The Mets have five games in four days and six rainouts so far so they were going to play the game even with a three hour rain delay. The game sped along, the Mets pitcher getting the sole RBI in the 7th, Gee throwing under 90 pitches thru eight. Lost it in the 9th, 2-1, failing to get thru the guy who got three of the five Braves hits. Sigh.
About Me
- Joe
- This blog is the work of an educated civilian, not of an expert in the fields discussed.
Tuesday, June 18, 2013
Monday, June 17, 2013
Supreme Court Watch: Not Quite Yet
The end of the term is approaching, so the big ticket cases (affirmative action, Voting Rights Act, same sex marriage) will be decided soon. Today was something of a preview with cases the general public might not care about though they are not totally without interest. Five cases that are helpfully summarized here, and of course, you can check SCOTUSBlog.
As noted at the link, some interesting splits -- Scalia/Thomas split three times though not quite glaringly. The notable (for sentencing fans) constitutional ruling is probably Alleyne, a ruling that cleaned up an exception to a rule first placed about a decade ago, Breyer joining on mostly for doctrinal neatness. Scalia usually went along, but split with Thomas in this specific instance, which might be of some importance to that area of law, but honestly, probably isn't that important day to day even for criminal defendants. At least, such is my uninformed view.
The other criminal case split 5-4 on predictable lines, though the majority split conservative/more conservative, with Scalia/Thomas in the latter camp. Contra here, "Shorter reasonable, moderate, thinking person’s conservative Sam Alito: “The Fifth Amendment does not entail a right to remain silent" is a bit too blithe. The ruling involved the state being able to negatively reference silence during a certain type of interrogation. The dissent looks to be right on a practical level, but it also seems to be a narrow ruling. He could have remained silent. Even the dissent doesn't say silence in all cases will save you from negative comment.
A forgotten case that looks a bit notable allows the feds to move along on a case against brand name drug companies that try to keep cheaper versions off the market. One of the interesting match-ups is also one of the longer opinions of the term (the Court favors short opinions of late). It looks to me to be a fairly narrow split on the proper reach of a law protecting the privacy of records as applied to litigation. Principles of privacy and discretion to obtain information in civil litigation to protect the public arise here and both sides have positive values to raise.
The last case involves an Arizona voting id law that the majority (by Scalia) decided 7-2 (Thomas/Alito dissenting) wrongly overrode a federal provision, particularly because the Election Clause gives the feds discretion (Kennedy concurred to note he would not focus on that) to override state law (by design). At first, reading Scalia wrote the opinion seemed a red flag, but it turned out to be an avoidance sort of ruling. Limited one -- the opinion noted that Arizona did have a constitutional power to set voter qualifications as well as to insure that voters met them.* [Election Blog provides more dynamics here.]
But, Arizona had a way to raise a claim that the feds here was not appropriately allowing them to do this. Thus, the voters might lose in the end, if the additional requirement (or something like it) was shown to be necessary and not otherwise a violation of the federal constitution. So, ball in the state's court to press the issue and see how the courts decide. Me personally, I think the law likely to be constitutionally problematic and/or not necessary to defend state voter qualifications, the federal rule of taking an oath satisfactory and additional requirements leading to denial of voting rights with racial and class discrimination implications.
Not apparently big on the grant scene either. To be cont.
---
* Justice Thomas' dissent did what "isn't done" -- he directly (not just to an article with the name in the title) cited Bush v. Gore.
As noted at the link, some interesting splits -- Scalia/Thomas split three times though not quite glaringly. The notable (for sentencing fans) constitutional ruling is probably Alleyne, a ruling that cleaned up an exception to a rule first placed about a decade ago, Breyer joining on mostly for doctrinal neatness. Scalia usually went along, but split with Thomas in this specific instance, which might be of some importance to that area of law, but honestly, probably isn't that important day to day even for criminal defendants. At least, such is my uninformed view.
The other criminal case split 5-4 on predictable lines, though the majority split conservative/more conservative, with Scalia/Thomas in the latter camp. Contra here, "Shorter reasonable, moderate, thinking person’s conservative Sam Alito: “The Fifth Amendment does not entail a right to remain silent" is a bit too blithe. The ruling involved the state being able to negatively reference silence during a certain type of interrogation. The dissent looks to be right on a practical level, but it also seems to be a narrow ruling. He could have remained silent. Even the dissent doesn't say silence in all cases will save you from negative comment.
A forgotten case that looks a bit notable allows the feds to move along on a case against brand name drug companies that try to keep cheaper versions off the market. One of the interesting match-ups is also one of the longer opinions of the term (the Court favors short opinions of late). It looks to me to be a fairly narrow split on the proper reach of a law protecting the privacy of records as applied to litigation. Principles of privacy and discretion to obtain information in civil litigation to protect the public arise here and both sides have positive values to raise.
The last case involves an Arizona voting id law that the majority (by Scalia) decided 7-2 (Thomas/Alito dissenting) wrongly overrode a federal provision, particularly because the Election Clause gives the feds discretion (Kennedy concurred to note he would not focus on that) to override state law (by design). At first, reading Scalia wrote the opinion seemed a red flag, but it turned out to be an avoidance sort of ruling. Limited one -- the opinion noted that Arizona did have a constitutional power to set voter qualifications as well as to insure that voters met them.* [Election Blog provides more dynamics here.]
But, Arizona had a way to raise a claim that the feds here was not appropriately allowing them to do this. Thus, the voters might lose in the end, if the additional requirement (or something like it) was shown to be necessary and not otherwise a violation of the federal constitution. So, ball in the state's court to press the issue and see how the courts decide. Me personally, I think the law likely to be constitutionally problematic and/or not necessary to defend state voter qualifications, the federal rule of taking an oath satisfactory and additional requirements leading to denial of voting rights with racial and class discrimination implications.
Not apparently big on the grant scene either. To be cont.
---
* Justice Thomas' dissent did what "isn't done" -- he directly (not just to an article with the name in the title) cited Bush v. Gore.
Sunday, June 16, 2013
Born to Scandal
A Regency romance that kept my interest the whole way, seemingly each character has some connection to a possible scandalous love affair. The younger widower with two children in need of a governess who has her own story made a pleasant little group, each of their dramas making for enjoyable reading with just enough bite to be somewhat nutritious too.
Rev. Joe: Reading
I have yet to read the Koran, but reading Red, White, and Muslim: My Story of Belief to get a sense of the liberal believer. Yes, a believer, who believes in stuff someone else would deem silly, but it works for them. There are lines not to cross, but respect such people, and find it tiresome (and crude) when some disparage them. The liberal version does help. There are cites to the "official line" that do make me pause, especially when a bit of nuance can help.
Friday, June 14, 2013
"GOP Congressman Fundraising After Rape Comment"
Update: See also, "Fetal Anomalies, Undue Burdens, and 20-week Abortion Bans" by Lisa M. Corrigan, Ph.D for further discussion as well as her previous article on fetal pain.
Chris Hayes recently tweeted a segment he did on his show generally pissed off at such to him legislative trolling, including comments that victims of rape should not be told to further the wrong by aborting the child. The congressman is pro-life and his wider message does sound like he -- if given his druthers -- would generally not provide a rape exception for abortion, even if here it is true he is specifically concerned about something where rape is likely to be an issue. Hayes was upset about ideological efforts like this with no chance of passage, but that is a common path for modern day Republicans. Legislators, especially in the House, push certain things sometimes. Republicans take it up a notch.
Yes, given all the pregnancies and abortions out there, rape is rarely involved. But, one number cited was that rape leads to tens of thousands of pregnancies in this country, so in raw numbers, rape is not that rare. Then, there is this specific provision. Violating Casey based on unsubstantial fetal pain claims, putting aside the problem with making it a national law (what? under the Commerce Clause? really?) is generally a bad idea. Still, if you are for it, why not include a rape exception, since you know, is is so "very rare," and is therefore allegedly basically symbolic. The argument probably would be that women would just lie.
When we are dealing with abortions after twenty weeks, there is no mundane cases. The likely cases involve fetal abnormalities or threats to the health of the woman. A few cases might involve delayed abortions based on youth, poverty or other reasons, worsened by sectarian anti-abortion laws that do not evenhandedly apply health regulations. This overall subset again might involve victims of sex crimes. Not having an exception overall is upsetting since it reflects a failure to respect the girls and women involved as compared to a one note focus on "life."
[Update: The bill was revised to include a rape and incest exemption when it was reported to the authorities before the abortion took place]
So, the critics that connect Franks to Akins have a point, and besides, a politician lives and dies by the trope -- nuance is a good value, but it is not something you really can rely on, especially when even on close examination, your stance is problematic at the end of the day anyhow.
“Pregnancies from rape that result in abortion after the beginning of the sixth month are very rare,” Franks said in a statement sent to TPM. “This bill does not address unborn children in earlier gestations. Indeed, the bill does nothing to restrict abortions performed before the beginning of the 6th month.”The title of this blog post comes from the one excerpted above. Emily Bazelon had a blog post entitled "The Myth That Rape Rarely Causes Pregnancy Comes From Nazi Experiments." She went from the above statement (connected to a proposal to pass a national ban on abortions after twenty weeks) to the "legitimate rape" comments of Todd Akins. They are not the same thing though both violate the "rape is a four letter word" rule Republican politicians are warned about by concerned party onlookers. So, it seemed a bit off to me on some level.
Chris Hayes recently tweeted a segment he did on his show generally pissed off at such to him legislative trolling, including comments that victims of rape should not be told to further the wrong by aborting the child. The congressman is pro-life and his wider message does sound like he -- if given his druthers -- would generally not provide a rape exception for abortion, even if here it is true he is specifically concerned about something where rape is likely to be an issue. Hayes was upset about ideological efforts like this with no chance of passage, but that is a common path for modern day Republicans. Legislators, especially in the House, push certain things sometimes. Republicans take it up a notch.
Yes, given all the pregnancies and abortions out there, rape is rarely involved. But, one number cited was that rape leads to tens of thousands of pregnancies in this country, so in raw numbers, rape is not that rare. Then, there is this specific provision. Violating Casey based on unsubstantial fetal pain claims, putting aside the problem with making it a national law (what? under the Commerce Clause? really?) is generally a bad idea. Still, if you are for it, why not include a rape exception, since you know, is is so "very rare," and is therefore allegedly basically symbolic. The argument probably would be that women would just lie.
When we are dealing with abortions after twenty weeks, there is no mundane cases. The likely cases involve fetal abnormalities or threats to the health of the woman. A few cases might involve delayed abortions based on youth, poverty or other reasons, worsened by sectarian anti-abortion laws that do not evenhandedly apply health regulations. This overall subset again might involve victims of sex crimes. Not having an exception overall is upsetting since it reflects a failure to respect the girls and women involved as compared to a one note focus on "life."
[Update: The bill was revised to include a rape and incest exemption when it was reported to the authorities before the abortion took place]
So, the critics that connect Franks to Akins have a point, and besides, a politician lives and dies by the trope -- nuance is a good value, but it is not something you really can rely on, especially when even on close examination, your stance is problematic at the end of the day anyhow.
Unpopular Privacy
This book is discussed here and see here for a nicely comprehensive answer to a comment by me spelling out different aspects of privacy. The book was fairly interesting though I expected a bit more "unpopular" privacy restrictions as compared to talk about proper rules on modesty or teen data use. The basic idea that privacy is an important value even if one doesn't like it seemed at times to be not fully addressed. On the whole, worthwhile read.
In the Land of Blood and Honey
Angelina Jolie's (shades of Ashley Judd) world-wide humanitarian work suggests the moral weight and experience needed to attack such subject matter for your directorial debut. It has received many accolades including from those directly involved in the conflict. Some mixed reviews, some were turned off. Overall, it is an impressive effort, underlining that along with the beauty, she is very talented and a serious artist.
I admit to finding the captive sister lead a bit too passive and turning it off half-way. A hour or so of the film gave you the idea of the situation, which perhaps suggests a flaw or my short attention span. But, it is well acted, shows the horror of war and an impressive debut. As some of the reviews note, the complexities of the story and relationship has various connotations, but again Ajla's passive character (which has plot implications, but still didn't like it dramatically) bothered me. Her sister, who had her own horrors to face, was a more engaging character. As to the captor, who falls in love and (selectively) protects her, the film bravely perhaps makes him a more active character, that is, he is often the focus of the plot. This humanization of evil, so to speak, is a valuable technique.*
I saw the English version (the only one available on the DVD), but (adding to the skill) a native language version was also filmed. There is a "making of" feature but the Q&A is only available with on the Blu-Ray disc, which I do not have. For some reason, it took awhile for my library to receive the film, so I was constantly checking to see if it was there yet. Glad to finally receive it, even if not totally satisfied. One more thing: it has potential to be shown to high school students.
---
* The film has multiple "gotcha" moments. A few cases involve innocents being killed (one foreshadowed almost cruelly) are particularly notable,. There are also non-lethal (except in the soul destroying fashion) to underline the horrors of the conflict. One early on involves a solider at a concentration camp asking an incoming group of women if anyone good cook -- not a "crap" cook, mind you. This led to a few trying to show they were useful, including one saying she could sew.
To put her in her place, the guard grabbed her, asked her if she could "fuck," and raped her in front of the rest. Rape a particularly well used tool of war, including the "benefit" of impregnating the women, something particularly notable in an ethnically divided conflict. This suggests perhaps the value of the passiveness of the Muslim captive, even if dramatically it did not keep my interest, which is not the most important thing on some level, but it is to the degree this is still a film.
The means used by our "hero" to protect someone was to tell others he "owned" her, a degrading matter that upset at least one reviewer (when there is signs of her falling in love), but note they were together before she was captured and as another review (both linked above) noted, the complexity of the situation is apparent. Such is skill of the film.
I admit to finding the captive sister lead a bit too passive and turning it off half-way. A hour or so of the film gave you the idea of the situation, which perhaps suggests a flaw or my short attention span. But, it is well acted, shows the horror of war and an impressive debut. As some of the reviews note, the complexities of the story and relationship has various connotations, but again Ajla's passive character (which has plot implications, but still didn't like it dramatically) bothered me. Her sister, who had her own horrors to face, was a more engaging character. As to the captor, who falls in love and (selectively) protects her, the film bravely perhaps makes him a more active character, that is, he is often the focus of the plot. This humanization of evil, so to speak, is a valuable technique.*
I saw the English version (the only one available on the DVD), but (adding to the skill) a native language version was also filmed. There is a "making of" feature but the Q&A is only available with on the Blu-Ray disc, which I do not have. For some reason, it took awhile for my library to receive the film, so I was constantly checking to see if it was there yet. Glad to finally receive it, even if not totally satisfied. One more thing: it has potential to be shown to high school students.
---
* The film has multiple "gotcha" moments. A few cases involve innocents being killed (one foreshadowed almost cruelly) are particularly notable,. There are also non-lethal (except in the soul destroying fashion) to underline the horrors of the conflict. One early on involves a solider at a concentration camp asking an incoming group of women if anyone good cook -- not a "crap" cook, mind you. This led to a few trying to show they were useful, including one saying she could sew.
To put her in her place, the guard grabbed her, asked her if she could "fuck," and raped her in front of the rest. Rape a particularly well used tool of war, including the "benefit" of impregnating the women, something particularly notable in an ethnically divided conflict. This suggests perhaps the value of the passiveness of the Muslim captive, even if dramatically it did not keep my interest, which is not the most important thing on some level, but it is to the degree this is still a film.
The means used by our "hero" to protect someone was to tell others he "owned" her, a degrading matter that upset at least one reviewer (when there is signs of her falling in love), but note they were together before she was captured and as another review (both linked above) noted, the complexity of the situation is apparent. Such is skill of the film.
Thursday, June 13, 2013
"Lawsuit Aims to Strip ‘Happy Birthday to You’ of Its Copyright"
One of the most stupid applications of long-held copyrights, parodied even on A.N.T. Farm, where they go out of the way not to sing it for copyright reasons (a joke for the adults).
Supremes: Nothing Much Yet
True that with Kagan writing even mundane cases might be notable and there's this in an otherwise unanimous (and notable with real life consequences for women, it likely to significantly cut costs of cancer screening) DNA patent case, but still, along with a water dispute, not exactly what everyone is waiting for. Expect conservative authors.
Wednesday, June 12, 2013
Army Wives
Managed to lose track and not realize the show has been back for awhile. Turns out CJ (who was mostly MIA last season) died of a heart attack. We were led to believe there was some crash, but the call Michael got turned out to be this. Oh well. Thought the show jumped the shark, so not too upset that I missed it. One more trauma for the Holdens.
Plan B For Minors Fight Not Quite Over
Oh well. Reporting at RH Reality Check suggested everything wasn't hunky-dory though noted it "would be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this new development in a decade-long case of scientific and public health malfeasance." Yet another long never-ending battle.
"Chad Johnson gets 30-days in county jail for lawyer butt patt"
As I mentioned there, this revocation of a plea deal because a guy patted his lawyer's butt while the judge was handing it out in a domestic violence matter brought mixed emotions. The brief "I agree" from former prosecutor Bill Otis, given his usual, is notable for regulars. It is a fairly serious thread in a blog that annoyingly often is surprisingly kneejerk.
Tuesday, June 11, 2013
"A Conservative Case for Prison Reform"
The ultimate arbitrary application of marijuana laws disrespects the law in a way conservatives who might morally agree with the prohibition find troubling. This (along with Mr. Levine's comment) makes a broader case against our current criminal policy.
Oh. It's a Rutabaga! Now, what is this?
Not a cook. So, the little things impress. For instance, those soup vegetable combos at the fruit store. They are enough for a few dinners' worth of vegetables. Or, bargain bins. Picked up like three tomatoes and four mini-potatoes for .99. The tomatoes were good on bagels. Liking garlic powder a lot too. And, fresh vegetables I don't quite know the name of. These Japanese cocktail nuts. And, certain types of pierogies, cooked non-cook microwave style.
Monday, June 10, 2013
"U.S. Drops Bid to Limit Sales of Morning- After Pill"
The Obama administration has decided to stop trying to block over-the-counter availability of the most popular morning-after contraceptive pill for all women and girls, a move fraught with political repercussions for President Obama.Finally! Meanwhile, after Charli Carpenter left, LGM was all boy (and repeatedly tiresome). They finally have a woman blogger, but she favors commentary like this. Blah.