Update: A week ago, I mentioned a book entitled Grand Old Party: A History of The Republicans by Lewis L. Gould, noting in part that it did not really "explain" the origin of the elephant party symbol. As I noted below, Mr. Gould was kind enough to email me to both thank me for the good review and to remind me that he "did try to explain the origins of the symbol of the elephant on page xii of the book and in the Nash cartoon of the donkey and the elephant that is also included." Also, that the story was summarized partly for space reasons. By "explain" I meant why was the elephant and donkey in particular chosen (see here), but I appreciate the chance to clarify my remarks.

Any subject/target of my musings is always welcomed to email me thanks, clarifications, criticisms, and so forth.

Have a nice New Year All!

News: Count Omar Sharif discussed his views on the whole Iraq situation. Who is better to ask than Sir Lawrence of Arabia's pal? A young Nebraskan woman got in trouble after she posed nude in public places and posted them on the web. "They're not going to stop me from doing what I'm doing. I enjoy what I do and they really don't have any grounds" to prosecute the case, she said.

Green Bay invited the Arizona Cardinals player who caught the desperation toss that won them the game last Sunday, and in the process, allowed Green Bay to sneak into the playoffs. He was also offered the key to the city. The Cardinals coach (4-12), however, was sadly fired anyway. On a happier note, one of the lesser liked coaches in the league, Steve Spurrier, quit (right after he said he didn't) because he was not having much fun losing. You'd think he'd be able to use those four key players they took from the NY Jets better, huh? The coaches of the Bears and Bills were fired, while the players are counting the days until the coach of the "we had a lousy Super Bowl and went downhill from there" Oakland Raiders. The coach of Tampa Bay is still around, which is good, since his car was scratched up kind of bad by that fan trying to get tickets.

Who to vote for?: I have various people whose opinions I respect, and it seems they all the voting for different people ... Dean, Kerry, Clark, Edwards, and heck even Bush (a few, if made to choose a Democrat, would choose Lieberman). Isn't it grand how there are so many different people to choose from, all of whom I find fault with in some way? Makes me proud to be an American. It surely isn't our television programs ... that new reality show in which a woman pretends to be planning to marry an obnoxious fat guy might be a new low.

Julia Roberts ... was funny ribbing Dave Letterman (on a repeat) last night about not marrying the mom of his new son. Meanwhile, Roberts' older brother Eric is fun on one of the few good shows on television, Less Than Perfect. His usual role is some scuzzy loser, but he is used well here. Another little known gem in which he plays against type is The Ambulance.

Annoying ... mid-50s in the Northeast in late December. If I wanted temperate weather in December, I'd live in the South or something.

The Volokh Conspiracy Bits: Today will include a look at a couple things discussed (12/29) on this conservative/libertarian blog, linked along side these remarks. First off, it notes the thirty year anniversary of the Endangered Species Act, which it feels has not done much to further the ends sought. The core problem is the fairly absolute wording of the law (traditional in this country, as shown by the First Amendment, but much worse in the reformist 1960s era), impossible to uphold in the real world, and the emphasis on private lawsuits to enforce it (this too is fairly traditional in this country of limited government, especially in the tort area, however broader it might be in recent years).

This leads the Washington Post (linked by blog) to suggest: "Clearly, the act would benefit from constructive congressional attention: The law could be made simpler, the costs more predictable." The bloggist suggests on the other hand that many of the things the ESA is thanked for really was achieved in another fashion. Furthermore, the general sentiment by such individuals is that we are better off working with property owners and businesses and balancing, resulting in more protection to the environment (e.g. hunting kills animals, but hunters tend to be one of the groups most concerned with the environment).

Given my recent reading material (see yesterday), it bears noting that Gov. Dean is said by some to believed in such a philosophy. In the end, suffice to say, a mixture of the two works, but I do think some liberal leaning environments should respect more the sort of Theodore Roosevelt conservatism that works with the "bad guys" (so to speak). On the other hand, such individuals are loath to trust those currently in power; the saving grace is that there are enough conservationist minded Republicans out there that some good reforms probably can be done if we managed to accomplish it. Unfortunately, I doubt the President is quite in this category.

On the other hand, given the current "whatever is needed to get re-elected" strategy, perhaps the overall popularity of such interests will encourage enough members of Congress to work on the matter.

---

"This is an assertion of theological belief, not of historical or sociological fact. Someone who says the Pledge is literally endorsing the existence of God (though, as with many conventional statements, people may say it as a symbolic statement without really meaning each of its components). The Pledge itself likewise literally endorses the existence of God."

Eugene Volokh supports the legality of teacher led recitations of the Pledge of Allegiance to public school children, though opposes the idea that it is correct because it respects that the nation was founded by religious people or are religious now. No, he says what one must: it is a theological statement. He earlier discussed how this is somehow okay, but his suggestion that the fact that we did it for awhile (not really ... the Pledge as written is less than fifty years old) doesn't seem to "cut it." Volokh also brings up the slippery slope argument (such slopes are one of his famous concerns ... he's kind of the skiing law professor ... okay, sorry).

How about the Star Spangled Banner? You mean the one not said daily and when said often does not include the stanza with mention of God (for instance, at ball games, only the first stanza is usually sung)? Short and pithy daily recitations of theological beliefs is of a different kind. I doubt it will be overturned, pragmatically it probably should not be, but sorry, it is unconstitutional.

---

Sound Clips:CSPAN is great for political junkies and on weekends for book junkies. Some of the top events can be viewed on its website, including (currently) the Hudson Institute Panel on Neoconservative Movement (Talking Points Memo bloggist, Joshua Marshall is on hand for the other side) and recent Washington Journal episodes, which have guest journalists and others commenting on what is in the current papers.

Football: An important weekend for various teams with some divisional and playoff spots on the line along with positioning. There were some upsets, though not in the NY area. It shouldn't have come down to that, but a questionable call on a failed two point conversion decided the NY Jets game (23-21, Miami). The NY Giants in Coach Fassel's final game actually got twenty four points of offense, but all but three were basically thanks to the defense, and they still lost to Carolina. The Bengals, strange as it might have been seen not too long ago, had a disappointing 8-8 season (the final game of the regular season is academic, given the Ravens got in with the Bengals' loss to the lowly Browns).

"Lowly" teams mattered this year and this weekend as well. It looked like Green Bay would not get to the playoffs as everything didn't go their way: the SF played sloppy and blew a fourteen point lead to Seattle, Dallas lost to the Saints, and the Viks were winning 17-6 late vs. Arizona. Arizona won (GB was in this position in part because they lost to Arizona earlier), eliminating the Vikings, who were once 6-0, the lowly Giants basically the begin of their downfall. The Rams aren't the first seed because they lost to Detroit. Houston almost pushed the Colts out of first place, but it was the lackluster Jets who helped them out by being beating the best wild card team out there -- the Titans (via losing a tie breaker to the Colts, but with three different QBs and an often injured QB playing, damn if they deserved it on spirit alone).

[Though a rushing record wasn't broken, the Ravens won the night game in OT, so the Bengals wouldn't have gotten in, even if they won. Giants fans got a bit of satisfaction from the Vikings loss. At the beginning of the Fassel Era (1997-03), they lost a playoff game after being up by nine late, partly because they could not protect against an onside kick. Sadly, this was but a prelude. Anyhow, besides having trouble scoring in a must win game vs. that scary Arizona D, the Viks not only failed to block the kick, but lost on the final play, a 4th and 25 at that. Just plain sad. In honor of TMQ, I offer this.]

Still a lot of football out there to play. Will anyone be able to beat the Pats? Will the Colts actually win a playoff game? Will Green Bay continue their recent burst of life? Will the Rams, KC, and the Eagles show their soft side? How long with Dallas/Carolina (who play each other next week) and other second tier teams play? Should be interesting.

Post Holiday: Listening to some Christmas music as the holidays are passing and the new year harkens. We are currently in the midst of Kwanzaa, the creation of a black nationalist ["In 1966, KWANZAA was created by a young visionary living on the west coast who was also the founder and chairman of the Black Nationalist Organization."], and its tenets reflect this [e.g. "UJAMAA (COOPERATIVE ECONOMICS) --To build and maintain our own stores, shops and other businesses and to profit from them together."]. It has been of mixed success in part because of its relatively recent origin and because it appeals only to certain people of its intended audience.

Back to the personal; as an adult, Christmas has the usual mixed blessings. Let's take presents. Adults have the usual suspects: clothes, practical stuff that we need (e.g. a vacuum), gift certificates/cards, and so forth. All the same, we still have the fun stuff ... for instance, I got my age in white tic tacs (my signature). Adults also have the responsibility of putting together stuff. I, for instance, had to deal with the construction of a toy for my sister's baby (a pussy cat). Finally, adults also have the burden and joy of buying presents, the latter actually often greater than receiving them. This is where catalog shopping comes in. Lol. My last gift (I did buy a few in stores) came 12/23.

Glenne Headly: Today's forgotten star is Glenne Headly. I caught this talented actress in a little gem (put out by Hallmark, so the truly cynical should stay away) that I picked up at the video store lately, The Sandy Bottom Orchestra, concerning one of life's talented rebels trying to survive small town life along with her offbeat husband (who decides to have a classical concert at the annual dairy festival) and daughter, who is having teen growing pains of her own. The role fit Headly to a "t" -- the somewhat insecure woman that goes her own way, but is someone we often would like to know better. The movie itself by the way had an interesting subplot that dealt with rarely examined religious matters.

Politics: I'm currently reading Howard Dean: A Citizen's Guide to the Man Who Would Be President, a Vermont media account of his life. It's an interesting look at the complexities of the man and a helpful antidote to some of the simplistic stereotypes offered by others. His biography impresses (I particularly like that he is a doctor plus politician, his conservative side is also interesting, especially given the nature of some of his support, and his fiscal conservative nature [unlike current practice] touches a certain side of me too), though I still have this feeling of "this guy decided to become president?" This is tempered partly by the fact that a few recent presidents do not quite impress me in that department either (including the boy who became king). One aspect of this last issue is addressed by this interesting essay (12/28). [more]

Political Trivia: Origins of the donkey and elephant symbols.

Post Holiday: A few quick observations reached over the holidays. First, I saw a clear case of culture clash, and the way it is quite hard for one to understand how another culture or set of beliefs is not just truly foreign to what is "normal." It is revealing, if not totally comfortable, to see something like this up close and personal. Furthermore, it shows in miniature what happens all the time out "there," but does not affect you as much because it is just one more thing that is. Finally, what is felt the most is how these things tend to be more personal, not deeply reasoned things, but a belief on how things just "are." This makes is quite hard to try to use reason or show how the other person is not really too much different from you in various ways.

Another thing is that it is interesting when you have some belief or reaction that you know is not really rational on some level, but you have it anyway, even though you fully admit that it is not rational. This is not really too surprising since most people have various things that affect them in some way that is not totally logical or anything, but is almost instinctual. The interesting thing is that many of us do not really contemplate the matter in question, so when we do or see someone else doing so, it is rather interesting. It also suggests a certain self awareness that I think is a very good thing. For instance, we all have various faults and imperfections. It is a fact of life. So, it's good to understand them, and admit to them. This allows things to go smoother and helps others understand when you misstep.

One last thing is that sometimes rules are legitimately broken. The rules are there for a reason, but if they are broken in cases of emergency or comparable situations, it is not always a horrible thing. Again, it is useful to be careful, admit that one fully understands what is being done, and understand if others are upset at it. In fact, they might be right in an individual case. All the same, there are few absolutes. And, hopefully, next time the person who bent the rules would keep that in mind if someone else is involved.

Hope you all had a nice holiday and/or are enjoying whatever holiday you might be now celebrating!

Happy Holidays!

"The historical value of a conservative party is to act as a restraint on the reformist impulses of society and to provide a steadying hand for the ship of state. A conservativism that makes no demands and enforces no responsibilities is largely a rhetorical posture. Republicans denounce 'root-canal policies' as dangerous at the polls, forgetting that for someone with dental problems such unpleasant surgery is often the necessary price for restored health."

-- Lewis L. Gould, Grand Old Party: A History of The Republicans

Along with the companion history of the Democrats (Party of the People by Jules Witcover), this political history has been my reading material for the last few weeks ... combined we are talking about over a thousand pages, after all. Trying to cover the history of a party over two hundred years old and one fifty years old respectively is problematic, even at this length. The books focus more on the presidency than anything else, though Gould (a historian, while Witcover is a journalist) does a better job being comprehensive. Witcover tries too hard to summarize the history of the period per se, and bogs down in specific presidential convention vote counts. Gould was both the quicker and more enjoyable read, though both have merits for the political season.

Neither, however, explains the symbols (donkey and elephant) of each party!

[Update: Mr. Gould was kind enough to email me to thank me for this reference and remind that he "did try to explain the origins of the symbol of the elephant on page xii of the book and in the Nash cartoon of the donkey and the elephant that is also included." He summarized somewhat for space reasons. By "explain" I meant why was the donkey and elephant in particular chosen by Thomas Nast, etc., but I appreciate the clarification as well as the thanks.]

Other Political Thoughts: Gen. Clark's current spat with Howard Dean over whether he was asked to Dean's running mate suggests the troubling tendency of the general to be seen as abrasive and petty. This got him in some trouble when he was on active duty, and it is starting to show itself in the campaign on talk shows and elsewhere. What is the point of going as far as calling the frontrunner a "liar" about an issue that just cannot be proved one way or the other? The common sentiment is that Dean did consider, if not actually ask formerly, him for this role. On the other hand, as Dean notes, it is just too premature to do so "officially," and to make an issue of it is bad political form. And makes Clark look like an idiot.

Should foreigners be able to donate to domestic campaigns? I myself was sympathetic because of how much the U.S. affects the lives of foreigners, but then I'm pretty much of an absolutist. Therefore, I was interested in reading a more mainstream view that perhaps they should be able to do so.

Serious Thoughts For The Holidays: For various reasons including overexpectation of or excessive focus on good tidings and reduction of sunlight, the holidays are for some a depressing period. Also, there are those who just have the bad luck to have fate choose them that time of year. For instance, I find it a bit strange that at this moment a jury is pondering the life of the recently convicted teen sniper. Actually, would not at least one or two feel some forgiving spirit in honor of the birth of their lord, and choose life? If I was the state, I would not want the decision to fall this time of year. [After the jury decided to give him life, the prosecutor basically said the same thing.] Likewise, the usual deaths and tragedies continue, including the death of Brett Favre's father. There was some question about him playing yesterday, but what better way to honor the person who coached you in high school, and watched you shine? ...

[more]

Being dead, Mr. Bruce is not expected to reap any immediate benefit from the pardon.

Comment in article discussing how Gov. Pataki is giving the comedian a posthumous pardon for his obscenity conviction in the 1960s, which drove Lenny Bruce to self-destructive depths that led to his death from drugs soon afterwards. A fitting comment, but still a bit sharp for a NYT article. Attempts are ongoing to strength the forces of censorship that was his downfall. One step forward ... one step back?

Political Debate Can Be Sharp Even Among Friends: As I noted below, I think Dean's comment that we are not safer with Saddam in custody has a lot of merit as an overall sentiment, but is somewhat inartfully put, and opens him up to obvious criticism. The same can be (and was by I and others) about his Confederate sticker comment (he wants to gain the support of those with them on their pickup trucks). If he can ride the storm, more power to him, but wouldn't "just how much safer are we really?" have been better? His comment was a bit too absolute and even many supporters aren't sure if it really is true. Others feel such criticism is ill advised and simply wrong. See here for a back and forth on the matter.

[I know by now that "well, what I meant was ..." doesn't cut it. If your words requires too much analysis, especially if you say something as sharp as that, you lose your opponent as you try to explain. It is annoying to the degree that nuance is lost in the process, and when your opponent is willing to debate the details, you are impressed all the more for it. Dean, however, is not quite one for "nuance" ... his key strategy is the sharp hit; once he starts to have to nuance himself, his strengths drop some. He does have the ability to do it though -- see his support of the Biden-Lugar alternative to the Joint Resolution on Iraq -- so I'd hope he'd avoid comments like this as much as possible.]

Alert!: Reports are coming out that the administration is truly worried about increased chances of terrorist action in our own country (once an ocean separated us from fears of European wars, but modern times changed our sense of security; it was only a matter of time that terrorism that hit Europe and Asia would come here). I have no reason to doubt their sincerity (some people wouldn't accept if they said the sky is blue, but I'm a bit more trusting), but it is hard to take these "alerts" seriously. In part, this is because nothing has happened yet, so you have a sense of security that 9/11 (or the first time crime hits you personally) shows is somewhat naive.

All the same, the administration has not handled homeland security (not just the agency, the overall concept) that well, focusing their efforts overseas. This supplies an issue for Democrats [see, e.g., here], but overall also hurts when such warnings come out. They have a sort of "boy who cried wolf" nature to them, especially since Tom Ridge, the Homeland Security head is mostly a forgotten man these days (he's always available to help reign in fleeing Texan legislators though). If we get through this holiday season without any tragedy, I bet most would not mind such negative feelings, except to the degree it will hurt us in putting forth reforms to make our shores safer in these more dangerous times.

Decision '04: The last quote clearly is a veiled attack on Sen. Kerry and does seem particularly harsh, if not crude. All the same, it is a symbol of what he is up against as discussed in a recent profile. As the profile notes, his basic philosophy is that "I have the experience ... I'm ready to lead America." A problem with this sentiment is that experience, willingness to lead, and being the most qualified to do so is not always the path to nomination or election. His inability to gain traction, connect with enough voters to gain momentum, and signs his campaign machinery is in trouble, all suggest he has an uphill battle ahead of him.

As the article notes: "Mr. Kerry seems astonished that though he paid his dues, the nomination may go to a man who has not done so, at least in his eyes." A major problem appears to be that when he sometimes tries to attract attention, he sometimes seems to be pandering or at the very least not being true to his true nature. This includes campaign photo ops while hunting, riding a motorcycle on the Jay Leno show, talking slang (and cursing) in a Rolling Stone interview, and attacking frontrunner Howard Dean is suspect ways. One notable example that got him some criticism was when he attacked Gov. Dean's record as a balancer of budgets, suggesting basically this would threaten Medicare and other programs, but leading some to wonder if fiscal responsibility is a bad thing. Also, his attack of Dean's comment that the capture of Saddam Hussein doesn't really make America safer appears to just add fuel for the Republicans if Dean wins the nomination, while exaggerating the erroneous nature of the remark.

[The ability for such statements to be twisted is a valid point, but one that can be made without ignoring the capture alone really doesn't do too much to help our security. The supplied link also discusses how Rep. DeLay performed a wonderful feat of twisting the facts on the talk show circuit yesterday. Sunday talk shows leave something to be desired these days.]

----

The right of first refusal. I'm with Clark on consultation and on building the U.S. alliance in Europe. But first refusal? That's tantamount to Howard Dean's view that we should seek the "permission" of the United Nations before military action. Permission?

The right of first refusal. I'm with Clark on consultation and on building the U.S. alliance in Europe. But first refusal?

-- Andrew Sullivan, spouting the usual "the Democrats want to make us into a bunch of weenies that have to ask mommy before doing anything" line. As noted here, Sullivan actually confuses what "the right of first refusal" means; Clark actually basically agrees with him that Europe should not be given a veto. The ability to twist words is there all the same. Both Dean and Clark (along with the rest of the Democrats) basically want the United States to work with the rest of the world, consult with them and seek their support before going off half cocked.

[Update: A nuanced discussion of what Clark might have meant is put forth by conservative leaning bloggist (who's just dying for Nader to step in and ensure a Bush victory) Eugene Volokh.]

Hopefully, though it's an uphill battle, the Democrats will find a candidate that will be able to carry out such logical policies. All the same, the fact that someone has "experience" doesn't mean he will be the best person for the job, a job that includes a bully pulpit sort of component people have long expected to be part of the mix. On the other hand, too much bully and not enough care will get one in trouble as well, and Dean better keep that in mind (another extreme case is Sen. Lieberman, who takes his anti-Dean, reformist Democrat, and moralizing just too far to be a viable candidate, even if calling him "Bush-lite" is unfair in various ways).

Ah, the shoals one must avoid when running for president!

"We don't want a wimp in this part of the country," said Representative Marcy Kaptur, Democrat of Ohio. "Everything I've read that Dean has said about Saddam seems to be right on point. Our people have struggled to make a living and they want a fighter. They don't want some kind of Hollywood production with hair spray."

-- ouch

Football: Interceptions yesterday, nothing to offer today, and 0-2 for New York. The play of the day so far is how New Orleans handled their obligatory elimination from the playoffs in Week 15 or 16 ... :07 left from their own 25, they managed to score a touchdown via three or so laterals/backward passes, making it 20-19, Jaguars. They missed the extra point ... not even close. A nod to the Bears ... a team not mailing it in as they play out the string.

Christopher Caldwell, a senior editor at The Weekly Standard, writes often on religion and politics in France

An interesting choice given the conservative tendencies of that publication ... and are they even allowed to have articles in that liberal bastion, the New York Times? Seriously, this is an interesting article that discusses the ongoing struggles in France (and in a sense, Western Europe in general) to secularize the public square by trying "less to neutralize public authorities in matters of religion than to neutralize religions in matters of public life."

The nuance is often ignored by those in this country who think keeping the state out of religious matters is the same thing as interfering with free exercise as an attempt toward promotion of secularism. The current practice in France, though largely motivated by anti-Muslim animus, shows how untrue this really is. It also suggests that keeping the state out of religious matters can very well promote religion in many ways. It is not for nothing that on the whole, our nation is much more religiously observant and thriving than those in Western Europe. To each their own, but our way is not too bad either.

Have a nice Winter Solstice. (Dec. 22)

Interesting Articles: Discriminating? Yes. Discriminatory? No. Campaign Finance: A Law Survives. Now, Let's Subvert It.

House of Sand and Fog: This is high quality garbage. The movie (based on a book) concerns the clash of a recovering alcoholic wrongly loses her house, the emigrant who buys it in order to try to build a new life in this country [the movie, undated, seems to take place in the 1980s], and a troubled deputy who steps in for his own reasons. Jennifer Connelly plays a wounded doe, Ben Kingsley has one of his best role in years, and Ron Eldard plays one of the more stupider deputies out there. Kim Dickens (deputy's wife) and Frances Fisher (Connelly's lawyer) are wasted, especially Dickens, who deserves to be in more roles these days. Just not as stereotypical spurned wives like this one.

The house serves as a lifeline for Connelly and Kingsley, the one as a lifeline as everything else around her falls apart, the other a lifeline to regaining his place in society (formerly a colonel, he now does menial work, while clinging to the veneer of respectability). Both in their own way are victims of fate, somewhat selfishly try to fight back, but know deep down they are wrong to do so. The deputy is a lesser tragic figure, but he fits into the mix as well. All very well with the big themes hanging over all the events and the performances in various ways impressive. You can see why this is Oscar bait, it is in limited release in December to qualify, and has gotten various rave (though many mixed) reviews.

The problem is that at its core it is melodramatic tripe. The Iranian family's story is generally well portrayed (rather the father is ... the rest are basically stereotypes, including a teenage son who lets it be known that he will take another paper route to help pay for his college education, if they have to give back the house). Connelly, however, is played as this wounded doe that is sleeping in her car before we know it (perhaps the book gave her character more complexity, but Connelly is not really served well by the material). The deputy is ever more stupid (I admit, Jennifer Connelly might tempt many to go toward that direction, but still). And it is unclear how Connelly lost how house, even putting aside the carelessness involved, given the trivial amount of money involved. California is darn strict!

Actually, the whole time period of the frame seems strangely condensed -- it seems like her family (yes, she has a brother -- a co-owner of the property that apparently was not even informed that the house was sold at auction -- and mom available throughout) is due over shortly, and before they come, the house is sold, the new family moves in, and it's almost sold. And, then the movie really takes a melodramatic turn that has to be seen to be believed. I will not provide too much of a spoiler, but suffice enough to say that this really turned me off -- it was one of those cases where the movie did not earn what it asked the audience to accept. And eventually the heavyhanded imagery (especially near the end, yuck), got to be just too much.

I know my audience really didn't seem to accept it ... the movie has some good stuff in it, enough that you might forgive its basic flaws, but I did not. This is surely the case of taking a good thing with redeeming social value and all that, and pushing the melodramatic knob just a tad bit too far.

Sports: Alex Rodriguez is currently being discussed as a part of a trade to the Red Sox, apparently suggesting his current stay at the Texas Rangers is not working out very well. An article argued that "you too would have taken the money" he was offered, but I disagree. Strange as it might seem, I don't think every ballplayer (or person for that matter) would take every cent available, even if it meant being stuck on a bad team in the middle of Texas for ten years. In fact, Andy Pettite of the Yanks actually took less money to go to the Astros, while people still remember Greg "Where will he be next season" Maddux doing the same to go the Braves. At some point, the whole money issue becomes a tad ridiculous.

Tasty Dish: Jasmine Rice.

Political Thoughts: Candidates and International Justice

Ohio Partial Birth Ban Upheld: A ruling by a federal appeals court suggests the alternative to the recently passed (and challenged) federal ban on "partial birth" abortions. This law, rewritten after a broader one was overturned, specifically includes a protection for maternal health as well as more narrowly defining the procedure so others are not potentially brought in under its reach. The opinion honors the reasoning behind the ban in that it: "reflects interests in preventing unnecessary death and cruelty to partially born children, maintaining a strong public policy against infanticide, and preserving the integrity of the medical profession." All the same, it respects the evils of a broad law.

Not so the federal government. Their law has no maternal health provision, is not as narrowly drawn, and has other problems. Now, the dissent made a case that the majority defined the maternal health issue too narrowly [especially in regards to pre-viable abortions] and/or read the law the same way so that it would be legitimate. This is only a matter of careful drafting and reflects that courts might not be likely to decide things quite as liberally as some might like. The broader point is that if we leave this matter to the states and insure that the laws are carefully written, they might very well be upheld. The alternative federal ban is just plain counterproductive except as a political device.

Online Privacy Upheld: The recording industry cannot compel an Internet service provider to give up the names of customers who trade music online without judicial review, a federal appeals court in Washington ruled today. ...

As an Internet service provider, or I.S.P., Verizon was "acting merely as a conduit" for the music files and did not store the data on its own computer network, Judge Ginsburg wrote. "A subpoena may be issued only to an I.S.P. engaged in storing on its servers material that is infringing or the subject of infringing activity." ...

The move to notify file traders, Ms. Deutsch suggested, had more to do with public relations than consumers' due process rights. The process that the industry would now have to use, which will involve going to court and asking a judge to compel that a user's identity be revealed, "will be much more protective of users' rights," she said.

Political Thoughts: The Imperfect Winning Candidate

Funny: The difference between math and law.