A bit much

More rain; no baseball tonight. As to Tony's follies, well, he got them there, behind ten games late August and past the Phillies and Brewers. So, if he had an off game, well, I think it's forgivable.

Non-Capital Order

The USSC now and then releases orders, often involving capital cases. This one is an exception. A bit of inside baseball. Not on the same page with everything here, but the older policy of keeping many state issues out of the lower federal courts makes sense. Justice Stevens agrees at least as far as when the state courts uphold rights.

Personhood Amendment

If you "declare a fertilized human egg to be a legal person," it doesn't really mean that abortion or birth control (which might involve preventing implantation) would be illegal, particularly if protected by the federal Constitution. It would be inane, particularly given how many "persons" naturally cease to exist. As Justice Clark noted pre-Roe:

To say that life is present at conception is to give recognition to the potential, rather than the actual. The unfertilized egg has life, and if fertilized, it takes on human proportions. But the law deals in reality, not obscurity -- the known, rather than the unknown. When sperm meets egg, life may eventually form, but quite often it does not. The law does not deal in speculation. The phenomenon of [p218] life takes time to develop, and, until it is actually present, it cannot be destroyed. Its interruption prior to formation would hardly be homicide, and as we have seen, society does not regard it as such.

The word "person" as found in the federal Constitution is used in ways that apply post-natally. It is not the same thing as "life," which in some form exists in each human cell and at conception as well. Persons are more than mere life, however, and it cheapens the word to apply it to fertilized eggs, which again naturally are disposed of regularly without any artificial means involved. The meaning of the unborn and at what point an embryo or fetus (though here we aren't even at the first point) reaches a point of meaning that merits "personhood" is a matter of great ethical, moral and religious debate. The idea that some state or states should set it in stone so that one group will win out is unjust.

This is so even if we can determine, though even there the line is quite debatable, some point in the pregnancy where a "person" exists, that is, legally saying it occurs before birth. The allowance to criminalize most abortions after viability is one such line. It is quite different, however, from drawing the line at fertilization! As Justice Stevens noted:

And if distinctions may be drawn between a fetus and a human being in terms of the state interest in their protection -- even though the fetus represents one of "those who will be citizens" -- it seems to me quite odd to argue that distinctions may not also be drawn between the state interest in protecting the freshly fertilized egg and the state interest in protecting the 9-month-gestated, fully sentient fetus on the eve of birth.

One group pushing for a "personhood amendment" has this "fact sheet." Note how "most" forms of the pill are protected. That means some are not, including I would think "morning after pills" since there is a chance that they prevent implantation of fertilized eggs in some cases. (I got in trouble with Amanda Marcotte over at RH Reality Check over this issue, but Planned Parenthood, the Mayo Clinic, Rachel Maddow etc. have noted the chance this might occur given how the pills work.*) The same would apply to IUDs, which work in part by preventing implantation. As to in vitro, they say unused embryos must not be destroyed. This isn't always possible, and what sort of "person" rights exist when they can be created willy-nilly and held in limbo, perhaps for years, put at risk over time? No exceptions here for rape, it is noted explicitly.

The fact that even those strongly against abortion (including those who want to make it illegal to choose it) support stem cell research underlined that those against it were particularly extreme. The same applies here. A person can be against abortion and realize that labeling fertilized eggs "persons" and saying that rape victims cannot take "some" pills to prevent them from being implanted is, quite honestly, a tad absurd. As some in the first story note, it is in fact counterproductive if you are "pro-life" to support such in effect largely symbolic measures. This is not to say it won't likely cause some harm (e.g., state funding issues) -- laws tend to have some effect as underenforced sodomy laws showed -- but symbolism is largely what is at issue here.

Perverting the conversation even more is a tragic thing. I have noted that use of "fetus" bothers me in abortion discussions since it brings images of largely developed beings when most abortions occur early in the pregnancy. If babies will be the image when a fertilized egg (why not sperm ala Monty Python's The Meaning of Life?), it will be so much worse. The effort and funds used toward this business can be shifted in so much more useful ways. I would be inclined to say that even if I wanted abortion to be made criminal. Is this what we are seriously debating now? A law to make fertilized eggs people?

Remember, Mitt "he's sane you know" Romney supports this sort of thing.

---

* The "pro" side here include many who -- if they had their way -- would simply not allow birth control at all. Various efforts have been in place in respect to health insurance and funding where that is clear. On that level, it's pretty counterproductive, as AM noted, since birth control pills prevent the creation of all those fertilized eggs that will naturally be disposed of. Of course, "nature" did that, right?

The line drawn to allow "some" pills is also questionable on principle, since the other pills basically work the same way, but involve use of large doses of certain hormones that can affect fertilized eggs. Is it totally clear that a regular cycle of birth control pills might not possibly do that as well? Sure, it might be only a small chance, but "persons" are at stake! Some are not willing to risk even a handful of wrongly executed convicted murderers, after all.

Television Watch

It is confusing some viewers that Body of Proof aired episodes out of sequence. It was a mid-season replacement, so extra episodes were left over, though the link suggests even during the first run things didn't go directly as intended. Thus, after two new episodes were aired to start the new season, good episodes by the way, viewers were confused. Um, why does it seem that Kate is only just starting to date Megan's ex? She isn't a "new" girlfriend any more. And, at least it seemed this way to me, the "feel" of the show was different from the first two episodes. More rough and raw. Then, a new feeling episode was aired and then more that fit with earlier ones. It seems, perhaps, next week's episode might be the last of the original set of thirteen. Maybe, we can get back on track with the first episodes of the season as a guide?

Tonight's episode would be in Season One, if they are put in the correct sequence. The dynamics between Megan (the lead) and Kate (her boss) is a bit tiresome, but Megan's relationship with her daughter (her ex has custody, Megan previously focusing more on her career than her daughter) is one of my favorite parts of the show. Tonight's episode was partially focused on that, including debates between Megan and her ex over the topic. I have flashbacks to Once and Again, where the actor also had to deal with custody issues mixed in with a divorce. "Lacey" is played well, the actress having a sizable resume at 15.

I am watching the final season of the English show Doc Martin on YouTube though it might eventually be on the IMDB page/Hulu like the other four seasons. I like the female lead and the show as a whole is quirky, but the final season seems to be done in a particularly lackadaisical fashion, really laid back. As to the Canadian show Being Erica, I found the first episode of the new season online, but decided to wait regarding the rest. There are plans to have an American version of the show, though the Canadian version (aired on SoapNet about six months after the original airing) could easily be an American show, other than a reference to a Canadian city. Well, let's see how they handle it.

I also noted that I enjoyed the first episode of Once Upon A Time. The Disney character type coming to the real world, said to be some horrible place next to the charming land of fantasy, was done in Enchanted. This is something different, of course. The first episode was done well -- the storybook world intertwined with the current events in ours. A fun bit had some council taking place with various storybook characters such as Snow White, Prince Charming, a couple dwarfs, Jiminy Cricket and others involved. Another world was created as is done fairly well (I'm sure there are anachronisms and so forth, like some note Body of Proof doesn't quite do Philly right) in Pan Am, which by the way is apparently on the cusp of cancellation. I like it, so I hope it sticks.

Once Upon A Time (Grimm also has a storybook theme, if going in a different direction) will rise and fall on its stories and acting, the gimmick important but something of an extra. Snow White, now a teacher (the characters do not realize who they were after the curse kicks in; how Snow White's grandson realizes things has not told yet) with short hair (seriously, different look), for instance has a good bit of dialogue about the meaning of fairy tales and played her role low key -- she seems like a nice little innocent sort, but you can see an inner fire and strength.

November is coming and with it, Necessary Roughness and The Closer will come back with some new episodes. The Winter will bring Army Wives back. I said at some point -- who knows when -- that t.v. seems weaker these days. After awhile, however, you count and see there are enough shows to make a pretty good bunch. Again, most of them are hour long dramas. Monday, like the days of yore when Newhart and Murphy Brown was on, is a night for comedies too, as are other nights. I just don't really like them. But, there are a few on Disney and Nick, such as Good Luck Charlie. Toss in sports, news shows and Colbert, you have more than enough. It's all relative, I guess.

Stevens -- Reviewer

Justice Stevens is keeping busy in "retirement," including reviewing books. Last time the death penalty, this time criminal justice as a whole. A lot of good stuff there, including a broader understanding of the Fourteenth Amendment. Have not read either book yet.

Sports Update

A bit messy, but good baseball game.  Jaguars offense is lackluster, but their defense has been very good, making it 9-0 in the Fourth.

Once Upon A Time

Never into Lost, but this show from its producers or whatever had a good premiere.  Era of hour dramas and reality shows. 

Holy Hullabaloos: A Road Trip to the Battlegrounds of the Church/State Wars

This travelogue covers a lot of ground (it's hard at time to do this without oversimplifying; he probably slips now and again) in a way accessible to the general public pretty well, though his left leaning atheist Jew schtick asides do at times get annoying.

Ninth Amendment: Specifics

I have spent some time discussing the Ninth Amendment, referencing some cases and broad principles, but what rights in particular are covered?

First, there are those protected by state law that the federal government has no power to invade for one reason or the other. California protects the right to petition in private shopping malls, something now deemed not protected by the First Amendment, even though has the flavor of a traditional public business area where that sort of behavior (handing out pamphlets and the like) was done. This "retained right" (one that applies only in California in this case) should not be invaded by the federal government merely because the First Amendment does not reach that far.

This same result can arise in a more negative fashion. California decriminalized medicinal marijuana in various ways.  There might not be a "right" as such -- which would be stronger -- but by allowing it, people at least have the "right" not to be arrested or otherwise penalized by state officials for being involved.  If the feds had no power over this activity, again, merely because the rights enumerated were found not to include use of medicinal marijuana would not take this "right" away from residents of the state.  If California (like Alaska did in the 1970s regarding small time private possession) did recognize it as a right, the case would be stronger, though a clear case of a federal power might trump it.  Such concerns can be handled politically, including by prosecutorial discretion. 

Second, there are various rights that are protected across the board, even if individual states wish it to be otherwise. The various cases cited suggest various examples, including use and purchase of contraceptives, choices respecting childbirth (no "one child" policy here) and child raising, matters of intimate association including sexual activities of various types, the right to travel, marriage, a basic right to "liberty" from confinement without good cause (remember, the Bill of Rights lists various safeguards in criminal cases; what if a law allowed the detaining of those with mild ailments? if applied evenly and fairly, procedural due process could be met) and to make various daily choices regarding dress (see, e.g., Justice Powell's concurrence here as to hair length), diet and so forth.  One listing:

See, e.g., NAACP v. Alabama, 357 U.S. 449 (1958) (right of association); Griswold v. Connecticut, 381 U.S. 479 (1965), and Stanley v. Georgia, 394 U.S. 557 (1969) (right to privacy); Estelle v. Williams, 425 U.S. 501, 503 (1976), and Taylor v. Kentucky, 436 U.S. 478, 483-486 (1978) (presumption of innocence); In re Winship, 397 U.S. 358 (1970) (standard of proof beyond a reasonable doubt); United States v. Guest, 383 U.S. 745, 757-759 (1966), and Shapiro v. Thompson, 394 U.S. 618, 630 (1969) (right to interstate travel).

Again, see also Justice Douglas' concurrence in Doe v. Bolton (inspired by a memo written by Justice Brennan, who was interested in the Ninth Amendment but relied on substantive due process in his own opinions, as told by Liberty and Sexuality by David Garrow), which summarizes things nicely.  Again, these rights are protected in various ways, including by more strict review of them in respect to equal protection. This is how the fundamental right to vote -- which to me is basic to a republican form of government so would be a "Ninth Amendment" right (other basic rights aren't given to everyone for various reasons either -- young minors, for instance, cannot marry) -- is generally protected (raising but not relying on First Amendment argument).  An early recognition:

Though not regarded strictly as a natural right, but as a privilege merely conceded by society according to its will under certain conditions, nevertheless it is regarded as a fundamental political right, because preservative of all rights.

I was reading about the formation of the First Amendment. One mostly forgotten member of Congress noted that he wasn't really concerned with specific wording as such, but with the basic idea behind the freedoms related to religion at issue.  As seen in this case from the 1880s, this quite American sense of pragmatic flexibility makes sense.  Either way, this old discussion by me of "natural law" is germane.  And, that ends my Ninth Amendment discussion for the moment.  I think! 

TV Watch

The guy who walked three straight last year pitched a gem -- it's the porn mustache!  Victorious was a decent episode with an amusing in joke about extras.  Pan Am again was pleasant time filling. "Nico" was on, but didn't play "Niko" here.  Saints piled on. 

More Football

Panthers didn't blow one.  S/B: nine total points.  Rams' lo-ser.  KC whipping suggests why Raiders got a new back-up QB.  Viks making it a game, even after a twenty-three point swing by the Packers.  Colts/Saints probably looked like a good match-up. MNF: yawn.

Wizards

I think the show has been pretty lame of late, but this surprise really annoyed me since it was treated so lamely. Tacked on and without energy. And, where exactly did YKW come from?! Time to go.

Week 7

Coming from 21-10, the defense stepped up and the Jets won, SD's final series pretty lame. Detroit is suddenly losing games. Miami blew a 15-0 lead (failed two point) and lost 18-15, Denver getting an onside + the two + OT. Lo-ser. Chicago managed a win in London.

Ninth Amendment Again

I have recently focused on the 9th Amendment to the Constitution:

The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

It might be somewhat "forgotten," though the number of law review articles and references suggest not totally in the least, but it sets forth basic principles (debated) even if it is not expressly cited in the process.

I would like to give a shout out here to Eugene M. Van Loan III's entry in Randy Barnett's collection of essays on the topic, Loan writing in the 1960s (see also, his 2006 article on "Judicial Review and Its Limits," which is usefully dubious about overly self-righteous claims of its legitimacy). It provides a good summary and is notable for various reasons. For instance, it lists several citations of the Ninth Amendment that other sources seem to miss. It also notes the limitations of use of history in interpreting constitutional provisions -- it is but one tool. And, it notes how focusing on federal power -- however originalist it might be -- is anachronistic in this day and age. The federalist revolution, or partial one, that came after he wrote does not change the fact, as he notes, "rights" is often the more appropriate focus, particularly when courts are involved.

The traditional view of the 9th Amendment can be found in a passing reference in one of these cases, Hoke v. U.S. (1913), which concerns a federal law against "white slavery." Argument:

Because the right and power to regulate and control prostitution, or any other immoralities of citizens, comes within the reserved police power of the several States, and under the Constitution Congress cannot interfere therewith, either directly or indirectly, under the grant of power `to regulate commerce between the States.'

Response:

If the statute be a valid exercise of that power, how it may affect persons or States is not material to be considered. It is the supreme law of the land and persons and States are subject to it.

Thus, the amendment limited federal power and in the process protected individual rights, but if a federal power existed, the amendment does not apply. As Loan notes, as the federal government expanded, the breadth of federal power made this a less useful check, especially with the use of implied powers. The concern didn't just arise during the New Deal, as criticism of John Marshall's rulings (now deemed canonical) showed, but it was taken to new levels in modern times. It is true that "a valid exercise" implies a limit, but a strong presumption of constitutionality generally makes that a limited check. "If granted power is found, necessarily the objection of invasion of those rights, reserved by the Ninth and Tenth Amendments, must fail." (principle cited by Justice Brennan in Roth v. U.S., involving federal obscenity regulation). The brief citations underline the limited concern.

In Bute v. Illinois (1948), "the reserved powers of the states and of the people were emphasized in the Ninth and Tenth Amendments" included whether or not to supply a lawyer to a state defendant in most non-capital cases, except if "special circumstances" applied. Due process of law in time was determined to require more. This does not mean the rights at issue were trivial. As Justice Stewart said before he accepted substantive due process in Roe v. Wade:

The right of a man to the protection of his own reputation from unjustified invasion and wrongful hurt reflects no more than our basic concept of the essential dignity and worth of every human being—a concept at the root of any decent system of ordered liberty. The protection of private personality, like the protection of life itself, is left primarily to the individual States under the Ninth and Tenth Amendments. But this does not mean that the right is entitled to any less recognition by this Court as a basic of our constitutional system.

Rosenblatt v. Baer (1966). Thus, rights are there and protected, but largely by state action. If some federal action invades this safeguard, federal judicial review would be justified. A few references can be found on that front back to the 19th Century as seen in the headnotes to ROOSEVELT v. MEYER (1863) (legal tender law). The Supreme Court held it had no jurisdiction because the lower court upheld the federal law in question (it is questionable if this was correct or they just was trying to avoid a hot button issue; either way, it is clear federal law gives the Supreme Court broader jurisdiction today), but the principle was out there. Again, given the focus on "power," the Tenth Amendment (originally thought of as working hand in hand with the Ninth, in fact, James Madison put the two ideas together) often focused upon. As the lower court did there.

The Bill of Rights limits the federal government. So, yes, originally the Ninth Amendment would take power away from the federal government, not address the limits of the power of the states or the people themselves in respect to violating "retained rights." The Civil War, however, showed the limits to this approach, the states also a major threat without some additional federal limits. Thus, citizenship or even mere personhood brought with it obligations from both the states and federal governments, obligations that could be upheld nationally. The Fourteenth Amendment spells this out, including its fifth clause.

The reach of this federal power, however, was greatly debated. This includes respecting rights -- see the Bute case above where something we now generally deem basic (a right to be given an attorney in any major criminal case if you cannot afford one) was deemed to be the discretion of the states to a large degree. Slowly, however, it was recognized that all have certain rights and local invasion was a concern for federal action. That is, this basic idea was always there to some degree, but the reach of these "fundamental rights" was expanded. As Justice Goldberg noted in Griswold:

The Ninth Amendment simply shows the intent of the Constitution's authors that other fundamental personal rights should not be denied such protection or disparaged in any other way simply because they are not specifically listed in the first eight constitutional amendments. I do not see how this broadens the authority of the Court; rather it serves to support what this Court has been doing in protecting fundamental rights.

As with saying a state violates the "First Amendment," the use of "the Ninth Amendment" here is somewhat misleading. What is largely at stake is the Fourteenth Amendment, which in effect "incorporates" the requirements of the Bill of Rights, including the Ninth Amendment. [There are likely other rights that states cannot invade that arise elsewhere such as suggested by this curious discussion of the right to travel.] The fact that states repeatedly added "mini-9ths" in their own constitutions underlined that it put forth a principle that could be applied nationally. Once it was determined that national rights of broad reach applied to all, protected not merely by state actors, the current common understanding of the Ninth Amendment is appropriate.

Goldberg used the Ninth Amendment as a "rule of construction" to further the principles of substantive due process. He cited three basic principles: rights traditionally deemed fundamental, those that work off enumerated rights (the majority's approach) and "from experience with the requirements of a free society."*  Douglas himself said as much in his Poe v. Ullman dissent and later (see, e.g., Doe v. Bolton), expressly referencing the "liberty" of due process of law as well. The "penumbra" stuff is ridiculed but was really a one-off though rights "indispensable to the enjoyment of rights explicitly defined" (Richmond Newspapers v. Virginia) continue to be an aspect of their recognition. The connection between SDP and the Ninth was seen in Planned Parenthood v. Casey:

Neither the Bill of Rights nor the specific practices of States at the time of the adoption of the Fourteenth Amendment marks the outer limits of the substantive sphere of liberty which the Fourteenth Amendment protects. See U. S. Const., Amend. 9.

The opinion hooks this up with Justice Harlan's Poe v. Ullman opinion (dissent but now basically normative), which rests on substantive due process. So, though the Ninth Amendment originally limited the federal government, in effect by helping to explain what a "proper" (or valid) use of power entailed in respect to rights, the basic principle applies to state action too. Its sentiment was "incorporated" as were other provisions, and a limited view akin to those who argue the Establishment Clause only offers a federalist limit misses the boat.

A full use of history, recognizing its limitations, helps show this.

---

* Natural rights or those "intrinsic" or "inherent" or "basic" to liberty (different adjectives can be found cited, again, usually involving substantive due process)  fit in each of these categories, helping to give them life and meaning.  Certain enumerated rights were "pre-existing" -- free exercise of religion or use of arms for self-defense, for instance.  See, e.g., D.C. v. Heller.   Others, such as trial rights, are societal safeguards of such rights.

And, the other two categories also can fit into both categories.  Rights arising from family life are traditional and basic to a free society while also basic to our natures.  On the other hand, something like marriage is as well, but to the degree the state supplies a marriage license, a positive law component is involved. A trial makes it harder for the government to deprive someone of liberty, but that is not the only way it protects us. 

Thus, focus on purely "negative" liberty, freedom from government restraint, is misguided.  Ninth Amendment rights as much as anything else in society requires some governmental action to be fully protected.  Thus, some argue education -- including that applied by the state -- is a Ninth Amendment right.  Society implies certain rights, including those unlisted.

16-7 (no the Rams didn't finally win)

A close but correct call helped Texas win 2-1. An incorrect call (didn't see it, but so says the ump) helped the road to ruin, a comeback in the bottom of the same inning stopped. Same ump made both calls.

Sports Pope Gets Dissed

I grew tired of him on WFAN a long time ago, so the fact this happened is not surprising. The fact they quite literally talked about it on the station all day today -- through three hosts -- is a tad ridiculous though the hosts didn't just agree with their colleague.

Ashleigh Banfield

Her controversial 2003 speech is appropriate reading/listening with today's Iraq announcement. How about Afghanistan?

Tough Guys and Drama Queens

I am reading The Drama Years, a book discussing the trials and tribulations of middle school girls, underlining the importance of this sort of book.  The teen years, as most of us know, are a time of change and struggle, both for the teens and sometimes it seems as much for the parents too.  It is a scary time for all involved, if exciting as well.  So, I appreciate a book that provides some perspective on how to deal with them, especially a book that covers all teens, not just boys or girls.

This book is by someone with decades of experience with dealing with teens, in close contact, and is realistic: the philosophy is that the truth of the matter is not enough.  You can be in the right, but if you don't approach and relate to the teens in the right way, you can fail.  This is upsetting to some, since they believe in effect "right is all that matters."  Not true.  Discipline can't be forced merely because you are a parent and the child did something wrong.  The importance of good relations is well known by many people when dealing with their families and the same is true for many (such as educators) who deal with teens as well. 

The book is divided into three sections:

1.     What's so different about today's culture
2.     Why traditional parenting no longer works
3.     A new model for parenting teens.

One thing that received some push-back is the author's suggestion that parents give teens some space to make choices, perhaps wrong ones.  This cannot be done for truly harmful things, such as using drugs or such.  But, take an example of a seventeen year old not wishing to go to church.  By this age, a person needs to decide to go to church on his or her own.  It is not like forcing the person to go to church until they leave home for school is going to be much good in the long haul. Realizing that you have to sometimes trust your child is sound advice.  The "conversation starter" and "how to discuss" conflict appendixes are also helpful. 

The book's overall philosophy is that God gave parents a special role and that they need guidance sometimes to help carry it out. Children aren't the only ones who need help. This attractive volume is a useful addition to parental support resources.

Note: This book was provided free by Book Sneeze in return for a review.  The opinions are purely mine and a positive review was not required for receipt of said book. 

Miral

During the DVD commentary, which is good, it was noted that Roger Ebert didn't like the film, but Carl Reiner thought it remarkable.  [His phone message is found at the end of the commentary track ... down to the phone number he left!]  The (Jewish) director noted that he'll take that any day.  A search for a review brought up another one, which admired how the film looked ("poetry") but not how it told the story as a whole.  I find the review too negative, but there is some bite to this:

Though the scenes are ordered logically, they’re handled in a way that’s so choppy, they feel more like unrelated episodes than chapters of the same story; gaps in the plot end up getting filled in with archival footage and onscreen text.

I had the feeling while watching this authorized film version of an autobiographical work (the author -- now a journalist -- shows up in the DVD extras and praised the result) that a three hour story was told in half that time.  The result involved some scenes of great power, the various actors very good, but I repeatedly felt we were merely getting incomplete snapshots of events.  If we accept this limitation, Carl Reiner was correct -- it was a remarkable film, particularly given how much material is found therein.  Great locations as well.  And, as the director noted, it is important to note that this is not supposed to be the whole story.  It is tells the stories of some people, mainly through one point of view because that is what the film is about.  If it cannot fully tell even that in under two hours, expecting even more is unfounded. 

The movie starts with the start of a school for Palestinian orphans, survivors of a massacre arising from the creation of modern Israel, a school where Miral eventually winds up.  First, we see a bit (over a span of twenty years) of the story of the school's originator and then of Miral's mother, both who could have been subjects of their own film.  The brief two scenes with Willem Dafoe's character underlines how we are left wanting to learn more about these characters and events.  Then, we skip to the main character's sixteenth year as the first Intifada goes on.  Various moments -- a possible first love with a member of the Intifada, an interrogation scene, a solider questions her on a bus, a possible friendship with a Jewish girlfriend of a family member etc.  are excellent. 

I never really got a full feel for Miral as a whole, again the need to compress so much into around an hour of screen time limiting.  The director suggested there was a two and a half hour director cut out there, but that he had to make choices to put together a film for general audiences.  He feels the result was successful and it was in various ways.  I say this more so after watching it again via the commentary track.  I still see the reviewer's point and can see how some will be unsatisfied.  But, even they, if truly fair, should recognize that even if the sum of the parts aren't as good as individual scenes, the parts still are worthwhile viewing. 

I tried to read the book, but could not get into it. Just one of those times when it didn't "start" well enough for me to latch on. The Internet probably worsens the situation, since I read so much more on here now, but this seems to be happening more often these days. The book logically would provide more space to tell the stories here, though it wasn't that long, so might have limitations too. The film ends with Miral about to go to school in Italy and hope that a political settlement was reached. The early 1990s.

Series Tied

In basically the same spot, if an inning later, the same pinch hitter for the pitcher hits the go ahead run off the same Texas reliever. But, the Cards pen faltered in the ninth.  Key base-running moves, even a steal -- this time the inches went their way at the end.