Various thoughts on current events with an emphasis on politics, legal issues, books, movies and whatever is on my mind. Emails can be sent to almostsanejoe@aol.com; please put "blog comments" in the subject line.
About Me
- Joe
- This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
Monday, June 10, 2013
Even SCOTUSBlog ...
had a net "yawn" from today's rulings. Still, for Ex Post Facto fans who eat raisins ...
"Mott Green, a Free-Spirited Chocolatier, Dies at 47"
emerged from a hermitlike existence in a bamboo hut in the jungle of Grenada to produce a coveted Caribbean delicacy — rich, dark chocolate bars that he exported around the world with the help of sailboats, bicycles and solar-powered refrigeration — died on June 1 in Grenada. He was 47.Sounds like a real character, including one who helped make the world a bit better.
Sunday, June 09, 2013
Rev. Joe: True Equality in Chaplain Corps? (Nah)
“Humanism fills the same role for atheists that Christianity does for Christians and Judaism does for Jews,” Mr. Torpy said in an interview. “It answers questions of ultimate concern; it directs our values.”Saw an interesting tidbit in my local paper about a failed amendment "that would allow humanists or members of ethical culture groups to join the chaplain corps." Numbers-wise, this is a significant group, more than Jews or Muslims, e.g. But, respect for religious beliefs continues to be a bit selective, so it failed. Like gays, still have the "down lo" chaplains.
Imagine Me & You
As I said the first time, this movie has some soul, if a few (especially a bit near the end) annoying bits. That blog entry might continue to have some bite too. Anyway, some DVD extras, and the American lead does a nice English accent. The good guy husband is a major plus. Overall, with the cute, some serious adult fare there. Word of the day: Ladette.
Chinese Whiskers
Saturday, June 08, 2013
Rev. Joe: Religious Liberty Beyond Conservative Bishops Edition
I have gotten into some disputes with this person and the tone there suggests why. The fact is they DON'T want to "play by the rules," and it is not "aggressive" to require them to do so, including regarding contraceptives in ways that repeatedly involve "the state" trying to compromise. See also, my comments here and here (those darn "progressives"). Calling contraceptives, which the Church blithely lets their flock use, "evil" is hard to take seriously.
Friday, June 07, 2013
Thursday, June 06, 2013
A bit more ...
"bound by oaths of office to hold their tongues"This has annoyed me for years ... these "oaths" seem to override the Speech and Debate Clause -- "for any speech or debate in either House, they shall not be questioned in any other place." Never quite got that. Talking out on the floor against executive overreaching seems to uphold oaths, even if the clause literally leaves open legislative penalties.
And Also: Civil Liberty Protections Involving "Private" Action
The "order" here suggests even if you accept Smith v. Maryland (I don't), it is not really a "voluntary" matter. Still, this shows the overall importance of positive law/practice to protect privacy, like it is necessary to truly not "deny" 14A protections. Lacking such "affirmative action" might not be court secured, but constitutional rights go beyond that.
"Revealed: NSA Collecting Phone Records Of Millions Of Americans Daily" [Aka 4A Is Dead]
See here and here, e.g., for details/reactions. Not "horrified" or anything, but at some point, you start to worry about such mega-data dumps, especially when the company can't even talk about it. Note it was tied to the law, so no "new boss the same as old" and not actual conversations. Safeguards and oversight important here. So, good to be informed.
Wednesday, June 05, 2013
Happy Medium Bleg
Various people noted the tone of Scalia's dissent in Maryland v. King while a few noted Kennedy did his usual ignoring the dissent routine. Scalia isn't alone, but is a pro at the heavy-handed dissent. U.S. court opinions repeatedly are pretty personal, which is also unfortunate. He does take the time to respond, however imperfectly.
Inhuman Resources
This was a pretty good late night find that hooked you early on and kept you with some nice twists, humor and some talent. A somewhat unhinged manager type kidnaps six people to prove he was wrongly convicted as a serial killer. We aren't talking Shakespeare here, but skip over some genre silliness, good little thriller. Lead actress also has some spunk.
Another Off-Schedule 2013 Election
A 89 year old guy in bad health has died, but it's a bit complicated given he was the senator from New Jersey. Reprise of my support of tying short term appointments here to party somehow. He had various possible options, so Christie (R-sometimes not vomit inducing) went with short term appointment, special extra election. Is he gaming things a bit? I guess.
Tuesday, June 04, 2013
"Conservative Reps Say God Told Them To Spare Boehner From Coup"
This led to some to ridicule people thinking God "says" things and my comment that the President on down do this in some fashion. Not everyone. But, enough to be annoying. Focus on the merits. "Religion" itself is not the enemy. Statement probably isn't too important anyhow. Strategy as much as some voice of God probably influenced things.
Monday, June 03, 2013
Loving The Bad Man
Coffee Shop God is an example of a victim forgiving a violent criminal, so that part of this rape victim having the baby film didn't throw me. And, choice includes choosing that. Though that is a hard way of following "Love Thy Enemy." It's that the film is just not very good (did like the lead). Turned it off. Lesson: message movies are still movies. There still are minimal standards. I note this because the subject matter -- including redemption even after horrible crimes -- is worth thinking about.
Maryland v. King (or Scalia/Thomas Split Again)
Scalia/Breyer switched places to uphold a limited (for now at least) usage of DNA testing after arraignment (is waiting to then constitutionally necessary?) of one crime to investigate (or is it help "identify" the true nature of the person?) others. I agree with the dissent, but the potential here might be worse than the actual opinion.
In Search of Cleo: How I Found My Pussy and Lost My Mind
The book is not dirty, however. Just a funny one about how, years ago, Gershon lost her cat, Cleo, after the end of an eight-year relationship and became obsessed with finding him.Years ago indeed -- the friend's death that "just" happened occurred in 2002. Nothing profound, but amusing and the money is going to charity. Though I got it out of the library.
The Sessions
Overall, I enjoyed this film about Mark O'Brien (iron lung) deciding to go to a sex surrogate (Helen Hunt nudity alert), particularly because our sex laden culture too often does not actually seriously examine the complexity of the subject. The DVD has a few background interviews, including from the leads, director/producer, supporting characters and the actual sex surrogate portrayed. No commentary. Interesting cameo: Rhea Perlman as the "Mikvah Lady" -- reminds me of another movie where we see the freeing nature of women baths in some Middle Eastern country.
Some reviews thought it covered the subject matter too simplistically, including his Catholicism, but it is after all a movie. I probably would give it three plus stars out of four, the material not that deep, but overall smoothly done with points for novelty. The usual plus of good support cast helps. Didn't quite like how the sex surrogate got so emotionally attached -- she is a sex surrogate; why was this case special? A quick look at the article the movie was based on and her own book (see link for resources) doesn't seem to suggest it happened quite like that. However, the film seems overall fairly faithful to real life, including certain small touches like the elevator scene.
O'Brien is portrayed as someone with guilty feelings about sex, in part a reflection from his brand of Catholicism, though he has a sense of humor and a complexity of thought that makes the character and man interesting (and subject to an earlier documentary). The priest he seeks counseling from is shown in a sympathetic light (how could he not given William H. Macy portrays him!) as a laid back sort of guy. I take that -- as seen by his first reaction ("you mean fornication?") the Church would oppose this sort of thing. (O'Brien did later fall in love and have a more typical relationship with a woman though I take from the stuff I read that it was not quite like portrayed in the film.) But, many would be like the priest.
The Church would not have lasted two thousand years, if the flock was as doctrinaire about things as the rules required. Sex for the Church is a limited thing -- in the area of marriage and even there without artificial contraception. Likewise, inability to have vaginal intercourse means you are not able to even get married. So, if he was totally paralyzed and loved a woman, too bad for him? It is not quite that the Church (though some early writers surely didn't think much of it) does not "like" sex as the sex surrogate suggests. They do have a narrow view of it. Sad really.
As noted, the saving grace is that many (including some like the priest portrayed here) do not have such a limited view of things. If one wishes to accept the New Testament (a sort of Judeo-Christian term in that only some would see it that way) as gospel, there is only so much wiggle room.* There is play in the joints. As noted in The Notorious Elizabeth Tuttle, many Puritans somewhat against type had some liberal (for the time) views about sex and marriage. The gospels were interpreted to allow divorce for abandonment and part of this would be abandoning certain responsibilities of a spouse, including those of a sexual nature.
And, this was not only taken in a sexist fashion. The good of both was involved. This follows the true spirit of the Catholic principle that sex is an important "unitive" aspect of marriage though why only a certain form of it would be possible here is something some of us find curious. Some concern for the spirit over the letter and understanding that even holy text was written by human beings (even I reckon the Koran in its original Arabic) / fallible, can do a lot more to fit equality into religious doctrine.
For making us think through such issues, root for the characters and Helen Hunt's fairly consistent Boston accent, the film is worthwhile.
---
* See, e.g., here, where the text provides certain roles to husbands and to wives, even if there is no need to apply it in as sexist of a matter as is opposed in that discussion. The same is true with the few references to same sex behavior. At some point, it can not be totally explained away. But, trying to justify every single verse, especially read in a vacuum, is a fool's errand. When Paul (or "Paul") says things which make women ministers apparently a problem, this is pretty clear. Selective reading helps -- recall something about splinters vs. planks ...
Some reviews thought it covered the subject matter too simplistically, including his Catholicism, but it is after all a movie. I probably would give it three plus stars out of four, the material not that deep, but overall smoothly done with points for novelty. The usual plus of good support cast helps. Didn't quite like how the sex surrogate got so emotionally attached -- she is a sex surrogate; why was this case special? A quick look at the article the movie was based on and her own book (see link for resources) doesn't seem to suggest it happened quite like that. However, the film seems overall fairly faithful to real life, including certain small touches like the elevator scene.
O'Brien is portrayed as someone with guilty feelings about sex, in part a reflection from his brand of Catholicism, though he has a sense of humor and a complexity of thought that makes the character and man interesting (and subject to an earlier documentary). The priest he seeks counseling from is shown in a sympathetic light (how could he not given William H. Macy portrays him!) as a laid back sort of guy. I take that -- as seen by his first reaction ("you mean fornication?") the Church would oppose this sort of thing. (O'Brien did later fall in love and have a more typical relationship with a woman though I take from the stuff I read that it was not quite like portrayed in the film.) But, many would be like the priest.
The Church would not have lasted two thousand years, if the flock was as doctrinaire about things as the rules required. Sex for the Church is a limited thing -- in the area of marriage and even there without artificial contraception. Likewise, inability to have vaginal intercourse means you are not able to even get married. So, if he was totally paralyzed and loved a woman, too bad for him? It is not quite that the Church (though some early writers surely didn't think much of it) does not "like" sex as the sex surrogate suggests. They do have a narrow view of it. Sad really.
As noted, the saving grace is that many (including some like the priest portrayed here) do not have such a limited view of things. If one wishes to accept the New Testament (a sort of Judeo-Christian term in that only some would see it that way) as gospel, there is only so much wiggle room.* There is play in the joints. As noted in The Notorious Elizabeth Tuttle, many Puritans somewhat against type had some liberal (for the time) views about sex and marriage. The gospels were interpreted to allow divorce for abandonment and part of this would be abandoning certain responsibilities of a spouse, including those of a sexual nature.
And, this was not only taken in a sexist fashion. The good of both was involved. This follows the true spirit of the Catholic principle that sex is an important "unitive" aspect of marriage though why only a certain form of it would be possible here is something some of us find curious. Some concern for the spirit over the letter and understanding that even holy text was written by human beings (even I reckon the Koran in its original Arabic) / fallible, can do a lot more to fit equality into religious doctrine.
For making us think through such issues, root for the characters and Helen Hunt's fairly consistent Boston accent, the film is worthwhile.
---
* See, e.g., here, where the text provides certain roles to husbands and to wives, even if there is no need to apply it in as sexist of a matter as is opposed in that discussion. The same is true with the few references to same sex behavior. At some point, it can not be totally explained away. But, trying to justify every single verse, especially read in a vacuum, is a fool's errand. When Paul (or "Paul") says things which make women ministers apparently a problem, this is pretty clear. Selective reading helps -- recall something about splinters vs. planks ...