But, good feel overall, including the workaholic business woman who wants more.  The film has an overall seriousness (including business matters) that also adds weight to things.  These films have some of that (many are simply light affairs)  and as with the Svengoolie films we can "deep dive" them as well.  Again, you can do that while still having fun with the films.

TV Update: Friends and Mets

Over the years, I enjoyed various shows in syndication and it often was a matter of them being on at midnight (Star Trek, years back, with baseball at times pre-empting it; Dharma and Greg, Rules of Engagement, The Closer on Sunday nights etc.).  [To toss in an aside, since a key character is played by someone on All Rise, I'm going to try China Beach again.]

The latest was Friends and as perhaps a sort of book-end purchased Friends ... 'til the End: The One With All Ten Years by David Wild. For the $5 or so it cost me used, a worthwhile purchase.  The cover price is $24.95, which probably is appropriate too for what amounts to a coffee table book. But, it is an example of good book to get used for a fraction of that price. 

It is not comprehensive but summarizes each season with a list of episodes, interviews each friend as well as the big three producers/writers, has two more quick interviews (including Janice), a bunch of photos and comments from a range of supporting/guest stars etc.  On the comprehensive front, for instance, the third season summary and photos barely reference an important Chandler/Janice relationship subplot (I liked them together).  But, there is a good amount of stuff there.

One suggestion: when people talk about "such and such," ask for an example.  How was scripts edited on the fly? What sort of things that don't sound like jokes did Lisa Kudrow make funny?  But, it often seems that I read articles and other stuff, and feel wanting more. And, I think the "Friends make people get over 9/11" thing was overdone a tad. 

My copy was originally a present for a fifteen year old. 

===

Jarred Kelenic, a leading Mets prospect that was traded to the Mariners in the Cano (remember him?) and Diaz (doing well this year) deal, got his major league debut. Started off 0-4 but then hit a homer. Teams do that regularly -- they trade key prospects for a "win now" attitude. Diaz was seen as a top closer, though he had some growing pains. Cano was the real dubious move given his age, contact and history. Good luck -- the Mariners need some. 

Matt Harvey recently started versus the Mets too; he didn't do well though overall is doing decent for the Orioles after years of post-Mets struggles. Good luck to him and his team.  It was too bad that he didn't do well -- he did have a good first inning -- though he received a nice reception at Citifield. 

Update: Just heard on the Mets broadcast that the team is not close (says Gary Cohen) to the 85% threshold for the vaccination requirement to avoid wearing masks. I was wondering why they all were wearing masks at this point.  Weeks back, the player rep used the standard line that it was a "personal decision," which is sorta bullshit since it has group effects. 

SCOTUS Watch

There was no conference last week (there was one this week and two more Thursday conferences scheduled this month) and it appears the justices are mainly focusing on writing all those opinions. Less than half of the cases taken for full briefing/oral argument has had opinions written. There will be an Order and Opinion Day on Monday.

One thing to note is that there is now not only a page but a place for public comments (first public hearing next week) for the Biden Supreme Court commission. I submitted one so far. See also, here. Something of a "viral" article that is a book review criticizing a book on an environmental law case was interesting, including to provide a realistic view of things (and gender issues). Also, a profile of Kavanaugh.

No orders this week.

House Republicans = Trump Party

The vote of Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-NY) as conference chair sorta pretty much seals the deal. What was her message?

“I believe that voters determine the leader of the Republican Party and President Trump is the leader they look to.”

Graveyard Mitch avoided challenging the move from Rep. Liz "conservative icon but Trump Disloyalist" Cheney. He had his moment after voting not to convict. Time for him to go back to gravedigging. This is the "moderate" position in the national party, I guess: you don't need to continue to bow down to Trump to retain good standing. But, are there any Cheney anti-Trump level leaders in the Republican Senate caucus?

Anyway, if Trump is your "leader," you are disqualified from having any moral right to control. Republican control of the House in 2023 has to be seen as simply anti-republican. It's not a party thing alone on that level. Stefanik's vote btw was comparable to the votes to disqualify the electors though this time around thirty didn't vote.

First Mayoral Debate

I'm not a big debate fan though do look at responses on Twitter and so forth to help get a sense of things. Twitter can be fun here including a Mystery Science Theater 3000 vibe.  Debates can be useful, especially to get a flavor of a bunch of candidates. This is particularly the case when you have eight (Democratic) candidates, some of whom (at least) you are likely not to be familiar with.  Or, whatever Republicans have.

My choices are gong to be decided in other ways though like Supreme Court oral arguments, maybe it will help along the edges. When you have five options in ranked choice voting, that matters more.  You will have your first choice, who might not be someone that has a good chance to win.  A second might be your "pretty good" option; but what happens if that person loses? Do you have a back-up and/or want to play a role there?

My opening choices are fairly set; my trick will be back-ups. Dianne Morales is my choice here -- she has strong liberal activist energy, but seeing "she has a plan for that!" sounds ominous.  Then, you have Maya Wiley (who said Morales was her second choice; Morales didn't return the favor though I saw that she did early on) who is a more establishment friendly liberal choice.  Both also add that POC/woman vibe that maybe this time (as compared to the presidential race) will work out. 

Who next?  This is my concern really -- what happens if Wiley is not the one and Morales doesn't have an upset?  My safe third was going to be Scott Stringer, but then the sexual allegation came out. And, people I respect who endorsed him removed their endorsement.  As noted in my last New York election entry, part of the problem here was his response (as well as the overall situation, including respecting #MeToo in a Democratic city).  Seeing that he during the debate brought back Biden's accuser didn't help there at all.  Looking into the allegation, other than a misleading bit where she supported a candidate with the same last name as Andrew Yang who was also on the ballot, there simply was no similar "RED FLAG!" alert about the accuser.  

If Stringer is going to keep up this over the top defense, it would be so depressing to even put him on my ballot.  The problem is who else to put in that slot. Kathryn Garcia is interesting -- she got some good feedback for her work as a public official (and interestingly was second choice of more than one candidate though Yang picking her didn't really help).  But, she's a longshot. Yang is horrible. Shaun Donovan? Eh. 

Ray McGuire (the black businessman) is somewhat interesting and huh Spike Lee likes him (!), but realistically I don't see him as the one. (He might be a possible second choice for many though.)  Eric Adams?  The black Brooklyn borough president and former police officer has that office experience I appreciate.  But, he came off as much too conservative.  So, if Garcia and McGuire are put after Morales and Wiley, who is fifth? 

I'm left with Stringer, who experience and policy-wise along with a shot at winning is a Morales/Wiley alternative with a bad taste in my mouth.  But, then, he is just going to be a back-up, and they are likely to have problems.  Stringer is a problem here -- Yang by one article "leads" with twenty percent, which is still a fraction.  It's hard to see how many second place slots he has.  So, I still am fairly comfortable with saying he won't win, ranked choice helping there.  Without ranked choice, there is a shot it would be Yang and someone else in a run-off.  Even then, hard to see Yang winning.  But, some see him ahead in a big field and say "he'll win." 

After 2016, each time, of course, we will always worry.  But, that too is a cheap approach without more.  First, Trump winning the nomination in hindsight was not too surprising.  I was blinded at the time by how horrible he was, but it was pretty clear by early 2016 that no other candidate really could challenge his core thirty or so percent. Yang doesn't have that high number.  And, ranked choice changes things here.  It would be interesting to imagine how it would have changed Trump's win.  

Back to Stringer.  The ranked choice strategy is to keep the liberal vote together, so Morales/Wiley -- make sure Morales voters also pick Wiley.  Stringer has a shot -- in a race that might be close -- to split the vote while not getting enough since the allegation caused him to lose key support. After all, the Working Family Party used to endorse him.  So, on the issues, he can be appealing.  But, other than being a tad bit boring, again he's tainted.  So, the fear is he will split the liberal vote.  It all can get a bit complicated and possible front runners might be hoping for also rans second or third choices.  Anyway, Stringer would be a bit depressing, Adams for another reason (too conservative) and Yang?  Please no.

One thing about other races.  The comptroller race is known now as the race that the current president of the City Council, Corey Johnson, is running in.  But, I see that my assemblywoman -- and current Bronx borough president choice -- is supporting Brian Benjamin. He's a black state senator who supported various progressive issues, including police reform.  Not exactly a financial issue as such, but that would be the type of person I would generally support.  Johnson was a bit of a later comer, perhaps can be seen as a johnny-come-lately who just wants another position because of term limits.  BB might be my first choice.

Public advocate it seems to be the incumbent and also rans.  So, I guess I'll have to think a bit more about city council (back-up option) and borough president (maybe -- looking at the choices, only one other one kinda looks okay).  Mayor?  Well, let's see how Scott Stringer survives.  Last time, the assumed front runner turned out to be an also ran.  Stringer had a major upset.  I thought he had a decent chance before that.  Now?  I guess I'm leaning toward Wiley winning though would not be shocked if she doesn't.  Still seems people aren't quite 'in' to an important race yet.

Morales-Wiley-Garcia-McGuire-Stringer for me now.  

Twitter Reactions: One left leaning type, a Morales supporter, flagged how third and fourth supported more police if MTA asked for them.  That would be a potentially damning thing for some left leaning types trying to fill out their ranks.  But, Stringer has other issues, so yeah, that won't change my mind yet.  

Another Twitter reaction, this time from the criminal justice reform Rachel Barkow, listed her choices.  She leads with Wiley and the rest also overlap with mine but she likes Shaun Donovan.  She leaves out Stringer though also noting her list is in part a strategic one.  She is strongly against Yang and Adams, which is also my concern as well.

Donovan has pushed his Obama Administration role and probably is okay on various things, but just doesn't excite me that much.  And, it is hard to see him being included as a strategic choice since he is such a longshot.  So -- as she noted -- if you are concerned about Wiley not winning, who would you include?  

I'd toss in Stringer for that reason.  Fifth.  I can see some second (etc.) choices there since he comes off as boring, experienced in local government and informed.  Maybe, being a white male will help a bit too. If Donovan had more positives, maybe, he would fill that spot.  But, Stringer also had more liberal votes going for him before and the pullback was the sexual harassment issue.  Some will deem that not enough, at least for back-up choices. Or, at least, that is my overall logic here.  

ETA:  I'm open to leaving Stringer off and it is really my remaining decision along with as noted also rans in a couple races.

Garcia, who would be a rather striking upset, has the striking benefit of not only second place ranking by one or more (though she rather Yang shut-up about having her on his mayoral team), but endorsed by both the NY Daily News and the New York Times.  She's my #3 now for being a woman as well as her previous experience.  

The DN don't like Morales/Wiley and now Stringer for being too liberal. The paper is basically Joe Lieberman Democrat in editorial style and that shows here.  They also like her experience.  Donovan has some of that, but like me, he rubs them the wrong way.  They are less turned off by Eric Adams (their second), since again, they are more conservative, but he has been "too erratic" and made a few questionable moves.

The NYT likes her problem solving ways. They are concerned about Adams' record and like their competition reminds he has supported police reform (he still doesn't earn me any marks by supporting stop and frisk and wanting to wear a gun as a mayor).  The sex allegations cloud things for them regarding Stringer (the paper is more center left Democrat).  The others seem unready to run a city.  Garcia: most qualified.

Well, I'm more left and reformist minded, so Morales/Wiley for me.  But, this helps me ranking Garcia third and if she works out to be the compromise choice between the wings, that would be okay.  

And More: AOC and Warren for who for comptroller? Guess maybe I have some more thinking to do. Do have time. 

Mask Update

The latest CDC decision is that those vaccinated (still a fraction of the country) can generally -- not in places like nursing homes or transportation -- not wear a mask. Even inside.

But, how does one determine that? Some are saying this is a honor system relying on dishonorable people. Recall the change only applies to the vaccinated. Some now are pressured to wear masks because others are. If some don't because of being vaccinated, others will use that as a reason to "free ride" even if they aren't. Let's say in supermarkets.

The sensible approach there is for certain areas to still require everyone to wear masks unless there was a means to check. New York has the Excelsior Pass with a bar code (I have it) though it would be even better if they upload a photo on record.  Basically, a place can scan it, though a photo would make things quicker.  A NYC location can have a scanner that reads the bar code at entrances.  Some nation-wide pass would make sense though the usual suspects are talking as if that was a yellow star.

Liz Cheney: Voice of Principle?

“You can’t have a conference chair who recites Democratic talking points,” Jordan added.

The jacket-less wonder might not be a great spokesperson here, but it is not like the wannabe leader of the House of Representatives (Kevin McCarthy) is much better here. After Liz "yeah she's still horrible on a bunch of stuff" Cheney was removed, KM lied that the legitimacy of Biden's election is no longer an issue for Republicans. That is the "Democratic talking point," apparently. The election was not stolen and Trump can't be the face of a credible party. Can't "ruin it" and make that an issue.

Maybe so. If so, it is a black mark on the Republican Party, which cannot accept basic republican principles. Biden might officially have to take a party line that he still is taking them as a credible policy partner, but I need not. And, as she said, if Cheney wants to make sure Trump is not the party's leader in 2024, she can co-sponsor a bill in place to enforce the third section of the Fourteenth Amendment. Get it done!

From Hell It Came (eventually)

The Svengoolie movie this week was a ridiculous evil tree film though it only killed the three people who murdered the native prince who ultimately gave birth to it. It was basically a revenge monster; it also went after the lady scientist that helped to keep it alive but that basically just opened up a "shot" to end things. And, the natives now were willing to trust American medicine now that the evil tree defeated the evil medicine man. Tad ironic.

The film was silly but watchable though it took a while before the tree "came" anywhere. The ridiculous nature of the whole thing -- including the final bit where the natives decided to accept the Americans and the "blooming onion" man hungry white comedy relief -- helped the slow spots. 1950s films like this makes me again challenge the idea Plan Nine From Outer Space was somehow the "worst film ever." Ed Wood Jr. could easily make this film.

Peace Officers Memorial Day and Police Week

A reason why things go on for so long is that you in not too long of a time get used a state of affairs. Thus, in a few months now, it is like President Biden was in office for some time.

That we did not have some horror show in power. Instead, we have Jen Psaki providing a reasonable face of the Administration, with "#PsakiBombs" to give a special "CJ" (West Wing) verve at times. Reports are she is planning to step down some time early next year (I heard this before, but now it is being widely reported). On that front, saw that she has two sisters, one having some science role, the other perhaps some sort of minister.

The sanity makes it a satisfactory thing to check on the White House page (I still have not found a VP page though she has a Facebook page and Twitter) to see if there are any updates. This includes various promotional type days like for older Americans or the Day of Prayer. I saw the subject announced too. Police wrongdoing makes things more tricky in recent memory there. So, as well as honoring them, we have this:

In order to rebuild that trust, our State, local, and Federal Government and law enforcement agencies must protect constitutional rights, ensure accountability for misconduct, and embrace policing that reflects community values and ensures community safety. These approaches benefit those who wear the badge and those who count on their protection.

One blog I regularly read has had a series asking if there were any good cops and citing a range of horrible things they did. We can go down that line with parents, teachers and so forth. Twice now people are like "well do they kill" or whatever, as if bad parents and so forth do not really cause much harm of any note. The person behind the series even was annoyed a former police officer isn't running for governor in Florida (Val Demings). She's not a totally horrible person, huh.

Bad actors must be addressed, but a continual thing flagged is that it is not just a few "bad apples." It isn't, however, that every single parent or whatever or bad. It is that the system is bad, worsening the situation while there also being bad actors. They aren't ALL bad. This second thing, while not just letting the bad actors off the hook is very important. On some level, focusing on the bad actors has an emotional valence that is easier than addressing the wider problem. Biden's message also goes there:

We must also stop tasking law enforcement with problems that are far beyond their jurisdictions. From providing emergency health care to resolving school discipline issues, our communities rely on the police to perform services that often should be the duty of other institutions. We then accuse the police of failure when responsibility lies with public policy choices they did not make. Supporting our law enforcement officers requires that we invest in underfunded public systems that provide health care, counseling, housing, education, and other social services.

I think the "defund police" message hits to an important concern that merely "reform" does not. We need to think about radical structural reforms of society here, especially the criminal justice system. But, many do not want to go that far. The term bothers many who are comfortable with accepting there are many problems, but feel it suggests "abolishing" police as if we are just dealing with anarchists (let's put aside the complexity of that philosophy). Mixed in there is discomfort from some of the anger and tactics. It isn't just some two word slogan.

The middle ground is reducing the police's reach. It is accepting realistically (at least) that we will not "abolish" or totally "defund" (move past the argument we should not take that literally) police departments. This opens up a lot of room for change, change that in various ways will not be opposed by police. At some point, this very well will mean some reduction of funds that police departments might want. But, there will remain a sizable police presence that can focus more on specific matters. And, checked and balance to ensure the first quote holds true.

We honored police that defended the U.S. Capitol, including by angrily opposing those who harmed them and/or did not properly deal with those that threatened their well being. The police officers who were harmed and the few who died (one by natural causes that the latest report suggests was in some fashion made more likely because of being attacked) are "good cops" from what I can tell. This doesn't change because of some mismanagement from above of the overall situation. They and are lots of others have very well served the public. Like bad parents, it is not just all assholes.

Dealing with problems, to use an old term that was used a bit too self-assuredly, in a reality based community requires a complex accounting. The people we need to address are not just horrible people. They regularly very well are doing things necessary, things the average person basically delegates to the government in particular. They deserve to be honored for that. But, as there always is on this blog (always a "but"), we have to face up to the flaws of the system and address abuses as well.

The proclamation -- see also the prayer one that honors prayer and freedom to make such decisions on one own -- helpfully covers multiple bases there. And, unlike just a few months ago, we can expect that regularly for them. This is why I will continue -- as I did with Obama -- take any criticism with a grain of salt, especially when it is one-sided. Criticism is fine. But, when there is a core of decency, that too is to be factored in.

"The Gospels" and Translations

The translator Sarah Ruden has a new translation of the gospels (The Gospels: A new translation by Sarah Ruden"). I am not familar with her work though she is well respected as a translator of Greek and Roman works, not just biblical material. She has a book on interpretation (have it out) and an interesting sounding Paul Among the People: The Apostle Reinterpreted and Reimagined in His Own Time.  I reserved that, always interested in clarity there.  She is a Quaker and dedicates her latest book to them; Quakers are particularly known for their belief of self-inspiration.

I took out the gospels book. The opening is an extended introduction on her interpretation, including an extended breakdown of how she translated various key words (like "demon").   This sort of thing is important, if here a bit academic sounding. You are reading English translations (well, I am) of foreign languages, languages in expressing things at a certain part of time.  A thing that is mentioned is that the gospel writers themselves had this issue -- educated Greek writers were translating persons who interacted in Aramaic in a specific culture.

The reader loses something in translation here.  A basic part of this is in the Hebrew scriptures where terms like "Lord" sounds generic but is it "El" or what?  The same applies in the Christian scriptures where terms that seem bland really involves special nuances.  For instance, proto-Gnostic energy can be found in Paul when "powers" or something is mentioned.  

The translator in the introduction noted that she was not trying to make a judgment when translating the gospels. She notes that the evangelists here repeatedly cited Jewish scriptures in a slipshod way (the Greek translation they used itself make things harder now, Hebrew imperfectly translated), losing the context.  But, though that might be noted in footnotes, that isn't her immediate concern.  She is trying to translate it the best she can.  Again, I have another book by her that might go more into the job of a translator, which has various ethical responsibilities. 

I just started to read the translations -- she starts with Mark though the gospels start with Matthew -- and you already see how her translation sounds a bit off.  It is "fishers for human beings" instead of the famous "fishers of men" line.  It is "wasteland" over "wilderness" (John the Baptist, the voice from the wilderness).  Maybe, that is a more accurate translation (hey, she's the expert).  Sounds a bit less poetic.  The Holy Spirit is cited as "life-breath." 

There is also a reference to Isaiah that is used a prophecy about how Jesus will provide a "straight" path in the wasteland.  The Acts of Apostles, not covered here, make references to "the way" as a term used for early Christianity.  I have wondered the connect to Shariah law -- also in some fashion a "path," and arising from a related linguistic tradition I would gather.  The term "Shariah law" overall is tossed out there as creepy, even though people regularly (and this used to be commonly accepted by legal minds, if not Thomas Jefferson) argue our own secular laws should be applied in a way that follows biblical laws.  They keep on citing it.  

Reading things people are generally familiar with can be very helpful as well as pretty interesting too.  There are a variety of complexities. So, reading the gospels in general can be an experience.  This without reading it with a new eye, including use of different shadings of various words.  One thing about this translation does bother me, even after a few pages. Now, maybe I will get used to it.  But, it still bothers me, in part because unlike translating words in a different way, I question its value. 

The translator translates proper nouns basically in a transliteration way, instead of using typical English translations. So it is the "Good News According to Maththaios" (Matthew) etc.  This is annoying.  Sometimes, you have to check the guide since the term does not really look like the typical word.  What is the point of this?  She even has a proviso that at this remove -- even at the remove of Augustine -- you are not going to be able to translate these things perfectly, nor were there on "fixed" usage anyway.

You are translating Greek to English, using Latin letters.  Why use a not familiar term for "people of Jerusalem" (it is not even a "J" to "I" thing there, "J" being a later development -- see the "INRI" abbreviation on the cross for Jesus of Nazareth King [Rex] of the Jews)?  It is not like the nuance of "life-breath" for "Holy Spirit" or something.  It is distracting and confusing, which is just something to handle if there was a useful value to the ordinary reader. And, this book is not solely meant for the scholar.  

She might have touched upon this in the introduction, something about wanting to be exact or whatever, but I still would question it.  Again, who am I to say here, not being a translator? Well, I am a reader, and that is what this book is targeted to.  She is trying to translate the gospels for clarity of the current day English reader, people like me.  The use of transliterations of Greek text for proper nouns here has a somewhat pretentious character there.  She is willing to at times sound almost colloquial but here she finds some need to be a stickler?

Anyway, the value of these translations are noted, including to try to get a sense of what the writers were trying to say.  But, some "originalist" approach here will only take you so far.  The average reader of scriptures can get a lot of value by looking into the context of the texts, which for instance helps flesh out the meaning of a parable or particular reference that without context can be confusing.  A bit of thing helps, for instance, when looking at texts used against gay people or women.  

Nonetheless, people are going to read the texts themselves and not take extended classes or something on the context or scriptural analysis involved. Bart Ehrman can helpfully provide, e.g., how scriptures are in effect a result of scrivener's error or developing understandings that were not so understood originally.  But, people read what is there, using their own modern day glosses.  Note again how the original gospels itself -- decades later -- translated things, in the process losing the original context in various cases.  If so, telling people the Greek translation of the "Old Testament" misconstrued what "virgin" means is almost rounding error. 

As with interpreting the Constitution and other scriptural works (lets say Shakespeare), the whole thing to me is complicated. All these things mix in. The original context is important as is translation matters (close readers of the Bible will note many versions will provide footnotes of a variety of complexity, at times almost a mini-commentary of the work)  as is finding a current day meaning to the work.  The complexity includes finding a means to apply the original meaning while also finding there is reasonable ground for discretion.  

And, if I find more to say after reading more, I will add more later on.  By the way, Rachel Held Evans was referenced elsewhere by a religious writer, a reminder of the two year anniversary of the tragic death of the progressive Christian writer and activist.  She died of one of those freak medical events that someone under forty has no expectation of handling.  Checking things, I see a new collection of her writings are due later this year. 

ETA: I finished Mark (yeah, I'm calling it that).  She includes a lot of notes providing "color" regarding various things to help add context to various usages.  For some reason, she does not suggest "Barabbas" -- which she notes means "son of father" -- is obviously a bit of irony.  The crowd asks for him while letting the ACTUAL son of Our Father be crucified.  

Nothing overly stands out for me -- maybe someone more familiar with the exact text will note something -- but a few times there is a feeling that we are getting a literal reading that comes off as a bit chunky for little return.  So, a well known line involving a "cornerstone" is translated as "head up the corner." The NIV verse is translated this way: "The stone the builders rejected has become the cornerstone," which sounds more poetic to me.  

If the poetry loses something, maybe at least having a more exact version will be useful.  Here, I'm not sure.  Again, the proper noun thing annoyed me.  It got more familiar but no less cost efficient.

National Day of Prayer

There is something known as "civic religion" in which public events have a religious aspect. In this country, it is often seen appropriate for this to have an inclusive aspect that lightly suggests some sort of higher power. The assumption of some sort of deity suggests an overlap with "ceremonial deism," a related concept. This includes both public officials and some sort of official sanction as seen by oaths ("under God") and "God Save This Honorable Court" and related things.

The practice over the years often had a more sectarian quality, at times clearly Christian in nation. There was some controversy in early presidential administrations regarding official statements of prayer and thanksgiving. President Thomas Jefferson argued that it was a violation of the First and Tenth Amendments for a president to officially encourage prayer or offer thanksgiving proclaimations with a religious connotation. The First Amendment particularly highlighted to him that any "law" in that fashion was not in the power of the federal government.

The origins of the National Day of Prayer was clearly religious in nature, supported by specific evangelical Christian groups. A district court found this to be so, but as is often the case in such challenges involving official actions that amount to establishments but are deemed merely hortatory (though in reality have effects), the court of appeals held there was no specific harm to make it a "case or controversy."*

Let us find in our prayers, however they are delivered, the determination to overcome adversity, rise above our differences, and come together as one Nation to meet this moment in history.

A continual thing that I look for in the official presidential announcements for the National Day of Prayer (set for the first Thursday in May) is how exactly it is worded.  President Biden honors the constitutional right to pray, how prayer helped people over the years while reaffirming that there are a variety of beliefs in this country, freely exercised.

I invite the citizens of our Nation to give thanks, in accordance with their own faiths and consciences, for our many freedoms and blessings, and I join all people of faith in prayers for spiritual guidance, mercy, and protection.

This sentiment overall is fine as a matter of President Biden expressing his personal beliefs and is a basic part of his message.  But, I continue to find it problematic to have an official instruction to the President to "invite" people to do a specific religious act.  To use a basic constitutional technique, the "purpose and effect" is problematic.  The purpose of these "days of prayer" or prayer conferences etc. repeatedly for some reason keeps on being expressed in selective terms.  Not only "to God," but repeatedly Christian in some fashion.  But, it's hard to avoid a religious purpose and effect even with more diverse sentiments here. 

Prayer is a specific type of religious activity, even if there is a diversity of ways to pray.  It is also a perfectly fine thing, again particularly since the many ways available provide a method that can fit the needs of the individual. Prayer is not merely the typical "Our Father" sort of thing.  There are many ways to pray.  Nonetheless, this is not merely a honoring of religion or conscience. No matter its diversity, it is a specific type of act, one in this context clearly with religious aspects.

The National Day of Prayer is a sort of ceremonial religion that regularly overlaps into ceremonial deism.  Prayer as commonly understood is to someone.  It need not be -- prayer can honor nature or whatever without specifically being thanks or honoring or a petition or whatever to a deity.  Like religion, we are talking multitudes here.  So, especially when done by someone who is honestly expressing his spiritual nature like Biden, the whole thing might be seen as acceptable on some level.

As I regularly note, I am well aware of a sense of perspective here.  A day of prayer as compared to trying to craft one (or pick people who do) or a direct honoring of God ("under God") has an open-ended particularly vague quality to it all.  Nonetheless, as a matter of principle, especially given how it has been applied over the years, I would take the Jeffersonian position here.  This is especially the case because public officials will honor prayer generally anyway, especially those who for good or ill give the matter particular attention -- which in some fashion was every president since Carter with the possible exception of the first Bush.  And, many before as well.

We need not and should not have days that honor and invite people to do selective religious type acts like prayer. Instructions as to pray is a private thing, that should be left to private choice and private instruction. Again, public officials personally might wish to do so.  Public officials have religious beliefs and so forth.  I'm inclined to rather some not to narrowly preach to the public at large in this fashion, different than mixing in religious messages in their speeches and so forth expressing how they personally see the world.  But, it is up to them really.

This is a more official act and minor or not is an establishment of religion and in a big picture way when you benefit religion in that way, you are likely to also burden the free exercise of it as well.  

ETA: Two takes by separation organizations for this year.   

Also ... The Religion Clause Blog cites a 1997 version of the law involved and it is blatantly unconstitutional be it on a limited: 

"The President shall set aside and proclaim the first Thursday in May in each year as a National Day of Prayer, on which the people of the United States may turn to God in prayer and meditation at churches, in groups, and as individuals."

 This is not just honoring "prayer," but honoring a specific day for people to "turn to God" with "prayer" favored as is doing so "at churches" though other stuff is mixed in.  The gospels specifically instruct private prayer.  But, "churches" clearly are favored here.  The language can be expressed in an open-ended way, but with the blessing of the state has a specific Christian emphasis that reflects the people who encouraged its passage.  Bad pool.  

---

* I have mixed feelings regarding the federal courts (and I guess state courts) generally avoiding to decide such cases. A basic pragmatic response is that if they were forced to decide, I would not really like the result.  Perhaps, certain types of constitutional injuries are best dealt with away from the courts. On that level, however, maybe the complete answer is that how we should do that is complicated and flawed.  That is, a bigger debate.

Oliver's Story etc.

Some time back, I watched Love Story, and then found a copy of the book (which as I recall is basically the same). My movie review guide panned the film version of the sequel, Oliver's Story, which does change the book to some degree (looking at more than one film summary). For instance, one summary I saw said people at his firm clashed with his ideological views, but in the book his civil liberty work is supported by them. Some reviews at Amazon did like the book and basically so did I. Maybe, this means I should check out the film!

The original is more like a novella while the sequel is over three hundred pages in my paperback, if still rather quick reading. I think the book, once we got into the stream of things, could have at least been fifty pages shorter. But, the book overall is pretty good, including to me basically earning its overall somber tone and ending. Oliver has a serious relationship with a woman, but winds up alone (though suggests maybe he will marry eventually), joining the family business. A sort of "acceptance" level of the stages of grief.

I don't watch much new television, but do as a whole enjoy All Rise. The latest episode overall was a good one, including the young conflicted DA having to make his first parole recommendation in a hate crime case. Lindsey Gort, an actress on the show, 'liked' a tweet of mine involving her character's subplot. Yes, "Joe Paulson" gets a kick out of that sort of thing.

SCOTUS Watch: Order Day

This might be a light week for SCOTUS news [it was] while we finish the oral argument schedule (this discussion suggests the sentencing case has various interesting aspects) and get ready for the home stretch of major decisions, including a still pending religious liberty case that promises some fireworks, even if the reach of the ruling is still unclear.

The Supreme Court’s 1950 decision in Feres v. United States. That unanimous decision bars any and all lawsuits brought by service members against the federal government for injuries that “arise out of or are in the course of activity incident to” their military service.

An earlier op-ed criticized an old ruling that in the 1980s was flagged as wrong by Scalia and three liberals (Blackmun joined the majority cited in that op-ed). The argument (today again joined by a solo dissent in the Order List by Thomas) was that the law clearly did not draw such a line. The policy reasons might be valid if it didn't, but that is Congress to say now given the law again did not allow such open-ended court discretion. Again, from the op-ed putting forth the "pro" side:

Why has the court held firm on a decision so widely criticized? In that same 1987 case in which Justice Scalia dissented with three other justices, the court identified three justifications. First, injuries to service members related to their military service should not be left to the vagaries of 50 different state laws but should instead be subject to a uniform federal rule. Second, Congress had already provided at least some kind of remedy to injured service members through “generous statutory disability and death benefits.” And third, tort suits arising out of military service “would involve the judiciary in sensitive military affairs at the expense of military discipline and effectiveness.”

Justice Thomas regularly finds some old precedent he doesn't like, but some old precedents should go. OTOH, Kagan has consistently opposed challenging precedents, even one involving unanimous juries. So, though the case was "re-listed," it is not surprising it was not taken for argument. Various happenings in the Order List, including a request for a response from the SG, but this was really the only thing that stood out.

Well, except for the announcement of a new SCOTUS marshal, Col. Gail Curley. Congrats. And, yes, Thomas asking questions is a good thing. He is pretty good at it and either way has influence. 

ETA: There was also another edit to Google LLC v. Oracle America.

Friends Again

As noted before, last year (closing with an Ebay purchase since the library was closed) I watched the whole run of Friends on DVD, which gives you a few deleted scenes and stuff often cut on television (such as the ending bits). We also get other extras, including commentary, though never from the cast. "Friends of Friends" segments does provide interviews with people like Teri Garr (Phoebe's birth mom). It would be nice to get a bit of cast commentary of actual episodes, at least when "Ross" was the one directing them.

Again, this is comfort food with moments that are funny and touching even with repeat viewing. Such is the charms of syndicated shows. I rewatched the 9th Season, for instance, and though I rather Phoebe have married David (the goofy scientist), some of the Mike stuff is both amusing and touching. This includes Phoebe wanting a normal "happily ever after." I continue to dislike various aspects of the last two seasons, including the Rachel/Joey stuff. But, even the 10th season (if less, especially with the dubious plot arcs) has some charms.

The big thing to get a chance to watch now is the 25th Anniversary show, put off a year because of COVID. There is supposed to be at least one line reading or something as the characters. Emma should be in college now and the twins about there. Will one of them fall for one of Janice's kids? Will Chandler finally get over his Janice shudders and accept that not only did she give him some happiness, but that he has moved on some much and can there too? And, what else happened to the crew? I might also get a Friends companion guide.

Mets Update

It's only a month is and already things are up/down including the Dodgers not being able to lose and then going 3-7. Former Mets are doing pretty good, including Matt Harvey at the Orioles. Both Eastern divisions are questionable though early on the Red Sox are doing surprisingly well. The Yanks are having a good stretch, which along with the division, suggests even with their struggles that it's hard to see them not getting into the playoffs somehow.

We will see about the Mets, whose 9-11 April is largely about a lot of missed games (and one suspended in the first) and lack of hitting. Pitching is pretty good though the fifth starter (who didn't pitch that much) didn't do well. "Pretty good" is as a whole -- the top three did well, though other than DeGrom had off days. The pen as a whole also is doing well. It's hitting. And, like the new shortshop, you would think eventually they will get into some sort of groove. OTOH, we are hearing about this being a pitching year.

The Mets already swept the Phils once and again are interesting. They lost a game 2-1 on a strikeout of a pitcher with a passed ball/two runs scored. Ex-Met Zack Wheeler then gave up four in first, but glided six more innings, resulting in a 4-4 tie. The Phils then were robbed by a horrible unreviewable call that took away a person on second. Phils then choked in the ninth, losing 5-4. The ump call basically made the game tainted. I realize mistakes are part of the game, but it was a blatantly wrong call. Pisses me off. Robs the game of pleasure.

NYC Democratic Primary Update

My perusal of local news is more limited than it should be, but I do keep track of the news reported by the NY Daily News and NYT, follow a few other reporters/watchers of local politics on Twitter (Josefa Velásquez, Rebecca Lewis, Aaron Carr) as well as a few local political officials. Plus, there are various odds and ends (just today, I received a flier from Scott Stringer), including television advertising. More about him below.

And, it is a bit troubling to me that there doesn't seem that much attention being given to an important local NYC primary -- in this city the Democratic Party Primary is generally the election -- including for the mayor.  The primary is late June with early voting starting earlier; so we have basically a month until voting starts. The specter of Andrew f-ng Yang the front-runner for mayor now is scary there.  Mayor De Blasio is term limited.  I will note that for local races, I'm okay with term limits; for national ones, I'd be okay for 12 years for the House and 18 for the Senate, probably.

Not that other races, including one or more district attorney races, lack bite.  The public advocate race is low energy with the incumbent basically a shoe-in.  The comptroller seems to be likely to be won by the current term limited City Council President.  I'm not sure about Bronx borough president, which my own assembly member is running for in a multi-person race.  And, Marjorie Velázquez is trying to fill the soon to be open seat of the city council, now filled by someone whom I opposed last time in part since I thought he should have stayed in his state legislator job.  Aaron Carr (a liberal activist) and others have noted he leaves a lot to be desired in general.  

[He says he is not running for re-election since the political climate makes his "moderate" views too unpopular.  Okay.]

We will have ranked choice voting -- if (knock on wood) I'm back on as a election worker, let's see if that leads to some confusion. NYT had a good explainer recently and I would suppose other places did or will.  Plus, eventually, I should get a voter's guide in the mail.  Those guides tend to be helpful to get a sense of the candidates and whatever ballot measures involved.  The one thing that they don't cover are judicial races, adding to my overall feeling that they are stupid -- if you are not even going to have basic information on these people, what's the point? 

Ranked choice voting is only for city positions and that would not include the district attorney races, which are county.  A recent Queens D.A. race could have used it -- there were two main candidates (left leaning, moderate), a more conservative leaning person and a few also rans.  The net result was a plurality win by the lefty, but a surprising to me ultimate loss since the write-ins significantly went the way of the moderate.  An instant run-off system probably would have avoided that, the 10% or so of the third candidate likely to decide the race via second choices. 

The basic concept isn't that hard -- you rank people 1-5, though you need not fill in all the slots. And, for non-mayor races (even there really) I'm not going to do that.  For instance, for Bronx Borough President, only the two women running interest me at all.  For my local city council race, I will need to think a bit more, but the woman that came in second last time is my strong favorite.  She seems like a good choice, I thought she should have won last time and has experience as an assistant of a previous occupant (Vacca).  But, one or two of the other options might be worth an inclusion.

====

The big race is mayor.  I think Andrew Yang is ahead out of name recognition, something that makes him stand out as a "new" thing that seems different.  But, he's a horrible choice, who comes off as a gimmick candidate while we need a serious choice to lead the city.  De Blasio has gotten some criticism though from my rather isolated location, he seemed okay.  I am ready for a person of color who has some ability to push the city in a good liberal position.  Maya Wiley is where I'm leaning with activist Dianne Morales as my first choice. 

Not a POC, but Scott Stringer was looked to many as the best choice, including his experience in local government.  Eric Adams (black and a Brooklyn borough president) has had some success, perhaps because of his experience and recognition in the populous Brooklyn borough.  He also was a state senator and a former NYPD captain, which some like, some (COP!) do not.  I do respect experience, but was going to put Stringer third since my liberal activist senator (Biaggi) and others whose positions I respect supported him.  Well ....

A former Stringer volunteer accused Stringer of assault, arising from things like twenty years ago, and Biaggi et. al. (including the powerful Working Family Party) pulled their endorsements.  We got some messiness, Stringer lashing back, leading supporters removing endorsements (a sexual violence victim/activist like Sen. Biaggi who enthusiastically supporter him must have been hit hard -- it is likely a factor why she postponed a sexual violence event, her office saying recent events "triggered" her and she couldn't handle the event at the scheduled time).  

[And, we got misleading reports that the accuser supported Yang, when it appears she really supported another Yang who was on a ballot with multiple people along with Andrew Yang.]

Wiley and Morales seem to be the ones who might benefit the most.  Again, since Andrew Yang simply doesn't seem like someone who in the end will get the votes (kill me now if I'm wrong), to me, it would seem to go to Wiley and Adams. The remaining people might include one or more people nice on some level, but come off as also rans.  Kathryn Garcia, e.g., sounds like she did some good work.  If I had to fill out five choices, she might be three now.  But, again, don't see her and others winning.  

This is preliminary but it's hard to see how Scott Stringer can come back from the pulled endorsements from the Working Family Party particularly.  Are they going to say "oops" or something?  Biaggi and a few others, e.g., started with a statement supporting the accuser without even citing Stringer (I retweeting it thinking it was just a Cuomo thing).  Then, first one of her allies in the state government and Biaggi  herself pulled the endorsement.  In a close race, with multiple candidates, how can he recover?

How about the accusation?  First, a strict policy for someone like Biaggi is understandable.  She's an activist and so forth so has personal and professional standards with a high sense of principle to uphold.  It's surely not the same thing, but a few already called her a hypocrite for soft pedaling early on while being such a strong Cuomo opponent.  Of course, Cuomo is the governor and has a lot more problems.  Nuance is hard.

It's easier for me since Stringer was my distant second choice anyway among the top tier candidates.  It's still important in a ranked race to determine who gets those back-up slots.  If I rank Eric Adams, e.g,., fourth in place of Stringer, the low vote getting "favorite daughter" let us say choices will drop out, and it can be a matter of Wiley v. Adams, instead of Wiley v. Stringer.   Nonetheless, it often is matter of a position or candidate and you basically find it easy to not choice another, any decent reason (or half-way decent) will do.  It is not as stressful for me. 

Let's say I was a Stringer supporter.  I would first looked toward the Working Family Party, Biaggi and others who I respect in this situation.  Yes, you should judge things for yourself, but it is appropriate to use trustworthy third parties as proxies.  We are after all a republican form of government.  Second, given the times (including the Cuomo controversies), the whole thing would be a concern.  The person has been vouched for. This isn't the situation with the dubious Biden accuser.  The alternatives are acceptable enough, even if you think Stringer is the best choice.  

Still, on my own, I find an accusation based on actions from 2001 a bit dubious.  I'll grant without further reason to doubt (this isn't a court of law) the allegation (per NYT): "repeatedly groped me, put his hands on my thighs and between my legs and demanded to know why I would not have sex with him.”  It is just that something he did twenty years to me by itself is not disqualifying unless we are talking about something like actual rape.  That might be wrong, but I don't think there is a lifetime ban concept here.  

But, we work within the system, and times, in place. On that level, unless (and it is getting late) some serious damage control occurs, he's in a real tough spot.  Stringer strongly denied it, noting they did have a voluntary relationship.  His campaign not surprisingly struck back hard, including raising the "she's for Andrew Yang" bit that as I noted itself was challenged.  As noted here, this seems risky, and likely to antagonize left leaning (on the scale of NYC Democratic voters) supporters.  

Again, he's not my first choice, so it's easier -- especially if I don't like his response -- for me to write him off.   It also points to the value of POC or women in certain cases, since it helps to avoid #MeToo type situations like this. I think the sane choice with Kavanaugh, e.g., was to pick a conservative woman judge instead.  At the time, I offered Barrett, which appalled  a few, but I was thinking of the choices in context.  Same here. Wiley's involvement with De Blasio, e.g., got her in some trouble, but it isn't as sensitive as some sort of sexual abuse allegation.   

Anyway, it's a big upset in the race.  Now can we get rid of Yang?