Listen Up

Television: House was good again tonight, suggesting it is one of the few shows worth watching these days. Hugh Laurie might be recognized by fans as the doofus on Black Adder, but does a good job here, if laying the misanthrope doctor thing a bit thick. Good performances and story lines with an extended story arc with Sela Ward (can't go wrong there). Another good perf from a "special guest star" (also done lately on ER). Anyway, thinking wo/man t.v., with some verve. Enjoyed it.

Ms. Wilson, a former Air Force officer who is the only female veteran currently in Congress, has butted up against the administration previously over controversial policy issues, including Medicare and troop strength in Iraq. She said she realized that publicizing her concerns over the surveillance program could harm her relations with the administration. "The president has his duty to do, but I have mine too, and I feel strongly about that," she said.

-- Republican Who Oversees N.S.A. Calls for Wiretap Inquiry

Yeah, put up or shut up, but sad or not, vocal opposition of this sort is more than these sorts usually offer. For instance, after a member of Congress damned the Congressional Research Service for putting forth a report that actually called into question presidential authority (damn those non-partisan groups ... they tell us the facts, thus are clearly partial to the Democrats), Sen. "Heck, I tried to give you the power, but you didn't want it" DeWine challenged the point. To his "conservative" and "strict constructionist" eyes (such irony is usually left to Scalia critics) the law does not justify only the "Gang of Eight" be informed of the contours of a program that the administration is discussing (spinning) in public. Like, damn it man, I have an election race in Ohio ... Ohio!

The administration's position (other than "it's a dangerous world, trust us") was set forth by Vice President Vader:

Members of Congress "have the right and the responsibility to suggest whatever they want to suggest" about changing wiretap law, Mr. Cheney said. But "we have all the legal authority we need" already, he said, and a public debate over changes in the law could alert Al Qaeda to tactics used by American intelligence officials.

So, we are left to press reports, which give the administration plausible deniability, especially since they probably only give a partial explanation of the damn program. This is where Congress comes in, especially since even the most generous sorts (see, e.g., Volokh Conspiracy) honestly have to question the authority of the administration. But, darn, separation of powers is trouble when your own party is in power, and you are weak-willed babies. And, the upcoming elections makes criticizing members of your party sorta suggest maybe the people should vote the other people. So, you invite only the Torture Czar (true hearings would involve any number of people), and don't even swear him in.

But, then the wuss comment also sort of applies to the Democrats these days -- Sen. Reid was on the tube again yesterday crying about how a memo critical of the mean Republicans was sent out by accident. He would never by name criticize his fellow senator from Nevada. Is he really being a wuss, or is there some ulterior plan here? Well enough press remarks as to the former suggests it doesn't matter too much.

Anyway, who cares if the Congress isn't doing its job, the people aren't learning what the government is doing, and fears (probably rightly) their privacy is unconstitutionally being violated to a significant degree. Let's focus on the new budget, it is so much easier. Usual anti-progressive spending cuts, raising deficits, and tax cuts for the rich. The Dems can surely win on that, right?

Well, Sen. Feingold did a decent job questioning spin boy, and even Sen. DeWine actually asked some relevant questions. Not much, I know, but better than the usual suck up job Hatch etc. does in a sanctiminous voice. Clearly, they are taking full benefit of Lawrence v. Texas. Surely Sen. Roberts ("like Sen. Roberts said" was noted by TC a lot ... his suck-up memo having its desired effect) did.

Oh, one last thing. This attempt to spin it as some sort of international spying program or legitimate border search is amusing. It's pretty simple, okay? Millions of American citizens make international calls from their homes, and are not generally aware that this makes it okay for the government to listen in. Calling mom in Canada is an international call, right? Don't allow Dubya to listen in and you are letting the terrorists win. So, shut up, okay?

Hmm, smug boy is trying not to smirk again while the Democrats find a new way to call him and his administration as asshole. No, can't actually spell out any details ... will leave that to the press -- who is only right when they report official leaks. The whining brat next door is easier to take than these people. Oh well.

Garbage Land

There is something about poking through someone else's garbage that makes you feel dirty, and it's not just the stench and the flies. Scrap by scrap, we are reverse-engineering a grimy portrait of another human being, reconstituting an identity from his discards, probing into stuff that is absolutely, positively none of our damn business.

-- reporters investigating local officials' trash ... imagine if they listened to their phone calls, huh?

I first heard about Garbage Land: On The Secret Trail Of Trash by Elizabeth Royte because the author took part on the San Francisco (a recycling mecca of sorts) progressive call-in show, Your Call. The callers basically spent most of the time spelling out various ways one can recycle, but late in the show -- like she does late in the book -- we basically had a bit of a bait and switch. It turns out municipal waste (half home/half business) amounts to but two percent of the overall garbage in the country at large -- most of it comes from sources like industry, mining, and agriculture. The wasteful nature of animal husbandry, for instance, is one practical reason some put forth to temper if not totally replace our current factory farming industry.

["The Secret Trail" is also a bit much, though Royte did have some problems finding out what happened to the stuff ... New York types less open than some other regions turned out to be. I second her sentiment that this is counterproductive, since it makes taboo what should not be, suggests blame and deceit when ultimately the garbage came from us -- she only dealt with people who hauled the stuff away and so forth. But, this is far from unique to this subject; some things tend to make people nervous, and the net effect is counterproductive. Also, fittingly, the book came from a library in Staten Island -- the locale of a major landfill.]

Anyway, the overall effect really was "well, this is much ado about nothing much," and late in the book Royte has an expert sort of remind her of just that fact. This did hurt the overall flavor of the book to some large extent, though the author did try to temper it a bit ... mostly in passing. For instance, how we handle our domestic trash says something about how we treat our overall environment overall. I agree with this philosophy -- it partly inspires my vegetarianism, which surely is not a major threat to the meat industry, but is part of my attempt to live a moral life.* It is not the only thing, but it is part of my overall moral philosophy. And, it does seem to be of some value. Be moral the way you can, and it can have a ripple effect.

The book itself still was interesting. First, it had a down to earth point of view -- it was basically a sort of journey by a regular sort (mom/urban dweller) to find out what happened to our trash. And, this is one of those things that many people are curious to find out about, even if they rather read an article instead of a book on the topic. Thus, we read about sanitation, recycling, landfills, and so forth. The overall message is that we as a nation need to change our way of doing things. Basically, realize that recycling is much less harmful than extracting the raw materials, and also that we are not the real problem. Yes, we consume too much etc., but the true target must be the producers, who hypocritically sponsor things like the famous crying Indian (really an Italian) ad. Sort of like those stop smoking ads put forth by Philip Morris (or their now non-descript sounding parent company).

And, as is often the case in such issues, other nations are far ahead of us on such matters. This includes the "precautionary principle" set forth by Western Europe. Again, even if ultimately we are the least of the problem trash-wise, focusing on the average citizen is important. Going back to that expert, many do want to help, which is why recycling is more popular than it sometimes is economically productive (environmental effects is quite a different matter ... it is not just about money). And, if we want to be shall we say non-ecological degenerates, we can demand industry and government be as well.

Just another reason to bring forth a sensical progressive path, which in no fashion is necessarily liberal. You can support low taxes or war in Iraq (though some social conservatives think God will take care of the environment, forgetting the idea was that we were given dominion with thought that we also would we good stewards of our bounty) as well as a country safe and pleasant to live in. Yeah, sometimes, it seems that it is an either/or thing. I look forward to the day when it will not be.

---

* I repeat my annoyance at the petty addition of animal products in our food. I am not a purist here -- shrimp, for instance, is acceptable in my eyes. They probably do not feel pain and on the evolutionary food chain are below the insects that agricultural farming targets. So, I wanted to buy some ramen noodles with shrimp, a good snack food (lot of sodium, but health is not really my core reason for being a vegetarian, though it is a way to explain it in a way that makes you look like less of a goody two shoes). But, the damn thing had pork AND chicken byproducts. Probably for the sauce, but come on.

Mediocre Bowl XL

And Also: While not justifying it, Juan Cole does a good job explaining the response to the now infamous Danish cartoon. I caught smart/sexy anti-neoliberalist Naomi Klein on Free Speech TV over the weekend, suggesting how Nation-like discourse is more and more true these days. And, on the subject of petty homophobia that simply makes me embarrassed, check this out. The specific article, better than others, spells out just how wrong it was.

[As to commercials, two were pretty cute: the Fed Ex one involving the caveman and the "don't assume" themed ad on the plane in which it looked like the woman just had sex with the guy (sexy without being smutty, unlike the GoDaddy.com, the site that sounds like porn, but isn't). The "streaking" ad with the shorn sheep interrupting a football game among horses was also a bit cute, but overall a bit boring.]

Looking back, this seemed to be destined to be Pittsburgh's year ... or, surely, post-season. It was not really that way, of course, as destiny turns out to be a mixture of skill, luck, and missteps by the other side. You make your own luck sometimes, but if you are down 17-7 in the first round against a high scoring team, it surely helps when the other team's QB gets knocked out of the game right away. But, then again, a lousy call could have beat them too, even in the end all it did was add to the storybook finish. And, the Steelers had some help today as well. The win was in no way foreordained.

As with other days, the Steelers had a lucky call today -- Seattle lost seven points today because of a questionable call. Some might say more. But, the Seattle lost this game as much as the Steelers won it. The Steelers had their moments, especially in a few minutes span at the end and beginning of the halves, the former giving them the lead by the skin of their teeth. In fact, arguably (I think it was a TD, but if it was not, I would have went for it on 4th Down) they did not even score that first touchdown, after not even getting a First Down until the Second Quarter. Seattle can complain about a few calls. But, again, they had a chance to win. They did not follow through.

The Steelers really had a so-so game, especially for most of the First Half and parts of the Second ... the Seattle dominated the clock for most of the first thirty minutes, but scored three points. They had a good chance of getting what turned out to be a precious field goal after the Steelers made it 7-3 right after the Two Minute Warning, but took too long, and missed a 50 Yd field goal ... surely makeable inside. After the Steelers quickly made it 14-3, they made a silly throw instead of playing it safe (17-3 was in their sights), and the Seahawks intercepted and quickly made it 14-10. But, later on, when the Seahawks was driving (and at least 14-13 was in their sights, Pittsburgh's spirits low), they made a lousy throw ... interception ... trick play (helped by Seattle playing a back-up, after a couple key injuries), 21-10.

This was accomplished in the middle of the Fourth Quarter, but it basically iced the game -- Seattle was not playing good enough to catch up so quickly, and even if they did score quickly, the revitalized Steelers probably would have hung in there. As it was, once ahead, the Seahawks was stopped, Pittsburgh made a few key first downs, and we were left with around two minutes and some more lousy clock management. At this point, it was really a dream, but it did reflect the poor clock management of the First Half and some questionable play calling a few other times. Again, it easily could have been an eight point game. It was not, so they really had to go for the field goal as the clock was running low and pray. They did not ... it probably did not matter, but the final heave (leaving :03) was representative of earlier messy play.

Most thought the Steelers would finally win for their long time coach and owner ... they did ... but an upset was definitely possible. As it was, it was still a game into the Fourth Quarter, itself often not the case. So, I guess, rather lackluster, but not as bad as it could have been. [Some might think the NFC is destined to lose, but Tampa and St Louis did win in fairly recent memory.] And, the officiating was probably not the deciding factor, but really ... too much bad stuff going on in the playoffs this year to truly ignore.

Something wrong there, especially since it helps the conspiracy theories, not helped by the Steelers appearing to be at a home game given Detroit is Bettis' hometown and is much closer to Pittsburgh than Seattle. I think this quasi-home game flavor actually might have hurt ... or was it the week layoff? Anyway, where was all the shots of The Bus' mom that were supposed to dominate?

Steelers did the job when they had to, Seattle did not get any help (except for the interception) but did not ... that was the deciding factor. Both teams were far from playing their A game ... so ultimately, mediocre. Definitely, a few playoff games were better than this one.

Film Again

And Also: The chairman of the Senate Intelligence Committee, Sen. Pat Roberts, wholeheartedly supported the President's illegal domestic spying program in a letter yesterday. This bootlicker also refused to release a promised study of the politicization of intel before the war and thinks the biggest danger these days are leaks that allow the American People ... and members of Congress ... know the President is breaking the law. What a public servant! I second TPM on the cartoon controversy.

Anthony Hopkins has been in some crowd pleasers over the years, and The World's Fastest Indian -- a nifty title as well -- is surely one of them. A fun and life affirming story of a New Zealand pensioner (Burt Munro) in the 1960s, who wants to break the land speed record of his 1920s home altered "Indian" motorcycle. This requires this lively if somewhat in poor health chap to travel to the U.S., avoid various problems such as the fact the cycle is not up to code, and so forth. One does not worry too much.

The story is based on a true story, the director actually produced a documentary on the same subject in the 1970s. If one can find it, they can aim for more verisimilitude there, but this film (perhaps suggested by it being put in wide release after a limited run late last year as well as some cheers from various parts, including the blogsphere) will make you laugh and feel good. Not bad, even for 10.75.

[The Landmark, in lower Manhattan, is also a nice theater. Now, it has veggie hotdogs and other treats fitting the writer ... too expensive, but it is a nice touch. After all, it fits their demographic.]

I also caught some of A Walk To Remember on television recently. This is a teen movie with deep moral leanings involving a bad boy who falls in love with a minister's daughter (Mandy Moore, looking good without so much makeup), who has a secret of her own. The movie can be deemed a bit trite, but I was touched by it because of the honesty of the performances, and the fact that we really do care for these characters. It has a few missteps, but it suggests that "moral" stories can be told in a way that appeals to teenagers and wider audiences. They need not all be based on Nicholas Sparks books, but the potential is there.

Oh, and Sarah Vowell (radio commentator/voice in The Incredibles, author) was on Conan last night. She has such a distinctively wry voice ... if I ever buy her latest book, I would get the audio book. The NYT also have had her as a guest editorialist ... as usual, doing a better job than the people she replaces. For instance, her SOTU column (behind a subscription wall, but I have an alternate source; :-P NYT):

For there are American citizens who used to think that there could be no greater blow for representative democracy than a president worming his way into the White House thanks to one Supreme Court vote. That is, until the day said president was actually elected to a second term by an electorate that overlooked the previous four years of galling, irrevocable policies with upbeat, intelligence-insulting slogans -- ''Clear Skies,'' anyone? -- to say nothing of entering into an ugly war based on lies that has made the world a more dangerous place when it wasn't exactly all Davenport, Iowa, to begin with.

Thus the election unleashed four more years in which even a goody-goody nice girl, who was raised to believe that ''shut up'' is a curse, cusses at her morning newspaper with the foul mouth of a gangsta rapper who has stubbed his toe.

Except for that one creepy, silent breakfast when it hit her that her psychologist friend Kate, who counsels torture victims at the Bellevue/N.Y.U. Program for Survivors of Torture, might someday have patients damaged by operatives of the United States.

In fact, it has been said that God is currently angry with America. But according to God's publicist, the Supreme Being would like to clarify that He's not angry, but that ''He would like His name taken off the credits.''

Sigh. Need to listen to some more of her wry takes on presidential assassins, not how the current one assassinates our values.

Badly Drawn Abortion Law and The Courts

More Bush Follies: The day after the SOTU, top Bush officials made sure to note that his talk about 75% of oil from the Middle East being replaced by alternative fuels in twenty five years was really just an estimate and a possibility. On the national security warrant tap issue, it came out (briefly) that the only Attorney General we got, intimately involved in the whole thing, spoke (lied) of the "hypothetical" question of such a use of executive power in earlier Senate testimony. Also, the President has refused to release legal memoranda to the Senate for the upcoming investigatory hearing, not even willing at first to admit they existed (the press, again kinda doing their job, mentioned them). Reports say that our old friend John Yoo was involved. The until further notice sham hearings are forthcoming.

[More Legal News: New Yorks' boss-laden judicial nomination process struck down, but who knows how soon it will not be replaced by some other problematic method. Thus, one editorial suggests independent candidates should get out and run now while they still have a shot. I say the whole sham judicial election thing be replaced by appointments, except perhaps for local housing judges and such.

Meanwhile, Justice Alito (the confirmation of which a veteran Supreme Court reporter thought was handled too politically by the adminstration) was on the "liberal" side of a split among the conservatives respecting a death penalty stay ... one of many recent disputes, going both ways, over lethal injection. Debate exists over what it all means, but his specific vote probably should not be given too much significance.]

The ongoing stream of appellate decisions rejecting the patently unconstitutional federal partial birth abortion law continues, though the Second and Ninth Circuits dealt with it in rather different ways. With a dissent suggesting striking down the law would further an unethical/immoral/legally unjust result and a concurrence begging the Supreme Court to change what the judge thought was a patently unjust precedent (might get his wish), the Second Circuit did strike down the law because of its lack of a "health" exception.

This was practically compelled by precedent, including one in the non-abortion area that did not look too kindly at Congress trying to get around its constitutional decisions via national legislation. Nonetheless, citing the Ayotte decision [O'Connor's last], it asked the parties to submit limited briefs spelling out suitable relief. In other words, perhaps, the law can be saved via a judicially created "health" exception. This might be, especially with the change of the guard on the Court, a good reading of the situation.

But, after striking the law down on broader grounds (including vagueness and undue burden on previability abortions ... is the "partial birth" part basically moot here?), the Ninth Circuit quite logically just struck down the whole statute. Now, the Circuit has a habit of taking opinions to their logic conclusions even though the Supreme Court does not always think it is quite as logically compelled ... the higher court is right by definition in such cases, and one might look for the Supremes to hit the Ninth Circuit over the head with a rolled up newspaper once more. Still, to quote SCOTUS Blog, a judicially created "health" exception is particularly illogical here:

Congress left out a health exception, it found, "in a deliberate effort to persuade" the Supreme Court to overturn its finding in Stenberg in 2000 case that a "partial-birth" ban requires a health exception. "Congress was advised repeatedly that if it passed an abortion ban without a health exception, the statute would be declared unconstitutional," yet it refused to amend the bill to add such an exception, the Court said. Leaving out the exception, it added, was "a critical component" of the measure. Thus, the appeals court said, a court could not properly add a health exception to the law.

"We would not be faithful to its legislative intent were we to devise a remedy that in effect inserts the provision into the statute contrary to its wishes. Such an action would be inconsistent with our proper judicial role," it commented. "It is impossible to say," it added, that Congress would have preferred the Act with a health exception tacked onto it, to no law at all. In situations where legislators cannot get their full legislative goal, legislative leaders may prefer to drop the bill entirely. Dropping a proposal "may be the best way to gain adherents to the cause, inspire the faithful, raise funds, and possibly even generate support for a constitutional amendment," the Court said.

One might say the same applies to the Ayotte opinion, but this case is clearer than the New Hampshire law that actually included an admittedly suspect special judicial bypass option to deal with potential emergency situations. This law went out of its way to reject a health exception at all ... taking the question out of the hands of the woman and her physician, and providing a one side fits all definition of health that is in no way compelled by current medical thought. Congress, clearly partly for political reasons, purposely did not include a health exception. It would be almost ridiculous to put one in for them, letting them have their cake and eat it too in the process. Surely would encourage legislators to pass lousy legislation, while criticizing the activist judges that they assume will save their bacon.

Now, one might argue -- like that dissenting Second Circuit judge -- that Congress had the authority to define "health" in this fashion. I am with a comment on the blog (who is no fan of the procedure or probably abortion overall) that suggested that this is not their bailiwick even with this weak (and unaddressed in litigation, especially after the marijuana case) commerce hook: "Any physician who, in or affecting interstate or foreign commerce, knowingly performs a partial-birth abortion and thereby kills a human fetus shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than 2 years, or both." Any business is "in or affecting interstate" commerce these days. This allows the Commerce Clause to basically be bottomless.

But, I would take the matter further. Some criticize the Supreme Court for requiring states to look toward current "sound medical practice" (as understood by some subset of the AMA or whatever) in determining abortion policy such as allowing women to have second trimester abortions in less expensive clinics instead of hospitals. Justice O'Connor early in her tenure said as much and many abortion battles in the courts -- including this issue -- deals with this issue. They feel courts should not be "ex offico medical boards" and let states define "health" as they feel fit.

[By nature, partial-birth abortions involve clear "health" situations ... some will argue woman's autonomy alone is the deciding factor, but the tragic situations involved here in particular make the absence of a health exception particularly unconsciousable. Women simply do not just wait around and have these things for the sake of convenience.]

One problem is that abortion seems to be singled out -- it surely is in the area of parental notification and informed consent (do teens have to go to their parents before they decide to have a child? do clinics have to offer abortion literature to pregnant women who might arguably best have one?). Another is basically we are dealing with basic freedom here. A woman's choice respecting her own health, especially is such fundamental areas, should broadly be left to her and her physician. This is surely the case when the policy is corrupted by politics and disputed moral questions, which decide the day as much as neutral medical judgment.

If sound medical practice suggests a certain cancer protocol should be used, though some physicians might not think it is the best one for a certain person, I do not think the ultimate choice should be determined by a divided legislative vote. Such is true here. In certain cases, so-called partial birth abortion is determined to be the safest route. When pre-viable abortions are involved or post-viable ones that are necessary for a woman's health or life, the alternative is not childbirth. The woman still would have the right to have an abortion, one that is not really any less gruesome relatively speaking. Some think all abortions are disgusting, but surely second trimester abortions and on all are unpleasant procedures. Thus, especially given a woman's health is at stake, constitutionally the ban is suspect ... especially a national one.*

[One reply to a separate posting of this essay was upset with the word "disgusting," considering it a shallow adjective, suggesting the whole thing is more a matter of taste than the end of human life. I was specifically concerned with this procedure in particular with which many are particularly "disgusted." Nonetheless, the emotion "disgust" does seem appropriate, surely in "some" cases, to suggest what many feel when they consider this procedure. (See also, Hiding From Humanity.) Still, it suggests caution should be applied in writing these pieces. Anyway, the person also used the "it isn't mentioned in the Constitution" bit ... such is why you can be arrested for talking about the whole thing. Again, critics of my writing should use a bit of caution too ... I sometimes like a bit of a challenge.]

The courts should also not do the Congress' job for them by writing in an exception ... such would surely in effect "legislate" from the bench, something this bunch surely does not want, right? The Supreme Court should either overrule the earlier precedent (giving the feds more power in the process, surely Thomas and Alito will notice) or strike down the law.

What they will do, however, is unclear.


---

* Some suggest, as if they really are just concerned with this issue, that partial birth abortion is "too close to infanticide" for their tastes. First off, "partial birth" is criticized as a made up term, which in effect it is. It is not a truly outrageous term though -- the fetus is partially outside the woman (uh ... "birth canal") when the procedure is done. One might not want to call it "birth" -- perhaps rightly so -- given what is being done (more like "death," if you like ... that is, if you consider the fetus "alive"), but in effect it is sort of what is taking place. Still, "birth" surely has special connotations that probably do not fit well with this whole process. If you want to be totally literal, next time you put your sick animal to sleep, explain how you killed him or her. And, do so in graphic detail. Repeat when you do not let a love one linger until the last ounce of life can be squeezed out via current technology. Words have a way of being abused.

Anyway, and sorry I will be a bit graphic here, are they really serious? Again, the alternative in most cases will not be childbirth. It will be a different, and perhaps for that woman more dangerous, type of abortion. And, since we are dealing with second and third trimester abortions here, it will involve fetal development in later stages. Thus, the abortion procedure is not a simple vacuum (sounds bad, huh? how about a life for an unwanted child that you cannot handle?) procedure, but more invasive. One method used in the past was to basically inject some acid sort of thing into the womb to kill the fetus and then induce labor. Another method used these days is hysterectomy -- hard as it is to believe, some women involve here do want to have more children. A third is basically to break the bones and/or puncture parts of the fetus so removal will not puncture the woman. Since doing this with the fetus still in the womb can be dangerous, the current procedure is sometimes deemed prudent.

Anyway, you get the idea -- if you think partial birth abortion is "infanticide," why you would think destroying the fetus while totally inside the womb is not is unclear to me. It seems to me rather formalistic to suggest that it is only "infanticide" when some part of the fetus' body is outside of the womb (perhaps the whole head per the current legislation, though as the Ninth Circuit suggests, it is still a bit [too?] vague). Some suggest the problem is that the whole thing twists the idea of "birth," but certain other methods involve some sort of expelling of the fetus (even abortion pills -- the embryo, that is) or arguably are some bastardization of caesareans. Surely, to the degree some suggest the procedure dulls the ethics of doctors, the other methods are not really any "better."

The bottom line is either the opponents are being selectively squeamish or are trying to criminalize as much abortion as they can get away with. Both are involved here.

Various

And Also: Call me Seinfeld, but why cannot they make a multi-vitamin/mineral pill that has a significant amount of calcium? Instead, I have to spend nearly the same price to but a separate calcium pill. Maybe, the calcium is largely bulk, and the pill would be too big. I notice also both Total and Wheaties have nutrient pills now, and one children vitamin comes in gummy bear. Toothpaste and floss are sold separately.

I noted that Sen. Kerry had some nice anti-Alito remarks. OTOH, I did question his "last minute" filibuster strategy, and I was surely not alone. Though many hoped from the beginning for a filibuster, Kerry in effect decided to lead one only at the end of the game when it was doomed to fail. Then again, no one else did anything, right?

As Wonkette noted:

In the end, learning that the Alito filibuster was John Kerry’s brilliant idea really isn’t that surprising to us. It reflects the same shrewd political judgment and unerring strategic insight that Senator Kerry displayed in running his 2004 presidential campaign.

Along with the other senator from Kerry's state, his heart might be in the right place, but the strategy is lacking something. Democrats need better strategic leadership. This is sad.

Meanwhile, over in the House ... The story is promoted as "Congress Narrowly Approves $39 Billion in Budget Cuts," but in reality, it is just a dodge (one briefly covered deep inside the story and weakly at that) ... Congress already cut taxes (let's not even go into military spending) that overwhelmed them. Anyway, guess who will be affected: "student loans, crop subsidies and Medicaid, the government's health insurance program for the poor." Well, never did like crop subsidies.

See also, an interesting pair of lawsuits involving "Oprah's li'l liar" ... annoyed readers and a health field professional who relied on the truth of the volume. I wonder how much precedent they had. Also, as I expected, Findlaw will have an essay on the matter tomorrow along with advice how tired liberal arguments can be put in new skins.

Oh, I have no desire reading William Saletan and the woman from The Nation discuss abortion ... nor, read the fray comments (some likely to be more worth reading), over at Slate. Blah.

Walk The Line

And Also: The highlight of the SOTU was when PB whined about his failed Social Security plan (the highlight of the last one and something he spent six months promoting ... no wonder, the health savings accounts idea was not promoted as thoroughly as some thought this time) and the Democrats applauded for an extended period of time. Not quite standing up and leaving, but yeah, it's something. Anyway, the whole thing was a lame piece of shit.

Catching up on 2005 movies -- a couple more that were in limited release will be going broad this weekend (a possible shoulda-been nomination, Tommy Lee Jones' directorial debut, and a feel good film with Anthony Hopkins, both which I might see) -- I finally saw Walk The Line. Good thing -- the movie is good, the music great for the spirit, but the leads are remarkable. Both received Oscar nominations and Reese Witherspoon (reverting to her native accent ... at least the region) probably has a good shot of winning (Felicity Huffman might be her biggest competition in the "special" actress role, but then, an actress already run recently playing a guy).

I leave it to those who know them better to determine if the performances match the real life stars,* but I am with David Letterman (who praised RW's perf when she was on his show promoting a different movie), they were impressive. An early laugh, for me at least, is when young JR (John R. Cash) quoted Foghorn Leghorn to his older brother, "Fortunately I keep my feathers numbered for just such an emergency." Love that rooster. Later, when a record company executive said that his fans would not want him entertaining "a bunch of murderers and rapists," Cash replied in a way that fits the present times quite a bit as well: "Then they ain't Christians." Appropriate too for the memory of Coretta Scott King.

Reese Witherspoon also is often equally the star of the movie as June Carter, who as was Johnny Cash, was married to someone else when they first met and fell for each other. Along with Joaquin Phoenix, she did her own singing, and also is great doing her stage routine -- from the beginning, she is perfectly in character. A great scene also is when she is shopping and a customer (after the owners are so pleased to see her) stops her and compliments her for having such Christian parents. Then, she comments that June herself will be going to hell, since she's divorced ... marriage is for life. (June Cash was an act since she was a kid ... I reckon, especially down South, divorce in the '50s would be truly horrid to some people.) Taken aback, June apologizes for disappointing her.

A scene where she is told by Cash's wife to stay away from "my daughters" is also good. The diminishing relationship between John and his wife also is addressed by the film. His wife is not given a chance to have too much of a personality, but the growing hatred is hard to watch. It sadly reflects real life and suggests how continuing a broken marriage is really as destructive to the institution's goals, including the moral ones, as divorce might be. Overall, the hard feelings and disgust between the two people here -- made even more tragic by past love and connections such as children -- is one of the saddest things I can imagine. Such hatred is just too painful to have to bear.

Anyway, I definitely recommend this film. BTW, it only deals with the first half of the subject's life ... up to his marriage to June Carter. And, one last thing ... another favorite line ... Waylon Jennings, as a hippie sort, telling Johnny the phone is cut off because of lack of foundation.

A word on the Oscar nominations. As noted, this film is at its center about the stars, so it is not too surprising that it did not catch "Best Picture." I am a bit surprised, however, that The Constant Gardener was not among the five. After all, since Rachel Weisz is going against Michelle Williams and A History of Violence is also nominated for "Adapted Screenplay," who knows if it will get another nod? The top five all are "Hollywood liberal message pictures," and it just might be too much. (TCG actually fits the theme.) Toss in other nominations such as North Country and a Woody Allen film, and "broad audience fave" is not actually what one thinks. But, yeah, a few of the films are audience pleasers, including Walk The Line.

Now, King Kong -- though some critics loved it -- IMHO was a bit of a bust as a picture, surely not excellent as a package ... though darn if the SFX better win something. (The last Star Wars film got count them ONE nomination ... how the mighty have fallen.) And, maybe Upside of Anger (the other movie I saw last year worthy of a reminder) wasn't THAT good. But, there is something a bit dull about this bunch. If Brokeback Mountain is not quite your cup of tea, I doubt you probably saw many of the others either. I know I haven't ... they all have a sorta "see them because they are good for ya" feel to them. Hey, congrats to George Clooney for all your nominations (don't know if he will win any), but I still think Syriana looks like leftist propaganda ... even if it more true than false. A surprise though that Terrence Howard was nominated for a hood role in Hustle & Flow. Oh, and Corpse Bride better win animated feature.

I am with a local television reporter that the host, Jon Stewart, is a questionable choice. I too do not find him funny, more annoying and a snarky "in joke" sort of guy. We are supposed to be impressed with his "tude," though the line between him and David Spade is a bit too small. Stewart has a loyal following, but somewhat a narrow one, and is a risky choice to my eyes. Perhaps, David Letterman suggested the danger of having talk show hosts other than Johnny Carson on as hosts. Steve Allen was probably the best of the recent bunch (himself a late fill-in ... I am not really a Billy Crystal fan, but he did a good job ... Whoopi was lousy.)

My Picks: Brokeback Mountain, Heath Ledger, Reese Witherspoon (Huffman was good too), (I really don't like the Supporting Actors; Jake Gyllenhaal annoys me ... the others I did not see), Michelle Williams (Rachel Weisz was good too), Ang Lee, (I did not see the nominated foreign films, but Downfall -- the last days of Nazi Germany -- was a great one and Don't Move was impressive), The Constant Gardener (BM also was a great adapted screenplay, but this deserves a nod), (did not see, nor wish to, the original screenplay nods), and Corpse Bride. As to documentary, the penguin movie surely will win, but a nod to a non-Oscar worthy, but still fun, documentary about women stunt workers -- Double Dare.

Other Picks: The Constant Gardner should have received at least one more top nomination, including director. Off the Map and Winter Solstice also were among the forgotten best movies of 2005. Sisterhood of the Traveling Pants gets the "best teen movie" nod from my sister, though she is no teen. Bewitched can be among the Worst of 2005 along with the surely overrated The Aristocrats ... waste of my time ... Nicole Kidman was good in the former though. Nine Songs also can be selected in the "best movie full of sex that was boring as hell and unsexy to boot."

---

* My mom, a fan of Johnny Cash, didn't see the movie, but noted to me that she really couldn't see Reese Witherspoon as June Carter.

Bush Court Begins

And Also: Received a few free lottery coupons in the mail recently, two free $1 instant scratch-offs and various buy one/get one free deals. I gave the latter to someone, while winning $6 ($1/$5) with the former. Not bad: boiled down to two free coffees, two newspapers, two pastries, and a bottle of detergent. Also a laugh. On the back of the tickets is the number of a help line for those addicted to gambling. A proviso is added that it is not a "results line." Scratch offs make good filler for birthday and holiday cards. OTOH, the big money games are a bit of a joke. "A dollar and a fantasy" is more like it ... my philosophy is play or not play, the chance of winning is statistically about the same. Also, enough with those commercials ... certain numbers (like 13) speak out. A bit creative, but getting tired.

It is right proper that Justice O'Connor retired today. After all, her help was particularly important in determining who would give the SOTU today. Some suggest we all should forget about that little bit of assistance ... get over it and such. Sorry, some of us have problems with that. A bit touchy about stolen elections and corrupt Supreme Court decisions. By chance, in fact, I was in the same place when the votes stopped being counted and 9/11 happened. Not quite the same thing, but ... as things turned out ... intimately connected all the same.

[I caught about sixty seconds of the SOTU before I had to turn the lying ... well, I am too young to have a stress attack or something. After suggesting he had to break the law to catch the 9/11 hijackers -- the problem was of course analyzing the information already obtained legally -- he mentioned that the U.S. could not be isolationist. Too much. This from the guy who went it alone without the U.N., is wary about international law, international treaties, and probably most countries outside of Mexico. Oh, yeah, he threw in a bit about defending our values. Quite important, I agree. Want to start doing it anytime soon?]

But, hey, I am will to get past it. Sandra should not be judged solely for that day -- she was the swing vote other days too. The day Roe was upheld ... when college based affirmative action was deemed constitutional ... various cases involving the separation of church and state, and so on. Sure, she had other days when I was less than pleased.

But, hey, she was after all a Reagan pick, a conservative party faithful sort as well. In fact, I think that day in December, another day that will live in infamy (let them count the votes Sandra, maybe your guy would have still won ... but, hey, can't take the chance ... sort of like that wiretapping, maybe), she reverted to the days when she was the state co-chair in the campaign to re-elect Nixon. Probably just a bit confused of where she was, that's all.

Anyway, I think with Alito many would join those who will miss her being on the Court. It is not a matter of the best possible choice, but what we got. And, especially given the possibilities, I am a bit less upset at the SC of my generation than some are. This from a critic. The final vote for Alito was 58-42, four Democrats voting aye, one Republican (Chafee, a moderate [though reportedly less principled than his father] due to have a hard race for re-election) voting nay. More evidence that the Democrats actually believe in a bit of dissent, while the Republicans vote in lockstep. Remember, the exception proves the rule, multiple exceptions make it a bit less a clear-cut deal.

The former is in a sense a good thing, though at times, a united front should be possible. Anyway, a historically close vote, and a bad one. It might not be the deciding factor, but when a key justice of the Supreme Court only gets on board for a lifetime appointment by a party line vote, something is wrong. It bears repeating, since people continue to deign to forget it, the last time a Democrat President selected two justices,* the President went to the minority party and heard their concerns. And, chose from among those with bipartisan support. That is why the votes were lopsided. This is so even though they honestly stated their stance on abortion ... of course, a Clinton pick was likely to be pro-choice, but darn if they actually were upfront about it. Such is the true "Ginsburg Precedent."

Clinton, for instance, voiced some desire to pick Secretary of Interior Babbitt for a seat. Interestingly, Babbitt (D) as governor appointed Justice O'Connor (now Sandra Day O'Connor) to a state appellate judgeship. Anyway, Babbitt perhaps would be a sort of Democrat O'Connor, supplying a state eyed view with a touch of environmentalism as well. "Nah," said the Republicans. Clinton, the courts not his first priority, decided to move on. The Republicans thereafter blocked over sixty of his lower court nominations once they regained control of the Senate, supplying many more slots for Bush to fill. No "up or down" votes all the time for them. The push for a "fair" vote for lower court judges and Alito this time around therefore reeked of hypocrisy.

Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Stephen Breyer were not controversial picks -- Ginsburg had a record as a centrist on the court of appeals and fought for that controversial area of law, women's rights, while Breyer had a history of working with both sides in his various legislative dealings. Likewise, his experience working with the legislative branch made him a good choice for Senate confirmation. Surely, they were liberals, though their opinions on the Court suggest moderation.

The Sandra Day O'Connor bio highlighted the point -- Breyer was someone O'Connor could work with, and his vote against one of the two college affirmative action plans reaching the Court a couple years ago suggests but one reason why. The b.s. that these two are radicals is just that. This bears repeating, even if it is obvious, since the other side repeats their misrepresentations, half-truths, and lies over and over and over again.

A final word on the failed filibuster. First, Sen. Kerry, who helped lead it, had some good floor comments ... passionately spelling out why Alito is a bad pick. The filibuster had an afterthought taste ... it should have been part of the plan all along ... but Kerry deserves a nod. Second, I do not accept the cries from the left blogsphere and such that we need to move on. Yeah, we do, but the cries came way too soon. I mentioned that the Daily Kos basically announced defeat even before the weekend. Then, last night, I even heard Sam Seder of Air America -- who was at the forefront against Sammy A-Lie-To (aka "Strip Search Sammy") take a similar stance.

We put up a good fight ... be proud (that barely half of the Dems voted against cloture, a few who did beforehand saying the whole thing was silly) ... but it is time to move on. The grassroots must have the passion of religious fervor to work so hard for such a result. Also, one needs a bit of time to mourn and vent. Can't the "time to move on" business at least wait until after the final vote?

Anyway, with Alito sworn in, today is truly the first day of the Bush Court.

---

* It is often not emphasized, but one confirmation did somewhat shift the Court, the replacement of Justice Byron White. Though a Democratic pick, White was often on the conservative side of many issues with the exception of racial/sexual equality (his final dissent involved race-conscious districting and Ginsburg noted he even voted with her cause when draft was involved) and contraceptive cases. He also supported some father rights cases, including writing a dissent dealing with the right of an illegitimate father to determine his paternity.

White dissented not only in abortion cases, but in other privacy cases such as one involving a grandmother not allowed to live in a particular area with her grandchildren and also wrote the dismissive Bowers v. Hardwick opinion respecting homosexual sodomy. Still, he had some highlights, including a dissent involving nude dancing and a majority opinion responding to Justice Scalia comparing the Court's use of the Lemon Test to a horror movie monster rising from the dead (referring to Scalia's night at the cinema).

His respect for precedent did temper his support of the new breed of conservative, but Ginsburg clearly is more liberal than he. Breyer/Blackmun was more of a straight up trade. It is worth mentioning certain progressives, including Nader (less offensive at the time), were wary about him.

Sandra Day O'Connor by Joan Biskupic

And Also: I looked over Chris Mooney's book, The Republican's War Against Science. This is a continuing story, most recently involving pressure on a dissident NASA scientist, suggesting looking at individual examples in a vacuum is ridiculous. These people deserve no benefit of the doubt. Anyway, I found the book a bit heavy going, though the story reported is a very important one.

[I am with TPM on this issue. In the end, since they helped make it of no value, they voted against cloture. Darn courageous! Thanks as well to the Loser 19 who handed President Bush a big fat kiss, ending cloture, opening the way for the final vote on Judge/Justice Alito on the morning of the SOTU. RSVP Ms. Alito! No crying. Note that right after cloture, some Republican asshole railed against the partisan/divisive tactics of Sen. Reid and company.]

Since Justice O'Connor will be stepping down momentarily, it might be useful to say some more about Sandra Day O'Connor: How the First Woman on the Supreme Court Became Its Most Influential Justice by Joan Biskupic. It was a generally straightforward medium length bio that provides some interesting insights and background information on the woman and justice involved.

The author interviewed eight of the nine justices (this is before the Roberts confirmation) ... the notes reference interviews with seven, but probably the very private Souter (subject himself of a biography, perhaps a bit too soon) was the holdout. Such interviews provide an interesting insight into the justices themselves, such as comments from the like of Stevens and Thomas.

The book provides a look at Sandra Day/O'Connor's early years and ultimately provides useful insight in the complex issue of "qualifications" of nominees. Ms. Biskupic notes that confirmations of justices involve various factors, including current political dynamics, putting to bed the lame argument that it is just about the bare "qualifications" of the nominees. [The "spin" put during the nomination process also is shown here, including downplaying more controversial aspects of her background, such as support of abortion reform legislation.] Furthermore, qualifications are complex matters, not solely a reflection of judicial experience and legal knowledge.

Sandra Day O'Connor is a clear case in point. First, it is useful to remember she was an affirmative action baby. President Reagan might have chosen her personally because of her personality and background (her connection to CJ Burger did not hurt), but he promised earlier that he would pick a woman. O'Connor noted this herself when Justice Scalia railed against preferences -- "how do you think I got my job?" This helps explains her policy of being wary of racial preferences, while still supporting them in various instances.

O'Connor was an appellate judge in a small Western state ... her legal position was not really her major qualification. But, her background did supply various qualifications, perhaps a bit reflective of those of Harriet Miers. First and foremost was her experience in all three branches of state government, which clearly is reflected in her jurisprudence. Also, her political background and experiences was an important factor as well.

Actually, traditionally, big names in state politics often were seen as ideal justice material. Some argue O'Connor has been too much of a "legislator" on the bench, but real life experience in state politics and government is quite useful when deciding many cases. And, her centrist/minimalist approach (less so in some areas) is also in no way unique over the Court's history. Finally, her personal history, including being raised on a ranch, denied a job because of her sex, thriving anyway, and so on factored into her jurisprudence. It might also be noted that she also experienced small time law practice, including a few criminal cases, and being a federal bankruptcy trustee.

[The book suggests the various philosophical life choices professional women use to deal with life's difficulties. O'Connor used a more traditional approach, suggested by a statement made at an early political event in which she stated: "I come to you tonight wearing my bra and my wedding ring." She is one tough cookie with a no nonsense philosophy, but was willing to be more feminine and in various public statements noted the importance of family in her life. But, she could only do that because her husband and family were willing to support her in ways many women find impossible.]

As to abortion, O'Connor did support reform legislation in Arizona before Roe v. Wade, legislation that never passed. As with her support of the ERA, her policy was to move on from such support when it was controversial and a lost cause. Though she was a party faithful, including working for the Nixon re-election and Rehnquist nomination, she was at heart a conservative centrist. And, this was reflected in her jurisprudence as well. It suggests the point we have reached that Democrats use her as a model, but it also suggests how conservative a justice like Alito (or even Roberts ... who Justice Scalia himself notes in the book is more like himself than O'Connor) truly is.

Anyway, the complex matters involved in the abortion area is reflected in the book. For instance, when the Arizona reform bill was in the air, some ministers and rabbis made a statement: "We firmly believe in the ethical and moral rights of a woman over her body in making such deeply personal choices as whether or not she will have a child. Arizona's [anti-]abortion law abridges this right."

Likewise, consider O'Connor's own statement in her confirmation hearings: "I have indicated to you ... my own abhorrence of abortion as a remedy. It is a practice in which I would not have engaged, and I am not trying to criticize others in that process. There are many who have very different feelings on this issue. I recognize that, and I am sensitive to it. But my view is the product, I suppose, merely of my own upbringing and my religious training, my background, my sense of family values, and my sense of how I should lead my own life." And, this is why in Planned Parenthood v. Casey this deeply personal moral decision was left to the individual woman.

This also suggests the complexity of "religion" and morality overall. In her memoir of life on the Lazy B ranch, she discusses her father's religious philosophy thusly: "[W]hen you watch the world around us and see how the earth orbits the sun and how the moon orbits the earth, and see the laws of nature work, you have to believe some power beyond us has created the universe and has established the way nature works.... And we don't have to go to church to appreciate it. It is all around us. This is our church."

Maybe, a bit ironically, Al Franken refers to his own dad's religious views in a similar fashion. Likewise, leading a moral life and doing God's work to O'Connor was not just going to church or the like, but public service overall. [Biskupic notes O'Connor was further inspired by a particular professor at college with a similar philosophy.] Or, as Franken's dad might have said "to do justice."

[An influential professor was influenced by Henry Burton Sharman, a theologian who developed a philosophy of individual responsibility based on the life of Jesus, analyzing the gospels for what he deemed scientifically possible and a model for individual ethics and behavior.]

The book also provides various behind the scenes insights of her time on the Court. For instance, though some suggest Scalia played the role, O'Connor in the author's view was Justice Brennan's real competition. The epigraph of the book cites a personal note to Justice Marshall that justified a compromise opinion that was not quite what he would have liked to write because "Sandra forced my hand by threatening to lead the revolution."

In public statements, Justice O'Connor unconvincingly downplayed her importance, noting she was just one vote of nine. In fact, she was among the most passionate of the justices in defence of secrecy, including involving retired justices releasing their notes to scholars. Her style, especially in her book on The Majesty of the Law might sometimes be rather bland, but her ultimate importance in the law's development during the last quarter of the century is clear. But, as she cites Justice White saying, the truth that the change of one justice alters the Supreme Court is atypically true in her case.

The book also comments on her fight against breast cancer, which she did with her usual guts though it was one time when her usual cool was seriously threatened. O'Connor also was always busy, often by traveling overseas to promote international comity among the nations respecting the law. Thus, along with Justice Kennedy (as compared to Scalia and Alito, except in very limited areas such as interpretation of treaties), she was sympathetic to some recognition of international law and what other nations might be able to teach us.

Recently, she was asked her highlights among her opinions. As is her wont, O'Connor preferred not to choice a specific one and did not think any necessarily would have lasting significance, but did upon a bit of though cite her Hamdi plurality, which included the statement: "It is during our most challenging and uncertain moments that our nation's commitment to due process is most severely tested and it is in those times that we must preserve our commitment at home to the principles for which we fight abroad." As she noted, "that may point [us in] a useful direction."

After her retirement announcement, she cited her favorite poem,* which fits her preferred image of herself:

Take a bucket, fill with water,
Put your hand in, up to your wrist
Pull it out, and the hole that's remaining
Is a measure of how you'll be missed.

The moral in this quaint example
Is do just the best that you can,
Be proud of yourself, but remember,
There is no indispensable ... (pause)
woman.

Agree with her or not, O'Connor did her father proud ... as a favorite professor counseled she went "out into the world and [did] something."

---

* "Indispensable Man" by Saxon White Kessinger. Thus, she slightly changed that last stanza.

An Opening For Democrats: Business Policy

And Also: Joan Biskupic's Sandra Day O'Conner bio is workwomanlike, much like its subject, and supplies some interesting perspectives. For instance, her battles with Justice Brennan. I expected a bit more somehow, but overall, it is worth a look. As to NY, what in the heck is the reason for no longer taking the W-2s with the tax form, instead requiring yet another form to be filled out (plus one for interest)? Is this some sort of paperwork creation act? A push for more e-filing? Makework for CPAs? HB Sis ... your cats are fine.

NYT had a few economic policy pieces today, including the desire of businesses that the government take over some responsibility of various worker benefits, and plans by President Bush to take some further steps in his health care policy. This apparently would be to have a special interest laden measure that is carried out in a noticeably shoddy fashion, thus harming various needy groups in the process. I reference the Medicare business.

Uh huh ... this underlines the broad potential progressives have in seizing the moment and gaining the support of the business community. It might seem on first blush that said community likes the conservatives, since they bring less corporate taxes and cuts in regulations that are useful in the safety the you and me. But, such matters only are useful up to a point, especially by those that realize the diminishing returns of mismanaged fiscal policy. Furthermore, again, business has realized many things that progressives favor are in their best interest or seem to be. Consider the support by big business of affirmative action.

For the rest of us, if health care costs and so forth are a great concern, do you really want this bunch to handle them? The traditional agreement that Democrats (partly via control of at least one house of Congress) will deal with domestic matters, Republicans foreign policy (surely, this in itself is not going completely well, but one step at a time, perhaps) these days sounds more and more the best policy. Proper use of government programs and such just is not in the skill set of conservative/radical Republicans, except (in theory) when military matters are involved.

Fears of gay marriage or scorn of some dweebish looking Dems (as compared to the likes of Sen. Homophobe and Rep. Conspiracy, I assume) notwithstanding.

[Frayster "run" (an expert, who would make a good talking head) over in the Slate Moneybox Fray has ongoing economic tutorials that in part discuss this point. Our economic well being in a world economy is based on ensuring our own companies have a comparative advantage. Sound fiscal policy, including in the area of benefits such as health care, is essential here.]

What do you stand for?

And Also: A thank you for a reply respecting my query concerning my blog being on the blogroll of a conservative leaning candidate for Congress. A member of his staff mentioned that he placed it there to supply another point of view, both as to my region and my overall philosophy. My regards.

Neither let us be slandered from our duty by false accusations against us, nor frightened from it by menaces of destruction to the Government nor of dungeons to ourselves. LET US HAVE FAITH THAT RIGHT MAKES MIGHT, AND IN THAT FAITH, LET US, TO THE END, DARE TO DO OUR DUTY AS WE UNDERSTAND IT.

-- Abraham Lincoln at Cooper Union (1860)

What is the duty of the Democrats in the Alito matter? We need not concern ourselves with it anymore says Armando over at the Daily Kos, you know, Mr. "The Supreme Court Is Extraordinary." Like a fan who leaves in the Ninth Inning when the team is down by a couple runs, he has thrown up his hands, writing postmortems. It bears wondering if those on the fence, the number of which surely is not most obviously impossible [apparently, even non-votes will be enough ... sixty actual votes perhaps necessary for cloture] to speak of defeat days before it occurs.

Surely, not as a fait accompli. But, again, pathetic loser mentalities is endemic to the party and its supporters.* We gave it the good fight ... well, not really ... but we don't have the votes. etc. I ask those on the fence, bluntly, "Why are you Democrats?" After all, one can be a Democrat and live in Red or Purple America ... one can be a Democrat while being a war hawk or a supporter of a strong executive. But, some line must be drawn. The Republicans ... including Arlen Specter who the last time we had a swing vote situation with a controversial nominee (unless its the beard) was not only against the pick of his own party, but was a strong voice in the defeat ... are sticking together for party unity and power.

What is your principle? Hope for some crumbs from the Republicans? Sell out your principles for a bowl of pottage, perhaps? I refer to Esau selling his birthright to Jacob in the book of Genesis. But, perhaps, you say you still have your principles. Principles that do not require you to always oppose the President, etc. Such strawmen. Ah, again, where is the limit? Presidents should have their druthers in key Supreme Court picks ... and all other realms of executive power, I assume. This includes those that are known to be strongly opposed to basic Democratic principles such as strong civil rights protections, or even the very ability of the Congress to pass national legislation to deal with current problems.

It is strange to hear someone as gung ho about Senate privilege as Sen. Byrd supporting someone who is willing to negate such privileges in support of the so-called unitary executive aka royal kingship. Some suggest he fears re-election, though others point out that he really has no fear, given his long service and delivery of pork. Is his grand knowledge of history lacking to the degree that he is unaware of the ideological opposition to nominees throughout the years?

But, some do somewhat more legitimately fear sticking to their party's principles because of membership in Red State caucuses and so forth. But, said states voted for them in part to have them promote Democratic principles. And, simply put, judicial nominations are not known (other than atypical ones such as Thomas) to be such a great factor anyway.

[Some point out that heck Bush will only appoint another Alito clone. But, fight has been successful in the past, even without reminding one that Kennedy replaced Bork ... one might not like the guy, but Lawrence v. Texas will stand for the principle nominees by conservative presidents are surely not interchangeable.]

Finally, surely the people will forgive a small move toward principle, especially since Alito is likely to be confirmed anyway! Need they instead not only sit this out, but actively push against the party faithful? For what end? Just what do you stand for? This constitutional moment will help us find out.

---

* I find it simply pathetic that we have to almost beg even the more partisan among us to show a bit of backbone. This leads to exhaustion of effort for nearly nothing. A sad state of affairs exists when we are supposed to be not only gleeful at crumbs, but scorned for being angry when we are denied them. After all, the other side is worse! Not to be melodramatic, but starve me long enough, and this does not convince. I rather be a bit more hungry while retaining my respect than have my stomach growl while groveling to the other side. How sickening.

Stay Loyal or Else

Bankruptcy Case: I asked someone in the business about the recent SC decision and he noted: "Katz is an important and interesting case, although it's probably a little soon to say how the decision will effect bankruptcy cases. Bankruptcy attorneys should be pleased with the ruling. Directly, I don't think there are all that many preference actions against state agencies, and to the extent that such cases are pending, the case holds that a preference action against state agencies is not barred by sovereign immunity, so they shouldn't be disrupted. The more interesting thing about the case might be its further-reaching implications for state agencies and how it might be applied on other bankruptcy issues."

One thing that disgusts me about the Bush Administration is their rejection of true honest and open debate. They are so darn right, but demanding openness is a threat to their right of rule. Demand it and they will not be able to properly do their job, be able to have open and honest debate behind the scenes. Experience shows that they cannot do their jobs properly -- one might feel differently if it was otherwise. It also shows that secrecy furthers their incompetence, criminality, and ability to mislead. This petty business (covered by Talking Points Memo) about removing Abramoff pictures from websites and such is just a small example.

I have little more than disgust and disdain for this policy. I am willing to openly voice my opinions, some of which are different and controversial. I will debate them and put them up to challenge. Sure, I am not the President of the Free World, but I thought the guy was a straight shooter sort. An average guy for which such comparisons can be made. He is not. He is a petty bully whose minions -- following his lead since he was an "enforcer" in his early days -- punish those who go off the reservation. Ah, I am anti-Native American.

This treatment of top critics is one of the many woefully underreported and known by the average citizen problems with this criminal and tyrannical administration. The likes of Paul O'Neill suggest that being a member of the conservative elite is not enough to protect someone, nor is expertise and moral judgment. Surely not.

A useful essay on the overall principle at stake was written by someone who should know, a young heroine that paid for her ethics: "A Legal Defense of Russell Tice, the Whistleblower who Revealed the President's Authorization of NSA's Warrantless Domestic Wiretapping" by Jesselyn Radack. In part:

In a January 9 letter, an NSA director conceded that Tice had "every right to petition Congress for a redress of grievances," but insisted that "neither the staff nor the members of the HPSCI [House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence] or SCCI [Senate Select Committee on Intelligence] are cleared to receive the information covered by the SAPs."

This assertion was quite odd in light of the White House's claim, in defense of the warrantless wiretapping, that it had given more than a dozen classified briefings on the program to the very Congressmen who led these committees.

She also summarizes her own experience, linking to a fuller account (see also the link supplied above by an independent source):

I can certainly sympathize with Tice's situation - for I know full well the costs of speaking one's conscience. As I described in a prior column for this site, as a government ethics compliance attorney, I blew the whistle on the government's refusal to honor American citizen John Walker Lindh's constitutional rights. Specifically, I advised the Department of Justice's Criminal Division not to interrogate him without his lawyer, and when the FBI did so anyway, I advised that the interview should be sealed and used only for national security and intelligence-gathering purposes, not criminal prosecution.

In retaliation, I was fired from my subsequent private sector job at the government's behest; branded a "turncoat" in the New York Times by anonymous government officials; placed under criminal investigation; referred for possible discipline to the state bars in which I am licensed as an attorney; and put on the "no-fly" list.

A handful of Democrats need to have the courage of their convictions and support Sen. Kerry's forceful cry for a filibuster. Some fear that they will only lose, getting nothing from the enterprise. [A few note the party just took to damn long to have a concerted effort ... sure enough.] Some suggest they think if they do it, the few top Republican senators who have made it known that Bush crossed the line on the issue of the day will not let the Democrats have a real part in the upcoming hearings. As if. Surrender and you think they will hand you anything of note?

Sheesh, at least Sen. Byrd folded because he feared his re-election chances (is he really at risk? his pork supply not doing it anymore?), not because of fantasy. Anyway, making a stand has its own rewards. Heck, I really also think it will have political ones -- if the Democrats do not look a gift horse in the mouth. Or, something like that.

I guess doing the right thing is not enough, huh? Only enough for peons like Jesselyn Radack and conservative sorts like Russell Tice, who staid honest to their ideals. A non-partisan matter btw. One might hope.

Hamas Wins ... The Complexities of Religion/Democracy

And Also: I find it hard to totally avoid the concern of many that the "MSM" (I am growing to hate that term with its oh so precious dittohead sort cant it implies) is biased in support of the current powers that be when things like this are put in my face. Well, there are the '06 and '08 elections ... oh wait, this is the press. Prediction: when the Democrats do regain power, the press will go into Clinton mode once more. No liberal bias!

Hamas won -- apparently surprisingly so -- parliamentarian elections. Though not quite as exciting as the chance that a Conan O'Brien look-a-like (a woman to boot) might win a run-off election in Finland (seriously ... this has been an ongoing bit on the show), this was shocking to many people. Including the Bush Administration, who leaned toward the prevailing wisdom that the Fatah Party (the long dominating group, Arafat's party) would win once more.

The elections seemed to be fair, a clear democratic message of what the people wanted. This, not surprisingly, leaves a bad taste in the mouth of some, who apparently think democracy means that the people will only vote for people we like. For instance, the idea that "democracy" in Iraq is "secular" (ironically the Bushies support this ... do what I say ...), when it need be nothing of the kind.

Seriously, it is ridiculous to think otherwise given the push to recognize the religious beliefs of certain groups in our own country. A certain sort of constitutional democratic republic might require otherwise, but that is quite different from "democracy" per se. It is sad and pathetic that people miss the point over and over again. And, on all sides -- anti-Bushies too, cynically noting the Shia-dominated religious flavor of the "democracy" we fought and die for. Yeah, the same sort of blood that led to the likes of Tom DeLay and "Duke" Cunningham, right?

But, not that I have been keeping close track of the matter, it is really of no surprise. Yes, the Hamas is a radical group known for its anti-Israel (as in Israel's existence) beliefs, but also for its clear efforts to meet the social welfare needs of the Palestinian people. This surely does not justify blowing people up, but it must be faced: the Hamas in various communities was seen as the purer party, the one that was less corrupt (partly, since it did not have political power to abuse) and more able to serve the needs of the people themselves. What exactly this will wrought -- and remember the opposition still has the presidential position -- is unclear. But, it might just work out better, partly since terrorism is more of an outsider game. Yeah, I know ... only up to a point.

This is comparable to the sad reality that radical religious sorts served as the only real opposition to corrupt leaders in the Middle East overall and continue to do so in various areas. Iran in the 1970s, etc. One might even compare this election to the chose of Sharon, who many felt was too radical, but as someone who had the guts to act. Pardon me if the comparison is inexact, but truly, it comes to mind. Finally, how about the Christian Coalition in our own country? Push comes to shove, even your average fundamentalist or evangelistical Christian might not agree with the moves of this group, but it provided a useful counterpoint to the scary changes of the post-1950s Era. In some sense, the support had clear grass roots support. Democrats sneer at it at our peril.

It is an inexact bridge, but I return to an aside made last time. "Religion" is not somehow a cost-free good. In fact, it is quite troubling in various respects, since at its base is faith in things that need not and often cannot be backed up with scientific proof. Religion also is not just some how cabined in matters of belief in a supernatural entity or the afterlife.* Religion ... though some can put things in separate boxes ... is ultimately a "way of life," not just beliefs about the afterlife or supernatural beings. And, this way of life is in various ways based on faith. Faith can and is a remarkable thing, but it also is a scary thing too. This includes the ugly side of the whole matter.

The alternative, however, is impossible to bear. There is no group of Platonic Guardians who will choose what faith and beliefs are right and proper. And, the good of religious freedom is shown everyday. But, I do find it a bit interesting how this is one of those things many are wary of mentioning, except perhaps certain freethinking groups and such (a rather lifeless example was on Book TV recently) or in respect the "wrong" sort of faith and religion.

Ah, but democracy is a bit more messy than that, huh? [As to the possibility of a "Catholic Supreme Court," this thread might be of some interest.]

---

* This includes the established belief in this country that there is a God and said God is intimately connected to our very nation's existence and well being. For instance, note the recitations by school children on a daily basis. But, and the fact over 40% in various polls support the fact of creation science is another thing many wish not to accept is just one example, common beliefs about such "God" are in varying degrees outrageous.

I fail to see how we can cabin such beliefs only in this one area, somehow not also affecting other sorts of decision-making. After all, those who believe in the healing powers of crystals because of some sort of nature religion dynamics are likely to also believe in some somewhat unlikely non-religion things too. This putting aside my ah belief that "religion" is a broad term, involving basic truths and how we live them out in our lives that affects a broad range of matters.

Again, we have to be honest about such things, but (especially with my broad definition) this does not mean religion per se must be shunted aside.

The Radical Tyrant

The Matador: Pierce Bronson (a gem of a role) plays a troubled assassin who befriends a businessman (Greg Kinnear, giving another good performance) while both are dealing with personaland business crises. Hope Davis and Philip Baker Hall supply appealing support. Bronson steals the show, but overall, a mature movie that deals with serious themes in a charmingly twisted fashion. Interesting notice about the portrayal of bullfighting was included in the credits.

We live in troubled times. Times in which the Constitution is spit upon by our President. He is not a conservative, but a radical that is unsurprisingly (radicals usually are) quite sure of himself and his use of power, while dismissive (and deep down, afraid of) dissent. The national security -- how symbolic -- warrant issue is just a symbol. The nomination and pending confirmation of Judge Alito just an important constitutional moment ... even for those who fail to respect the fact ... that takes special meaning at this specific moment. But, the truth is clear. It is hard to avoid, especially when those involved almost smack you in the face with it. But, some still deny it. You can about as easily deny the wind.

President* Bush had a press conference today. He reaffirmed that he denies that he broke the law. "The law" being what he thinks it is. The state, it is him. FISA? Well, that was an old law ... almost twenty years old. We live in different times. Yeah, unfortunately, we have a tyrant as our President not just a well meaning one that had some problems. As I said ... a radical. Someone who radically disrespects the law and the fundamental law as well, the Constitution for "the present" ... this is no conservative move. This is a so-called "neo-conservative," which means in this context a fake one. Conservatives like Bob Barr know just what is going on and are willing to voice dissent.

[I reaffirm the literal pain that comes when I actually hear this guy talk. That little sneering laugh especially is hard to take. Some people respect this guy. I do not even know how one can even listen to him.]

The President says the times are different. This does not mean a lick. FISA was amended ... not to include what he is claiming the power to do ... but it was amended. Ah, what about AUMF ... the authorization of force. Under his reasoning, as applied to al-Qaeda and their possible assistants (remember, those who oppose Bush in an "unreasonable" way give "aid and comfort" to the enemy ... his words, not mine), the Patriot Act was unnecessary. Anyway, a Republican (one of the so-called Gang of 14 ... who announced his support for Judge Alito ... another Republican bootlicker) senator proposed a limited amendment. Again, less than suggested here.

The President's point person did not just say that it was unnecessary, but it was deemed possibly UNCONSTITUTIONAL. In other words, they lied. It is wartime ... telling the truth is so like yesterday. Clearly, they lied -- they thought it clearly constitutional, in fact were and continue to do more. The reasoning, though they do not trust the people enough to clearly and honestly say so, is that actually debating the point and giving the President clear authority would aid the enemy. This is so even if Congress was in close session as was quite possible. It was true even if the actual contours of the spying (though one announcement -- for what it is worth -- suggested it was nothing special) was not publicly directly addressed. After all, FISA is a SECRET court.

We live in a democratic republic. President Bush said that FISA is obsolete in these times. The Constitution was not obsolete in the days when Germans blew up shipping in the sight of our shores. It was not obsolete when rebels, now glorified by many Bush supporters, were at the outskirts of D.C. and Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr. alleged told President Lincoln to get down you damn fool or you will be shot. In fact, Lincoln knew it too. He made some emergency moves, especially early on before the Congress was in session, but ex post facto got authority. Just as FISA allows within three days or Sen. DeWine wanted to officially give him after 9/11, not in 1978. He too claimed some independent authority. But, Lincoln actually directly asked Congress to do things like suspend habeas corpus.

But, our tyrant president does not want to go to by nature subservient secret courts or to a by inclination subservient Republican Congress. The Republican Congress of Lincoln's day was not quite so, but than Lincoln was more true conservative than radical as some congressional leaders of the day. Times change, threats require new methods (though deep down, not so new at all) of attack, but our system does not give the power to respond to one man alone. It gives it to the people, surely their representatives with courts in place to safeguard their rights, including the proper balance of power. Such is why the Federalist Society, Alito's other organization along with CAP wants the courts to give more power to the states vis-à-vis the federal government. The alternative, per the Declaration of Independence, is tyranny.

Some are "concerned." Meanwhile, Republicans in Senate en masse voiced their decision to confirm as justice someone who clearly supports the mentality they are so concerned about. Harriet Miers, though her lack of judicial experience (darn if Rehnquist had none) helped their cause, was not deemed conservative enough. The House of Representatives rejected -- per usual -- to have any oversight hearing. The Senate did schedule such a hearing and the likes of Sen. Lindsey Graham voiced his "concern" while spitting at Democrats who opposed the nomination of Alito. You know as if somehow these two things are independent. If Republicans, including the few that still care, do not know that, they are pathetic. And, yeah, I think a few continue to lie to themselves about such matters.

The current issue seems to some on some level not worth our concern. But, this ignores the basic misuse of power and the rule of law that we are supposed to give a shit about. Take religion. Some people believe stupid things that in various cases are actually dangerous. In some extreme cases, lives clearly are at stake, and I am not talking about embryos. But, we have religious freedom in this country. It is not a matter of actually agreeing with all creeds. It is a fundamental right, to some a natural right of human kind. It surely is not a harm-free right though many are wary about admitting this fact. But, freedom is not harm-free. And, we do not trust daddy president -- who will not always be this asshole -- to decide when something is harmful.

So, maybe you actually agree with the acts of the President in specific cases involving matters of war or national security. We are not officially at "war," but you think we are de facto (without using the term). But, one might agree with specific acts of a king or tyrant. That is not only our system, it is a basic reality. And, the President and his supporters do not want to admit the fact. Others do not want to forcibly oppose what amounts to a rejection of "the republic for what we stand."

And, surely, a major reason why we do not allow this is because it leads to error and abuse as well as threats to our liberty. Heck, it also leads to some hysteria from the anti-Bush left, but the ilk of Bush ask for it -- secrecy, abuse of power, and rejection of any balance of power will lead to hysteria. Some will not trust Bushies when they say the sky is blue. The result is scary, even for those against Bush.

President Bush will soon give his latest State of the Union. Democratic members of Congress (Stevens should stay in his condo in Florida) and all liberty loving people should not go or turn their back when it is given. Actually respecting the President is so pre-9/11 ... or until we have one that actually takes his or her oath seriously.

Oh, Sen. Kerry came out in support of a filibuster.** Good for you John ... where was your guts in 2004? Where was your guts when your own running mate said not to call the election less than 24 hours after the polls closed? Where is the united and loud front against presidential abuse, not just "concern?" They still play nice --- Leahy speaking nice to Specter as the senators gave speeches on the Alito nomination. The Republicans support a leader who call many of the Democrats and their constituents akin to traitors, they ala Clinton (good anti-Alito speech) treat Congress as a plantation, but the Democrats continue to play nice.

Such is the path not only to losing but losing badly.

[The Daily Kos is in "well, we just do not have the numbers now" mode ... thanks a lot. Again and again this is said. Sometimes, you have to make a stand, and lose. The Republicans gained back power that way. The Dems do not make a stand, since they do not have the votes. Well, they do for a filibuster, but keeping them together even now is akin to a "no-hitter," unlike the Republicans who are totally united. What a pathetic post, days before the final vote. DK supports "fighting Dems," in other words vets running in '06. This post, I am sorry, is a sad surrender. The comments leaned toward "thanks for being realistic." Sad.]

---

* Sadly, he is "President." Some point to Ohio -- the victory was over one hundred thousand, not a few hundred. So, even cutting the victory there by a hundred thousand, Bush would have won by over ten thousand votes. Furthermore, nationwide, it was a few million. Given we have nearly 300 million, less than half actually voting (not much more than half of the electorate voted), that does not amount to that much.

But, it was enough: even if he lost in Ohio, he won the popular vote. This might not be what the Constitution requires, but it is telling all the same. Yeah, it is sad, and it is an ill-gotten gain after the 2000 fraud. I do think he won in 2004. Anyway, it is the reality in practice. George III was the king, fair and square. Still was declared a tyrant. Such is the ultimate matter.

** Thus far, three Dems -- including Byrd -- voted for Alito. But, I truly doubt that Byrd would vote for cloture, if it came to that. He is one of the few that actually would vote for Alito but against cloture. Byrd is Mr. Unlimited Debate. And, clearly a hypocrite here. Mr. Constitution indeed.

Anyway, a procedural measure -- scheduling a cloture vote on Monday (1/30) -- was passed without dissent. Like James Buchanan in 1857, the Senate Republicans want Bush to go give his speech with knowledge the Supreme Court is in his pocket. As O'Connor might say "this is horrible."